text:
# Detection of Carbon Monoxide within the Magellanic Bridge

## 1 Introduction

The Magellanic Bridge forms a link of primarily neutral hydrogen between the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds (SMC and LMC). Recent high-resolution observations of the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ fraction of the Bridge, using the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and the Parkes Telescope by Muller et al. (MNRAS, in press), show an intricate morphology, comprising numerous clumps and filaments across all observed spatial scales. The mechanism responsible for the formation of the Bridge is widely considered to be the gravitational influence of the LMC, and numerical simulations have shown that its formation was possibly triggered during a close pass of the Clouds to each other around 200Myr ago (eg Gardiner & Noguchi 1996).

The stellar population of the Bridge has been shown to be relatively young, with an age range of $``$10 to 25 Myr (Grondin, Demers & Kunkel, 1992 and Demers & Battinelli, 1998). The young ages imply that star-formation within the Bridge is an active process, yet no previous evidence of star-forming regions through CO emission has been found.

The Magellanic Clouds, as well as the Magellanic Bridge, have been the focus for a number of searches of molecular transition lines. From these searches, a number of different carbon isotopes, as well as other molecular species have been identified. It appears that the Clouds are rather metal deficient, the SMC particularly so (Israel et al. 1993, and papers of that series). The low CO luminosity of the SMC, being weak and cold in comparison to Galactic Molecular Clouds, has been ascribed to a smaller molecular cloud size which may be, in part, due to a higher UV radiation field causing more thorough photo-disassociation (Rubio et al., 1991, Israel et al., 1993). These authors suggest that the higher UV field of the SMC is the product of a more active star formation per unit mass than the galaxy, and lower absorptive dust fraction. Rubio et al. (1993) note that the luminosity and metallicity of CO regions within the SMC are similarly less than those of the Galaxy, although they do not speculate on a reliable and direct correlation between these two parameters. Spectral studies of young, early-type stars throughout the SMC (Rolleston et al., 1993) have shown that the heavy-metal abundance within this SMC is not homogeneous, and is lower than Galactic values.

A few stars within the Bridge and SMC wing have been found to be more metal deficient than star-forming regions in the SMC by $``$0.5 dex (Rolleston et al., 1999). More recent spectral studies towards the centre of the Bridge by Lehner et al. (2001) confirm the mismatch of abundances between the SMC and the Magellanic Bridge, and these authors suggest that the Bridge comprises a mix of gas from SMC gas, and from its relatively un-enriched halo.

Israel et al. (1993) made extensive searches for CO emission regions within the SMC towards locations selected from IRAS maps and from known H$`\mathrm{ii}`$ emission regions. They found that strong sources of CO emission were generally associated with regions where the ratio of 60$`\mu `$m and 100$`\mu `$m flux densities ($`S_{60}/S_{100}`$) were $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$$`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 1.0, and that sites of CO emission where $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$$`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 1.0 were relatively weak. In general, SMC CO line emissions were found to be weaker and narrower than those of Galactic CO emission.

At this stage, CO emission of any kind has not previously been reported in the Magellanic Bridge further east than the molecular cloud N88, which occupies the north eastern corner of the SMC. N88 has also been observed in a number of other molecular lines (Testor et al., 1999). Smoker et al. (2000) have conducted a search for 12CO(1-0) near the centre of the Magellanic Bridge, towards a region of cold atomic hydrogen (Kolbunicky & Dickey 1999). This target was considered a likely candidate based on studies by Garwood & Dickey (1989), who had found that CO emission regions were occasionally associated with cold atomic gas. These SEST observations by Smoker et al. however, showed no 12CO(1-0) emission down to an RMS of 60 mK.

Maps of CO emission from the tidally affected M81 galaxy have shown that some CO regions can be associated with tidally extruded H$`\mathrm{i}`$ (Taylor, Walter & Yun, 2001), although the correlation is not particularly outstanding and the CO appears to only loosely trace the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ mass.

CO emission in Tidal Dwarf Galaxies (TDGs) has been found to generally correlate with regions of high H$`\mathrm{i}`$ column density by Braine et al. (2001), although only single pointings were made during this study. TDGs are thought to condense from the remnant material exported from a host galaxy during a tidal stripping event (eg Braine et al. 2001). They may represent a class of objects where star-formation has preceded significant tidal perturbation. This is the reverse of the sequence of processes thought to be active in the Magellanic Bridge and is a relevant benchmark to bear in mind.

This paper presents results from a CO survey of a region in the Magellanic Bridge using selection criteria based on findings by Israel et al. (1993), Taylor, Walter & Yun (2001) and Braine et al. (2000, 2001).

We discuss the selection procedure of candidate CO emission sites in Section 2. Observation techniques are outlined in Section 3. In Section 4, we present the results and comparisons with H$`\mathrm{i}`$ data. We discuss the results in Section 5.

## 2 Source Selection

CO requires a surface on which to form, and in instances where UV flux may be high enough to cause disassociation, a buffer of absorbing material is necessary to surround the CO region. As such, candidate CO regions were selected for this survey primarily through comparisons of maps of far-IR emission and of H$`\mathrm{i}`$ column density. In general, 60$`\mu `$m emission across the Bridge is negligible except for a few sparsely distributed bright peaks, with a maximum brightness of $``$1.5 MJy sr-1. As mentioned previously, the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ distribution is rather clumpy with a filamentary component throughout much of the Bridge. The H$`\mathrm{i}`$ spectral information used throughout this study has been extracted from the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ datacube, presented and discussed in a paper by Muller et al (MNRAS, in press). This dataset comprises observations with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and the Parkes telescope. The sensitivity of these observations is $``$15.2 mJy/Beam and a beamwidth of $``$98$`\mathrm{"}`$.

Candidate regions were those where the 60$`\mu `$m to 100$`\mu `$m flux density ratio $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$$`<`$0.2 were co-incident with a local H$`\mathrm{i}`$ integrated intensity maximum. Throughout the Bridge, six candidate regions satisfying this criteria have been identified. At this time however, only one of these regions has been investigated for 12CO(1-0) emission. The other five, un-observed CO candidate sites have lower $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$ ratios, lower 60$`\mu `$m emission, and with one exception, all have OB associations and IRAS sources within a few tens of parsecs (projected). Study of the remaining sites will be the subject of a future paper.

## 3 Observations

### 3.1 Mopra

The 22m Mopra telescope 111The Mopra telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. was used to examine one pointing only. These observations were made during the evening and night of 11th of October 2000, and during the night of 13th December 2000.

The two SIS receivers of Mopra were tuned to 115.19GHz. The correlator was configured to give 64 MHz bandpasses with 1024 channels for both receivers, resulting in a velocity range of $``$167 km s-1 and a velocity channel spacing of $``$0.163 km s-1.

During observing runs, the telescope was calibrated every $``$45 minutes with observations of an ambient temperature source. Reference observations were made of an area located two minutes south of the source. Total on-source time was $``$682 minutes.

Observations of N88 were made for calibration purposes. The 12CO(1-0) signal strength of $``$200mK for N88 is 40% of the brightness measured by Rubio et al. (1996), and is in general agreement with the estimated efficiency of the Mopra Telescope (Kesteven M., Priv.comm.).

The pointing corrections for the telescope were made before each $``$6 hour observing session using SiO maser sources. Corrections were repeated until accuracy was better than 5”.

All data was reduced following standard procedures, using the ATNF SPC reduction package.

### 3.2 SEST

Confirmation and mapping observations were conducted with the SEST Swedish ESO Sub-millimetre Telescope, during the evenings and nights of the 2001 December 15th-17th.

The SESIS 100 receiver was tuned to 115.19 GHz, and the correlator was configured to the High Resolution Spectrometer settings, giving a 45′′ beamwidth, and a 83.6MHz bandpass of 2000 channels. This yields a velocity range of $``$218 km s-1 and a velocity channel spacing of $``$0.109 km s-1.

The Double Beam Switching (DSW) mode was used for these observations. This employs a focal plane chopper wheel that rotates at 6Hz to observe the off-source position, located +2m27sin azimuth away from the source.

During observing runs, pointing and focus corrections were made every two hours, using the SiO maser R Doradus ($``$8Jy) where possible, otherwise R Aquarius was used ($``$5Jy). Calibration checks were made every $``$5 minutes.

Four pointings were made at beam-width sized offsets from the primary position. Positions, H$`\mathrm{i}`$ column densities and $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$ values for these pointings are shown in Table 1. The pointings are numbered in the order in which they were observed.

Figure 1 shows the position of the candidate emission region on an integrated intensity map (Muller, et al., MNRAS, in press). The sub-image shows the observed positions, nearby OB associations extracted from an OB catalogue (Bica et al. 1995) and contours of 60$`\mu `$m brightness.

Pointing 1 was observed for a total of 157.1 minutes, on-source time. The other three positions were observed for 48 minutes each, on-source time. System temperatures ranged between $``$500-590 K.

Data were reduced using the XS data reduction package. The raw spectra had velocity resolution of $``$0.11 km s-1. This was increased to a final value of $``$0.33 km s-1 during reduction to increase the signal-to-noise. Data were scaled to compensate for the main-beam efficiency using: TA=TMB/0.7. All data were baseline subtracted with a single linear baseline, although in most cases this was hardly necessary, and a higher order fit did not improve S/N significantly. The resulting RMS values, (after rebinning across three velocity channels) and the on-source times are shown in Table 1.

## 4 Spectra and analysis

The primary pointing, and two of three offset pointings at the studied location yielded positive detections (SEST).

The initial detection made with the Mopra telescope is shown in Figure 2, and has a S/N of $``$3.5, while spectra obtained with the SEST are shown in Figure 3 for each of the pointings 1-4. Table 2 summarises the parameters for gaussian fits made to spectra from pointings 1,2 & 4, as well as integrated intensity determined from the fit parameters. The analysis package ’XS’ was to make the gaussian fitting.

The detection at Pointing 4 has a S/N of $``$3.1, and is not a significant detection on its own, however positive detections made nearby improves its legitimacy. Pointing 3 did not yield a convincing detection of the 12CO(1-0) line.

We can see from Fig. 1 that pointing 1 corresponds to the highest local H$`\mathrm{i}`$ column density. This point appears to be on the rim of an annular, or crescent-shaped H$`\mathrm{i}`$ filament and has a $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$$`=`$0.18, although this parameter peaks slightly north of the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ integrated intensity maximum at the IRAS catalogue object, IRAS 0152-7430 (01h56m57s-741414$`\mathrm{"}`$, J2000). Two OB populations are located at almost the same position as the IRAS object, comprising either one association with a more centrally condensed population, or two superimposed OB associations. These associations are labelled BS216 and BS217 (Bica et al. 1995). A third OB association is found to the west of pointing 2. This association is labelled WG71 (1h56m35s-74171$`\mathrm{"}`$, Westerlund & Galespey, 1971).

The detected CO spectrum from pointing 1 is shown in Fig. 4, with the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ spectrum at the same location overlaid (Muller et al., MNRAS, in press). The peak velocity of the CO emission coincides with that of the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ emission, indicating that the CO emission region is enclosed by an H$`\mathrm{i}`$ cloud which may be offering some protection from ambient UV flux. The width of the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ line at this location is $``$10 km s-1. More mapping will be required to ascertain the extent of the CO mass and the degree of correlation of the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ and CO emission regions.

We have plotted the integrated CO intensity, LCO as a function of line-width in Figure 5, along with those for detections made in the SMC by Israel et al. (1993). This plot highlights the relative weakness and the low velocity dispersion of the CO detection in the Magellanic Bridge. Visually, the plot also suggests that the Bridge detections fit quite well into a correlation between velocity width and ICO for SMC detections. The value of ICO plotted by Israel et al. is a direct sum, whereas our value of ICO is determined from a gaussian fit. However, since the emission line appears to have no velocity structure, the difference between the methods is considered to be negligible. The errors for this plot were determined using the algorithms developed by Landman, Roussel-Dupré & Tanigawa, (1982), and Barranco & Goodman (1998).

## 5 Discussion

From the observations around 01h56m48s$``$741656$`\mathrm{"}`$(J2000), three separate locations have shown a positive 12CO(1-0) detection. The pointing from which the CO emission is absent does not appear to be significantly different to the other three positions in terms of $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$ and H$`\mathrm{i}`$ integrated intensity.

Rubio et al. (1993) were able to formulate empirical relations from their studies of SMC CO emission regions. These relations allow the velocity dispersion, luminosity, virial mass and H2/CO factor to be estimated from a measurement of the radius of the CO emission region. We estimate a new fit to only the SMC data from the paper by Rubio et al. (1993), and find a relation of: $`\mathrm{log}(R)=0.57\mathrm{log}`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V$`+0.87`$. The dataset from Rubio et al. (1993) is shown in Fig. 6 along with the fit determined here. We have included an upper limit to the log-log fit, based on the beamsize used for those observations, from which we estimate an upper limit to the radius of the Magellanic Bridge CO emission region of $``$16 pc. We see from Fig. 3 that the emission region extends across multiple beam-widths, where one beamwidth subtends $``$10pc. From the relative amplitudes of each of the positive detections, We suggest that the centre of the CO emission cloud is southwest of pointing 2, and is perhaps co-incident with the association WG71. We should bear in mind that the Magellanic Bridge has a slightly lower metal abundance than the SMC by $``$0.5 dex (Rolleston et al. 1993), and we would expect this to reduce the size of the emission region (Rubio et al., 1993).

CO has not been detected in emission for any galaxy having a 12+log(O/H) $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 7.9 (Taylor, Kobulnicky & Skillman, 1998). Taking a mean value for 12+log(O/H) for the SMC of $``$7.98 (Pagel et al, 1987), along with the knowledge that isolated measurements of the Magellanic Bridge show an under-abundance relative to the SMC by 0.5 dex (Rolleston et al. 1999), we see that this may be the first successful detection of CO in emission where 12+log(O/H) $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 7.9. We should note that the estimates of 12+log(O/H) by Pagel et al. were made from studies of H$`\mathrm{ii}`$ regions, and range between 7.84 and 8.16. More importantly, the estimates of the 12+log(O/H) for the Magellanic Bridge were made at a location a few degrees east from the location of the CO detection, and Rolleston et al. (1993) have shown that the metallicity of the SMC is not homogeneous. It is probable then, that the metallicity of the Magellanic Bridge is equally inhomogeneous.

A mean conversion factor for X=$`N(H_2)/I_{CO}`$=$`(120\pm 20)\times 10^{20}`$cm-2 was determined by Israel (1997) from analysis of various CO emission regions in the SMC. It is interesting to apply this factor to the CO emission detected in the Magellanic Bridge. Table 3 shows the predictions of the H2 column densities using this transformation. We also see from this table that the ratio of M(H2)/M(H$`\mathrm{i}`$ ) is significantly larger than the mean M(H2)/M(H$`\mathrm{i}`$ ) for the SMC. To maintain a consistent M(H2)/M(H$`\mathrm{i}`$ ) between the Bridge and SMC, a lower X value is required for the Bridge. This is as we would expect for a lower-metallicity environment.

The general nature of H$`\mathrm{i}`$ within the Bridge is clearly turbulent (see Muller, et al., MNRAS, in press) and the H$`\mathrm{i}`$ in the neighbourhood of these detections has a clear bimodal profile, with the two peaks separated by a lower density rift of $``$30 km s-1 (Heliocentric). The CO detections made here correspond to the velocity of the receding peak. The velocity bifurcation continues into the SMC, and about one third of the way to the LMC (Muller et al., MNRAS, in press). Rubio et al. (1993) noted that all the CO detections in the SMC were located on the approaching velocity peak, although any reason or significance for a preference is unclear. A more detailed study of this area shows that it cannot be interpreted as an expanding H$`\mathrm{i}`$ shell (Muller, et al. MNRAS, in press).

Studies of the CO emission from Tidal Dwarf Galaxies and tidal remnants by Braine et al. (2000) and Braine et al. (2001) have shown that molecular gas is observable within the remnants of tidal interaction and these authors suggest that the CO regions form after the tidal stripping event. Typical line-widths and ICO values from these observations of the 12CO(1-0) transition are $``$15 - 66 km s-1 and 0.1 - 2 K km s-1. However, that sample has an oxygen abundance range of 12+log(0/H)$``$8.2 - 8.6, which is in the upper range of that found from a study of dwarf galaxies including the SMC and the LMC (Israel, Tacconi & Baas, 1995). The high metallicities of these type of galaxies are considered to be the remnants of their original host galaxies. As the SMC is thought to be the original host for the matter drawn out into the Magellanic Bridge, we would expect the line-widths of the Bridge CO emission regions to be similar to those of the SMC and Figure 5 shows that this is indeed the case. Braine et al. (2000) selected CO candidate emission regions on the basis of high H$`\mathrm{i}`$ column density. They also concluded that the spatial co-incidence of H$`\mathrm{i}`$ clumps and CO regions suggested that the CO region had formed after the tidal extraction event. From the lack of information of the spatial distribution of the CO emission region in the Bridge, it is difficult to say whether the CO emission region coincides exactly with the nearby H$`\mathrm{i}`$ clump. At this stage however, the spatial and velocity positions of H$`\mathrm{i}`$ clumps and the CO emission region appear to correspond. A future paper will examine this aspect in more detail.

At this stage then, it appears then that the narrow CO line-widths as measured in the Magellanic Bridge are not representative of those of observed TDGs, although we should bear in mind the differences in the progenitor galaxy types, and we should be careful in drawing parallels with this context.

## 6 Conclusions

We have detected a 12CO(1-0) emission region within the Magellanic Bridge. The line width and integrated intensity is compatible with other CO detections within the SMC, although it is somewhat weaker and cooler, implying a lower metallicity. The findings at this point appear to be consistent with studies of CO emission regions within the SMC where CO has been found to associated with high H$`\mathrm{i}`$ integrated intensity and with $`S_{60}/S_{100}`$$`<`$0.2. Estimates made from log-log model fits to SMC CO observations indicate that the Magellanic Bridge CO emission region is spatially small, and has a radius of $`<`$16 pc. The CO emission region has a narrow line-width compared with observations of the SMC and with other TDGs, lending support to findings that suggest the Bridge has a lower metallicity than the SMC. At this stage, a reliable estimation of H2 mass is not really possible from the small amount of spatial information, although these issues will be addressed in a future paper. This finding confirms for the first time that star formation through molecular cloud collapse is an active and current process within the Bridge.

## Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank the referee, Dr. Frank Israel, for his helpful comments and suggestions for improvements on this paper. Thanks goes also to Dr. Tony Wong for essential advice on early drafts of the paper. We would also like to thank the Staff at the SEST facility and the European Southern Observatory. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the ATNF and CSIRO for the use of the Mopra Observatory.

## References

Barranco, J.A., Goodman, A.A.,1998, ApJ, 504, 207B

Braine, J., Duc, P.-A., Lisenfeld, U., Charmandaris, O., Vallego, O., Leon, S., Brinks, E. 2001, A&A, 378, 51

Braine, J., Lisenfeld, U., Duc, P-A., Leon, S. 2001, Nat., 403, 867

Bica E.L.D., Schmitt H.R. 1995, ApJS, 101, 41

Demers, S., Battinelli, P., 1998, AJ 115, 154

Gardiner, L., Noguchi, M., 1996, MNRAS, 278, 191

Garwood, R.W., Dickey, J.M., 1989, ApJ, 338, 841

Grondin, L, Demers, S, Kunkel, W.E., 1992, AJ, 103, 4, 1234

Israel, F.P., Johansson, L.E.B., Lequeus, J., Booth, R.S., Nyman, L.,-A, Crane, et al. 1993, A&A, 276 , 25

Israel, F.P., Tacconi, L.J., Baas, F., 1995, A&A, 295, 599

Israel, F.P., 1997, A&A, 328, 471.

Kobulnickey, H.A., Dickey, J.M., 1999, A&A, 117, 908

Landman, D.A., Roussel-Dupr’e, R., Tanigawa, G., 1982, ApJ, 261, 732

Lehner, N., Sembach, K.R., Dufton, P.L., Rolleston, W.R.J., Keenan, F.P., 2001, ApJ, 551, 781

Pagel, B.E.J., Edmunds, M.G., Fosbury, R.A.E., Webster, B.L., 1978, MNRAS, 184, 569

Rolleston, W. R. J., Dufton, P. L., Fitzsimmons, A., Howarth, I. D., Irwin, M. J., 1993, A&A. 277,10

Rolleston, W.R.J., Dufton, P.L., McErlean, N.D., Venn, K.A., 1999, A&A, 348

Rubio, M., Garay, G., Montani, J., Thaddeus, P., 1991, ApJ, 368, 173.

Rubio, M., Leuqeus, J., Boulanger, F., 1993, A&A, 271, 9

Rubio, M., Lequeus, J., Boulanger, F., Booth, R.S., Garay, G., de Graauq, Th., Israel, F.P., et al. 1996, A&A supp. ser. 118, 263

Smoker, J.V., Keenan, F.P., Polatidis, A.G., Mooney, C.J., Lehner, N., Rolleston, W.R.J., 2000, A&A, 363, 451

Taylor, C.L., Walter, F.,Yun, M.S., 2001, ApJ, 562, L43

Taylor, C.L., Kobulnickey, H.A., Skillman, E.D., 1998, AJ, 116, 2748

Testor, G., Rola, C.S., Whiing, A.B., 1999, In: Y.-H.Chu Suntzeff, N.B., Hesser, J.E., Bohlender, D.A. ed., IAU #190, New Views of the Magellanic Clouds.

Westerlund, B.E., Glaspey, J., 1971, A&A, 10, 1


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

GEORG CANTOR AND HIS HERITAGE111Talk at the meeting of the German Mathematical Society and the Cantor Medal award ceremony.1

Yu. I. Manin

God is no geometer, rather an unpredictable poet.

(Geometers can be unpredictable poets, so there could be room for compromise.)

V. Tasić \[T\], on the XIXth century romanticism

Introduction

Georg Cantor’s grand meta-narrative, Set Theory, created by him almost singlehandedly in the span of about fifteen years, resembles a piece of high art more than a scientific theory.

Using a slightly modernized language, basic results of set theory can be stated in a few lines.

Consider the category of all sets with arbitrary maps as morphisms. Isomorphism classes of sets are called cardinals. Cardinals are well–ordered by the sub–object relation, and the cardinal of the set of all subsets of $`U`$ is strictly larger than that of $`U`$ (this is of course proved by the famous diagonal argument).

This motivates introduction of another category, that of well ordered sets and monotone maps as morphisms. Isomorphism classes of these are called ordinals. They are well–ordered as well. The Continuum Hypothesis is a guess about the order structure of the initial segment of cardinals.

Thus, exquisite minimalism of expressive means is used by Cantor to achieve a sublime goal: understanding infinity, or rather infinity of infinities. A built–in self–referentiality and the forceful extension of the domain of mathematical intuition (principles for building up new sets) add to this impression of combined artistic violence and self–restraint.

Cantor himself would have furiously opposed this view. For him, the discovery of the hierarchy of infinities was a revelation of God–inspired Truth.

But mathematics of the XXth century reacted to Cantor’s oeuvre in many ways that can be better understood in the general background of various currents of contemporary science, philosophical thought, and art.

Somewhat provocatively, one can render one of Cantor’s principal insights as follows:

$`2^x`$ is considerably larger than $`x`$.

Here $`x`$ can be understood as an integer, an arbitrary ordinal, or a set; in the latter case $`2^x`$ denotes the set of all subsets of $`x`$. Deep mathematics starts when we try to make this statement more precise and to see how much larger $`2^x`$ is.

If $`x`$ is the first infinite ordinal, this is the Continuum Problem.

I will argue that properly stated for finite $`x`$, this question becomes closely related to a universal $`NP`$ problem.

I will then discuss assorted topics related to the role of set theory in contemporary mathematics and the reception of Cantor’s ideas.

Axiom of Choice and $`P/NP`$–problem

or

finite as poor man’s transfinite222I am not hinting at the Clay USD $`10^6`$ Prize for a solution of the $`P/NP`$–problem.2

In 1900, at his talk at the second ICM in Paris, Hilbert put the Continuum Hypothesis at the head of his list of 23 outstanding mathematical problems. This was one of the highlights of Cantor’s scientific life. Cantor invested much effort consolidating the German and international mathematical community into a coherent body capable of counterbalancing a group of influential professors opposing set theory.

The opposition to his theory of infinity, however, continued and was very disturbing to him, because the validity of Cantor’s new mathematics was questioned.

In 1904, at the next International Congress, König presented a talk in which he purported to show that continuum could not be well–ordered, and therefore the Continuum Hypothesis was meaningless.

Dauben writes (\[D\], p. 283): “The dramatic events of König’s paper read during the Third International Congress for Mathematicians in Heidelberg greatly upset him \[Cantor\]. He was there with his two daughters, Else and Anna–Marie, and was outraged at the humiliation he felt he had been made to suffer.”

It turned out that König’s paper contained a mistake; Zermelo soon afterwards produced a proof that any set could be well ordered using his then brand new Axiom of Choice. This axiom essentially postulates that, starting with a set $`U`$, one can form a new set, whose elements are pairs $`(V,v)`$ where $`V`$ runs over all non–empty subsets of $`U`$, and $`v`$ is an element of $`V`$.

A hundred years later, the mathematical community did not come up with a compendium of new problems for the coming century similar to the Hilbert’s list. Perhaps, the general vision of mathematics changed — already in Hilbert’s list a considerable number of items could be better described as research programs rather than well–defined problems, and this seems to be a more realistic way of perceiving our work in progress.

Still, a few clearly stated important questions remain unanswered, and recently seven such questions were singled out and endowed with a price tag. Below I will invoke one of these questions, the $`P/NP`$ problem and look at it as a finitary travesty of Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice.

Let $`U_m=_2^m`$ be the set of $`m`$–bit sequences. A convenient way to encode its subsets is via Boolean polynomials. Using the standard – and more general – language of commutative algebra, we can identify each subset of $`U_m`$ with the $`0`$–level of a unique function $`fB_m`$ where we define the algebra of Boolean polynomials as

$$B_m:=_2[x_1,\mathrm{},x_m]/(x_1^2+x_1,\mathrm{},x_m^2+x_m).$$

Hence Zermelo’s problem – choose an element in each non–empty subset of $`U`$ – translates into: for each Boolean polynomial, find a point at which the polynomial equals 0, or prove that the polynomial is identically 1. Moreover, we want to solve this problem in time bounded by a polynomial of the bit size of the code of $`f`$.

This leads to a universal (“maximally difficult”) $`NP`$–problem if one writes Boolean polynomials in the following version of disjunctive normal form. Code of such a form is a family

$$u=\{m;(S_1,T_1),\mathrm{},(S_N,T_N)\},m;S_i,T_i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}.$$

The bit size of $`u`$ is $`mN`$, and the respective Boolean polynomial is

$$f_u:=1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(1+\underset{kS_i}{}(1+x_k)\underset{jT_i}{}x_j\right)$$

This encoding provides for a fast check of the inclusion relation for the elements of the respective level set. The price is that the uniqueness of the representation of $`f`$ is lost, and moreover, the identity $`f_u=f_v(\mathrm{?})`$ becomes a computationally hard problem.

In particular, even the following weakening of the finite Zermelo problem becomes $`NP`$–complete and hence currently intractable: check whether a Boolean polynomial given in disjunctive normal form is non–constant.

Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice aroused a lively international discussion published in the first issue of Mathematische Annalen of 1905. A considerable part of it was focused on the psychology of mathematical imagination and on the reliability of its fruits. Baffling questions of the type: “How can we be sure that during the course of a proof we keep thinking about the same set?” kept emerging. If we imagine that at least a part of computations that our brains perform can be adequately modeled by finite automata, then quantitative estimates of the required resources as provided by the theory of polynomial time computability might eventually be of use in neuroscience and by implication in psychology.

A recent paper in “Science” thus summarizes some experimental results throwing light on the nature of mental representation of mathematical objects and physiological roots of divergences between, say, intuitionists and formalists:

“\[…\] our results provide grounds for reconciling the divergent introspection of mathematicians by showing that even within the small domain of elementary arithmetic, multiple mental representations are used for different tasks. Exact arithmetic puts emphasis on language–specific representations and relies on a left inferior frontal circuit also used for generating associations between words. Symbolic arithmetic is a cultural invention specific to humans, and its development depended on the progressive improvement of number notation systems. \[…\]

Approximate arithmetic, in contrast, shows no dependence on language and relies primarily on a quantity representation implemented in visuo–spatial networks of the left and right parietal lobes.” (\[DeSPST\], p. 973).

In the next section, I will discuss an approach to the Continuum Conjecture which is clearly inspired by the domination of the visuo–spatial networks, and conjecturally better understood in terms of probabilistic models than logic or Boolean automata.

Appendix: some definitions. For completeness, I will remind the reader of the basic definitions related to the $`P/NP`$ problem. Start with an infinite constructive world $`U`$ in the sense of \[Man\], e.g. natural numbers $``$. A subset $`EU`$ belongs to the class $`P`$ if it is decidable and the values of its characteristic function $`\chi _E`$ are computable in polynomial time on all arguments $`xE.`$

Furthermore, $`EU`$ belongs to the class $`NP`$ if it is a polynomially truncated projection of some $`E^{}U\times U`$ belonging to $`P`$: for some polynomial $`G`$,

$$uE(u,v)E^{}\mathrm{with}|v|G(|u|)$$

where $`|v|`$ is the bit size of $`v`$. In particular, $`PNP`$.

Intuitively, $`ENP`$ means that for each $`uE`$ there exists a polynomially bounded proof of this inclusion (namely, the calculation of $`\chi _E^{}(u,v)`$ for an appropriate $`v`$). However, to find such a proof (i. e. $`v`$) via the naive search among all $`v`$ with $`|v|G(|u|)`$ can take exponential time.

The set $`EU`$ is called NP–complete if, for any other set $`DV,DNP,`$ there exists a polynomial time computable function $`f:VU`$ such that $`D=f^1(E)`$, that is, $`\chi _D(v)=\chi _E(f(v)).`$

The encoding of Boolean polynomials used above is explained and motivated by the proof of the $`NP`$–completeness: see e. g. \[GaJ\], sec. 2.6.

The Continuum Hypothesis and random variables

Mumford in \[Mum\], p. 208, recalls an argument of Ch. Freiling (\[F\]) purporting to show that Continuum Hypothesis is “obviously” false by considering the following situation:

“Two dart players independently throw darts at a dartboard. If the continuum hypothesis is true, the points $`P`$ on the surface of a dartboard can be well ordered so that for every $`P`$, the set of $`Q`$ such that $`Q<P`$, call it $`S_Q`$, is countable. Let players 1 and 2 hit the dart board at points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Either $`P_1<P_2`$ or $`P_2<P_1`$. Assume the first holds. Then $`P_1`$ belongs to a countable subset $`S_{P_2}`$ of the points on on the dartboard. As the two throws were independent, we may treat throw 2 as taking place first, then throw 1. After throw 2, this countable set $`S_{P_2}`$ has been fixed. But every countable set is measurable and has measure 0. The same argument shows that the probability of $`P_2`$ landing on $`S_{P_1}`$ is 0. Thus almost surely neither happened and this contradicts the assumption that the dartboard is the first uncountable cardinal! \[…\]

I believe \[…\] his ‘proof’ shows that if we make random variables one of the basic elements of mathematics, it follows that the C.H. is false and we will get rid of one of the meaningless conundrums of set theory.”333Mumford’s paper is significantly called “The dawning of the age of stochasticity.” David assured me that he had no intention to refer to Giambattista Vico’s theory of historical cycles which in the rendering of H. Bloom (\[B\]) sounds thus: “ Giambattista Vico, in his New Science, posited a cycle of three phases — Theocratic, Aristocratic, Democratic — followed by a chaos of which a New Theocratic Age would at last emerge.”3

Freiling’s work was actually preceded by that of Scott and Solovay, who recast in terms of “logically random sets” P. Cohen’s forcing method for proving the consistency of the negated CH with Zermelo–Frenkel axioms. Their work has shown that one can indeed put random variables in the list of basic notions and use them in a highly non–trivial way.

P. Cohen himself ended his book by suggesting that the view that CH is “obviously false” may become universally accepted.

However, whereas the Scott–Solovay reasoning proves a precise theorem about the formal language of the Set Theory, Freiling’s argument appeals directly to our physical intuition, and is best classified as a thought experiment. It is similar in nature to some classical thought experiments in physics, deducing e.g. various dynamic consequences from the impossibility of perpetuum mobile.

The idea of thought experiment, as opposed to that of logical deduction, can be generally considered as a right–brain equivalent of the left brain elementary logical operations. A similar role is played by good metaphors. When we are comparing the respective capabilities of two brains, we are struck by what I called elsewhere ‘the inborn weakness of metaphors’: they resist becoming building blocks of a system. One can only more or less artfully put one metaphor upon another, and the building will stand or crumble upon its own weight independently of its truth or otherwise.

Physics disciplines thought experiments as poetry disciplines metaphors, but only logic has an inner discipline.

Successful thought experiments produce mathematical truths which, after being accepted, solidify into axioms, and the latter start working on the treadmill of logical deductions.

Foundations and Physics

I will start this section with a brief discussion of the impact of Set Theory on the foundations of mathematics. I will understand “foundations” neither as the para–philosophical preoccupation with nature, accessibility, and reliability of mathematical truth, nor as a set of normative prescriptions like those advocated by finitists or formalists.

I will use this word in a loose sense as a general term for the historically variable conglomerate of rules and principles used to organize the already existing and always being created anew body of mathematical knowledge of the relevant epoch. At times, it becomes codified in the form of an authoritative mathematical text as exemplified by Euclid’s Elements. In another epoch, it is better expressed by nervous self–questioning about the meaning of infinitesimals or the precise relationship between real numbers and points of the Euclidean line, or else, the nature of algorithms. In all cases, foundations in this wide sense is something which is of relevance to a working mathematician, which refers to some basic principles of his/her trade, but which does not constitute the essence of his/her work.

In the XXth century, all of the main foundational trends referred to Cantor’s language and intuition of sets.

The well developed project of Bourbaki gave a polished form to the notion that any mathematical object $`𝒳`$ (group, topological space, integral, formal language …) could be thought of as a set $`X`$ with an additional structure $`x`$. This notion had emerged in many specialized research projects, from Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie to Kolmogorov’s identification of probability theory with measure theory.

The additional structure $`x`$ in $`𝒳=(X,x)`$ is an element of another set $`Y`$ belonging to the échelle constructed from $`X`$ by standard operations and satisfying conditions (axioms) which are also formulated entirely in terms of set theory. Moreover, the nature of elements of $`X`$ is inessential: a bijection $`XX^{}`$ mapping $`x`$ to $`x^{}`$ produces an isomorphic object $`𝒳^{}=(X^{},x^{})`$. This idea played a powerful unifying and clarifying role in mathematics and led to spectacular developments far outside the Bourbaki group. Insofar as it is accepted in thousands of research papers, one can simply say that the language of mathematics is the language of set theory.

Since the latter is so easily formalized, this allowed logicists to defend the position that their normative principles should be applied to all of mathematics and to overstate the role of “paradoxes of infinity” and Gödel’s incompleteness results.

However, this fact also made possible such self–reflexive acts as inclusion of metamathematics into mathematics, in the form of model theory. Model theory studies special algebraic structures – formal languages – considered in turn as mathematical objects (structured sets with composition laws, marked elements etc.), and their interpretations in sets. Baffling discoveries such as Gödel’s incompleteness of arithmetics lose some of their mystery once one comes to understand their content as a statement that a certain algebraic structure simply is not finitely generated with respect to the allowed composition laws.

When at the next stage of this historical development, sets gave way to categories, this was at first only a shift of stress upon morphisms (in particular, isomorphisms) of structures, rather than on structures themselves. And, after all, a (small) category could itself be considered as a set with structure. However, primarily thanks to the work of Grothendieck and his school on the foundations of algebraic geometry, categories moved to the foreground. Here is an incomplete list of changes in our understanding of mathematical objects brought about by the language of categories. Let us recall that generally objects of a category $`C`$ are not sets themselves; their nature is not specified; only morphisms $`Hom_C(X,Y)`$ are sets.

A. An object $`X`$ of the category $`C`$ can be identified with the functor it represents: $`YHom_C(Y,X)`$. Thus, if $`C`$ is small, initially structureless $`X`$ becomes a structured set. This external, “sociological” characterization of a mathematical object defining it through its interaction with all objects of the same category rather than in terms of its intrinsic structure, proved to be extremely useful in all problems involving e. g. moduli spaces in algebraic geometry.

B. Since two mathematical objects, if they are isomorphic, have exactly the same properties, it does not matter how many pairwise isomorphic objects are contained in a given category $`C`$. Informally, if $`C`$ and $`D`$ have “the same” classes of isomorphic objects and morphisms between their representatives, they should be considered as equivalent. For example, the category of “all” finite sets is equivalent to any category of finite sets in which there is exactly one set of each cardinality 0,1,2,3, $`\mathrm{}`$ .

This “openness” of a category considered up to equivalence is an essential trait, for example, in the abstract computability theory. Church’s thesis can be best understood as a postulate that there is an open category of “constructive worlds” — finite or countable structured sets and computable morphisms between them — such that any infinite object in it is isomorphic to the world of natural numbers, and morphisms correspond to recursive functions (cf. \[Man\] for more details). There are many more interesting infinite constructive worlds determined by widely diverging internal structures: words in a given alphabet, finite graphs, Turing machines, etc. However, they are all isomorphic to $``$ due to the existence of computable numerations.

C. The previous remark also places limits on the naive view that categories “are” special structured sets. In fact, if it is natural to identify categories related by an equivalence (not necessarily bijective on objects) rather than isomorphism, then this view becomes utterly misleading.

More precisely, what happens is the slow emergence of the following hierarchical picture. Categories themselves form objects of a larger category $`Cat`$ morphisms in which are functors, or “natural constructions” like a (co)homology theory of topological spaces. However, functors do not form simply a set or a class: they also form objects of a category. Axiomatizing this situation we get a notion of 2–category whose prototype is $`Cat`$. Treating 2–categories in the same way, we get 3–categories etc.

The following view of mathematical objects is encoded in this hierarchy: there is no equality of mathematical objects, only equivalences. And since an equivalence is also a mathematical object, there is no equality between them, only the next order equivalence etc., ad infinitim.

This vision, due initially to Grothendieck, extends the boundaries of classical mathematics, especially algebraic geometry, and exactly in those developments where it interacts with modern theoretical physics.

With the advent of categories, the mathematical community was cured of its fear of classes (as opposed to sets) and generally “very large” collections of objects.

In the same vein, it turned out that there are meaningful ways of thinking about “all” objects of a given kind, and to use self–reference creatively instead of banning it completely. This is a development of the old distinction between sets and classes, admitting that at each stage we get a structure similar to but not identical with the ones we studied at the previous stage.

In my view, Cantor’s prophetic vision was enriched and not shattered by these new developments.

What made it recede to the background, together with preoccupations with paradoxes of infinity and intuitionistic neuroses, was a renewed interaction with physics and the transfiguration of formal logic into computer science.

The birth of quantum physics radically changed our notions about relationships between reality, its theoretical descriptions, and our perceptions. It made clear that Cantor’s famous definition of sets (\[C\]) represented only a distilled classical mental view of the material world as consisting of pairwise distinct things residing in space:

“Unter einer ‘Menge’ verstehen wir jede Zusammenfassung $`M`$ von bestimmten wohlunterschiedenen Objekten $`m`$ unserer Anschauung oder unseres Denkens (welche die ‘Elemente’ von $`M`$ genannt werden) zu einem Ganzen.”

“By a ‘set’ we mean any collection $`M`$ into a whole of definite, distinct objects $`m`$ (called the ‘elements’ of $`M`$) of our perception or our thought.”

Once this view was shown to be only an approximation to the incomparably more sophisticated quantum description, sets lost their direct roots in reality. In fact, the structured sets of modern mathematics used most effectively in modern physics are not sets of things, but rather sets of possibilities. For example, the phase space of a classical mechanical system consists of pairs (coordinate, momentum) describing all possible states of the system, whereas after quantization it is replaced by the space of complex probability amplitudes: the Hilbert space of $`L_2`$–functions of the coordinates or something along these lines. The amplitudes are all possible quantum superpositions of all possible classical states. It is a far cry from a set of things.

Moreover, requirements of quantum physics considerably heightened the degree of tolerance of mathematicians to the imprecise but highly stimulating theoretical discourse conducted by physicists. This led, in particular, to the emergence of Feynman’s path integral as one of the most active areas of research in topology and algebraic geometry, even though the mathematical status of path integral is in no better shape than that of Riemann integral before Kepler’s “Stereometry of Wine Barrels”.

Computer science added a much needed touch of practical relevance to the essentially hygienic prescriptions of formal logic. The introduction of the notion of “success with high probability” into the study of algorithmic solvability helped to further demolish mental barriers which fenced off foundations of mathematics from mathematics itself.

Appendix: Cantor and physics. It would be interesting to study Cantor’s natural philosophy in more detail. According to \[D\], he directly referred to possible physical applications of his theory several times.

For example, he proved that that if one deletes from a domain in $`^n`$ any dense countable subset (e.g. all algebraic points), then any two points of the complement can be connected by a continuous curve. His interpretation: continuous motion is possible even in discontinuous spaces, so “our” space might be discontinuous itself, because the idea of its continuity is based upon observations of continuous motion. Thus a revised mechanics should be considered.

At a meeting of GDNA in Freiburg, 1883, Cantor said: “One of the most important problems of set theory \[…\] consists of the challenge to determine the various valences or powers of sets present in all of Nature in so far as we can know them” (\[D\], p. 291).

Seemingly, Cantor wanted atoms (monads) to be actual points, extensionless, and in infinite number in Nature. “Corporeal monads” (massive particles? Yu.M.) should exist in countable quantity. “Aetherial monads” (massless quanta? Yu.M.) should have had cardinality aleph one.

Coda: Mathematics and postmodern condition

Already during Cantor’s life time, the reception of his ideas was more like that of new trends in the art, such as impressionism or atonality, than that of new scientific theories. It was highly emotionally charged and ranged from total dismissal (Kronecker’s “corrupter of youth”) to highest praise (Hilbert’s defense of “Cantor’s Paradise”). (Notice however the commonly overlooked nuances of both statements which subtly undermine their ardor: Kronecker implicitly likens Cantor to Socrates, whereas Hilbert with faint mockery hints at Cantor’s conviction that Set Theory is inspired by God.)

If one accepts the view that Bourbaki’s vast construction was the direct descendant of Cantor’s work, it comes as no surprise that it shared the same fate: see \[Mas\]. Especially vehement was reaction against “new maths”: an attempt to reform the mathematical education by stressing precise definitions, logic, and set theoretic language rather than mathematical facts, pictures, examples and surprises.

One is tempted to consider this reaction in the light of Lyotard’s (\[L\]) famous definition of the postmodern condition as “incredulity toward meta–narratives” and Tasić’s remark that mathematical truth belongs to “the most stubborn meta–narratives of Western culture” (\[T\], p. 176).

In this stubbornness lies our hope.

References

\[B\] H. Bloom. The Western Canon. Riverhead Books, New York, 1994.

\[C\] G. Cantor. Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre. Math. Ann. 46 (1895), 481– 512; 49 (1897), 207 –246.

\[D\] J. W. Dauben. Georg Cantor: his mathematics and philosophy of the infinite. Princeton UP, Princeton NJ, 1990.

\[DeSPST\] S. Dehaene, E. Spelke, P. Pinet, R. Stanescu, S. Tsivkin. Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain–imaging evidence. Science, 7 May 1999, vol. 284, 970–974.

\[F\] C. Freiling. Axioms of symmetry: throwing darts at the real line. J. Symb. Logic, 51 (1986), 190–200.

\[GaJ\] M. Garey, D. Johnson. Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of $`NP`$–completeness. W. H. Freeman and Co., San–Francisco, 1979.

\[L\] J.-F. Lyotard. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis, 1984.

\[Man\] Yu. Manin. Classical computing, quantum computing, and Shor’s factoring algorithm. Séminaire Bourbaki, no. 862 (June 1999), Astérisque, vol 266, 2000, 375–404.

\[Mas\] M. Mashaal. Bourbaki. Pour la Science, No 2, 2000.

\[Mum\] D. Mumford. The dawning of the age of stochasticity. In: Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives 2000, AMS, 1999, 197–218.

\[PI\] W. Purkert, H. J. Ilgauds. Georg Cantor, 1845 – 1918. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel – Boston – Stuttgart, 1987.

\[T\] V. Tasić. Mathematics and the roots of postmodern thought. Oxford UP, 2001.

Appendix: Chronology of Cantor’s life and mathematics

(following \[PI\] and \[D\])

March 3, 1845: Born in St Petersburg, Russia.

1856: Family moves to Wiesbaden, Germany.

1862 – 1867: Cantor studies in Zürich, Berlin, Göttingen and again Berlin.

1867 – 1869: First publications in number theory, quadratic forms.

1869: Habilitation in the Halle University.

1870 – 1872: Works on convergence of trigonometric series.

1872 – 1879: Existence of different magnitudes of infinity, bijections $`^n`$, studies of relations between continuity and dimension.

November 29, 1873: Cantor asked in a letter to Dedekind whether there might exist a bijection between $``$ and $``$ (\[D\], p.49). Shortly after Christmas he found his diagonal procedure (\[D\], p. 51 etc.).

1874: First publication on set theory.

1879 – 1884: Publication of the series Über unendliche lineare Punktmannichfaltigkeiten.

1883: Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre. Ein mathematisch–philosophischer Versuch in der Lehre des Unendlichen.

May 1884: First nervous breakdown, after a successful and enjoyable trip to Paris: depression lasting till Fall: \[D\]. p. 282.

1884–85: Contact with Catholic theologians, encouragement from them, but isolation in Halle. \[D\], p. 146: “… early in 1885, Mittag–Leffler seemed to close the last door on Cantor’s hopes for understanding and encouragement among mathematicians.”

September 18, 1890: Foundation of the German Mathematical Society; Cantor becomes its first President.

1891: Kronecker died.

1895 – 1895: “Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre” (Cantor’s last major mathematical publication).

1897: The first ICM. Set theory is very visible.

1897: “Burali–Forti \[…\] was the first mathematician to make public the paradoxes of transfinite set theory” (\[D\]). He argued that all ordinals, if any pair of them is comparable, would form an Ordinal which is greater than itself. He concluded that not all ordinals are comparable. Cantor instead believed that all ordinals do not form an ordinal, just as all sets do not form a set.

1899: Hospitalizations in Halle Nervenklinik before and after the death of son Rudolph.

1902–1903, winter term: Hospitalization.

Oct. 1907 – June 1908: Hospitalization.

Sept. 1911 – June 1912: Hospitalization.

1915: Celebration of the 70th anniversary of Cantor’s birth, on a national level because of WW I.

May 1917 – Jan. 6, 1918: Hospitalization; Cantor dies at Halle Klinik.

Max–Planck–Institut für Mathematik, Bonn, Germany

and Northwestern University, Evanston, USA.

e-mail: maninmpim-bonn.mpg.de


text:
# 1 *

USM-TH-129

Reanalysis of Azimuthal Spin Asymmetries of Meson Electroproduction

Bo-Qiang Ma a, Ivan Schmidt b, and Jian-Jun Yang b,c

aDepartment of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China,

and CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China

bDepartamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María,

Casilla 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile

cDepartment of Physics, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China

Abstract

The azimuthal spin asymmetries for pion production in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering of unpolarized charged lepton beams on longitudinally polarized nucleon targets, are reanalyzed by taking into account an important sign correction to previous formulas. It is found that different approaches of distribution functions and fragmentation functions may lead to distinct predictions on the azimuthal asymmetries measured in the HERMES experiments, thus the available data cannot be considered as a direct measurement of quark transversity distributions, although they still can serve to provide useful information on these distributions and on T-odd fragmentation functions. Predictions of the azimuthal spin asymmetries for kaon production are also presented, with different approaches of distribution and fragmentation functions. The unfavored fragmentation functions cannot be neglected for $`K^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$ production in semi-inclusive deep inelastic processes.

PACS numbers: 13.87.Fh, 13.60.-r, 13.88.+e, 14.20.Dh

The HERMES collaboration reported the observation of single-spin azimuthal asymmetries for pion production in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) of unpolarized positron beam on the longitudinally polarized nucleon target . Such azimuthal asymmetries are important because they could provide information on the chiral-odd transversity distributions and T-odd fragmentation functions, which are less known than the usual distribution functions and fragmentation functions. The experimental measurements of quark transversity distributions are difficulty, since the transversity is not directly observable in inclusive DIS processes. It has been proposed that the transversity can manifest itself through the Collins effect  of nonzero production between a chiral-odd structure function and a T-odd fragmentation function, which is accessible in some specific semi-inclusive hadron production experiments . There have been a number of studies  to show that the azimuthal asymmetries measured by HERMES are related to the quark transversity distributions of the nucleon. However, for the azimuthal spin asymmetries of meson production in DIS processes of unpolarized charged lepton beams on longitudinally polarized nucleon targets, it just became clear recently  that there was an error in the formulas used in previous calculations . It is thus necessary to reanalyze and check the influences on the calculated results and conclusions from such a correction. It is the purpose of this note to update the analysis of our results presented in Ref. , and to extend them in order to also predict azimuthal spin asymmetries for kaon production .

The analyzing power of azimuthal spin asymmetry measured by HERMES is defined as

$$A_{UL}^W=\frac{\left[\mathrm{d}\varphi \right]W(\varphi )\left\{N^+(\varphi )N^{}(\varphi )\right\}}{\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{d}\varphi \right]\left\{N^+(\varphi )+N^{}(\varphi )\right\}},$$
(1)
where $`UL`$ denotes unpolarized beam on a longitudinally polarized target, $`W(\varphi )=\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi `$ is the weighting function for picking up the Collins effect, and $`N^+(\varphi )`$ ($`N^{}(\varphi )`$) is the number of events for meson production, as a function of $`\varphi `$, when the target is positively (negatively) polarized. The azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the meson emitting plane and the lepton scattering plane, with the lepton scattering plane determined by the incident and scattered leptons, and the meson emitting plane determined by the final detected meson and the virtual photon. The virtual photon acts as the common axis of both planes. The analyzing powers of azimuthal asymmetries for pions have been measured by the HERMES collaboration , and there is clear evidence for non-zero values of $`A_{UL}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ for $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ production, which indicates the existence of azimuthal asymmetries.

One can relate the theoretical calculations with the azimuthal spin asymmetry by

$$A_{UL}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }=\frac{|P_h|}{M_h}\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1},$$

where a sum over all quark flavors, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=_qe_q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^q`$, is implicitly assumed, and will be assumed from now on. In the case of unpolarized beam and longitudinally polarized target, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2L}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2T}`$ are given  by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\left[1+(1y)^2\right]f_1(x)D_1(z),$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2L}=4S_L\frac{M}{Q}(2y)\sqrt{1y}\left[xh_L(x)zH_1^{(1)}(z)h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)\stackrel{~}{H}(z)\right],$$
(3)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2T}=2S_{Tx}(1y)h_1(x)zH_1^{(1)}(z).$$
(4)
We should emphasis here that the “$``$” sign in front of the right side of (4) is the correction  to Ref. , and it brings significant changes to the numerical results presented there. In the above formulas, the twist-2 distribution functions and fragmentation functions have a subscript “1”: $`f_1`$ and $`D_1`$ are the usual unpolarized distribution and fragmentation function; $`h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)`$ and $`h_1(x)`$ are the quark transverse spin distribution functions of longitudinally and transversely polarized nucleons, respectively; $`h_L(x)`$ is the twist-3 distribution function of a longitudinally polarized nucleon, and it can be split into a twist-2 part, $`h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)`$, and an interaction dependent part, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x)`$:

$$h_L(x)=2\frac{h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)}{x}+\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x).$$
(5)
The fragmentation function $`\stackrel{~}{H}(z)`$ is the interaction dependent part of the twist-3 fragmentation function:

$$H(z)=2zH_1^{(1)}(z)+\stackrel{~}{H}(z).$$
(6)
The functions with superscript “(1)” denote $`p_{}^2`$\- and $`k_{}^2`$-moments, respectively:

$$h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)\mathrm{d}^2p_{}\frac{p_{}^2}{2M^2}h_{1L}^{}(x,p_{}^2),$$
(7)
$$H_{1L}^{(1)}(z)z^2\mathrm{d}^2k_{}\frac{k_{}^2}{2M_h^2}H_{1L}^{}(z,z^2k_{}^2),$$
(8)
where $`p_{}`$ and $`k_{}`$ are the intrinsic transverse momenta of the initial and final partons in the target and produced hadrons, respectively.

To calculate the spin asymmetries and compare them with experiments, we need the quark distribution functions: $`f_1(x)`$, $`h_1(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x)`$, and $`h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)`$, and the fragmentation functions: $`D_1(z)`$, $`H_1^{(1)}(z)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{H}(z)`$. Most of the distribution functions and fragmentation functions in these expressions are not known a priori, since they have not been measured yet. Thus we have to make some assumptions and approximations, and this leads to different approaches for the distribution functions and fragmentation functions:

Leading Approach is to neglect the $`1/Q`$ term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2L}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, i.e., we neglect both the $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x)`$ and $`h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)`$ terms in the spin asymmetry $`\frac{|P_h|}{M_h}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. Then we find immediately that

$$\frac{|P_h|}{M_h}\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2T}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}\frac{h_1(x)H_1^{(1)}(z)}{f_1(x)D_1(z)}.$$
(9)
We emphasize here that the “$``$” sign has been added, and it brings an opposite trend for the azimuthal asymmetries in comparison with the earlier predictions given in .

Approach 1 is to assume that the twist-2 quark transverse spin distribution function of longitudinally polarized nucleon, $`h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)`$, is zero . Then it follows that

$$h_L(x)=\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x)=h_1(x).$$
(10)
Notice that in this approach, the spin asymmetry is directly related to the quark transversity distribution $`h_1(x)`$, without any additional terms.

Approach 2 is to assume that the interaction dependent twist-3 part, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_L(x)`$, is zero, thus we can also assume that $`\stackrel{~}{H}(z)`$ is zero . Then by neglecting the term proportional to the current quark mass, one can obtain a Wandzura-Wilczek type relation

$$h_{1L}^{(1)}(x)=x^2_x^1d\xi \frac{h_1(\xi )}{\xi ^2}.$$
(11)
It follows, from Eq. (5), that

$$h_L(x)=2x_x^1d\xi \frac{h_1(\xi )}{\xi ^2}.$$
(12)
Now we need the distribution functions $`f_1(x)`$ and $`h_1(x)`$ of the target, and the fragmentation functions $`D_1(z)`$ and $`H_1^{(1)}(z)`$ for the produced meson. The usual distribution functions $`f_1(x)`$ have been known with rather high precision, and we adopt two model parametrizations : a quark-diquark model and a pQCD based analysis . The transversity distributions $`h_1(x)`$ have not been measured yet, but can be roughly predicted, and we adopt those given in the two models, with different flavor and spin structure . Please see Ref.  for detailed descriptions and references. For the fragmentation functions of the pion, we adopt the new parametrization presented in , with a complete set of both favored and unfavored fragmentation functions.

The so called Collins fragmentation function $`H_1^{(1)}(z)`$, which describes the transition of a transversely polarized quark into a pion, has not been systematically measured yet, and it is also theoretically less known. There has been a so called Collins parametrization  of this fragmentation function,

$$A_C(z,k_{})=\frac{|k_{}|H_1^q(z,z^2k_{}^2)}{M_hD_1^q(z,z^2k_{}^2)}=\frac{M_C|k_{}|}{M_C^2+|k_{}^2|},$$
(13)
with $`M_C`$ being a typical hadronic scale around $`0.31`$ GeV. Assuming a Gaussian type of the quark transverse momentum dependence in the unpolarized fragmentation function

$$D_1^q(z,z^2k_{}^2)=D_1^q(z)\frac{R^2}{\pi z^2}\mathrm{exp}(R^2k_{}^2),$$
(14)
one obtains

$$H_1^{(1)q}(z)=D_1^q(z)\frac{M_C}{2M_h}\left(1M_C^2R^2_0^{\mathrm{}}dx\frac{\mathrm{exp}(x)}{x+M_C^2R^2}\right),$$
(15)
where $`R^2=z^2/P_h^2`$, an $`P_h^2=z^2k_{}^2`$ is the mean-square momentum that the hadron acquires in the quark fragmentation process. We will set the parameters $`M_C=0.7`$ GeV and $`P_h^2=(0.44)^2`$ GeV2 as they are consistent with the spin asymmetry measured at HERMES . It has been recently indicated by Efremov, Goeke, and Schweitzer , that the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the Collins fragmentation functions are still rather big, and can vary within a factor of 2. So we consider a further option for Approach 1 and Approach 2 by simply multiplying by a factor 2 to the Collins parametrization (13) and (15).

In Figs. 1-3, we present predictions for the azimuthal asymmetries $`A_{UL}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ for pion production in proton, deuteron, and neutron targets respectively. It can be seen that the predictions are significantly different for the five cases: Leading Approach, Approach 1, Approach 2, and two further options for Approach 1 and Approach 2 with the Collins parametrization multiplied by a factor 2. By comparison with the experimental data, we find that the Leading Approach seems to have opposite trend with the data, except that for $`\pi ^{}`$. This means that the available data on the azimuthal asymmetries by HERMES collaboration cannot be interpreted as a direct measurement of the transversity distributions of the nucleon, and/or the $`1/Q`$ term is not negligible at the HERMES energy. Predictions of Approach 1 and Approach 2 can be compatible with the available experimental data by including the uncertainties in the Collins parametrization of T-odd fragmentation functions, but the two approaches differ significantly at large $`x`$. Both the quark diquark model and the pQCD base analysis give similar predictions for the proton target. So the HERMES observation of the azimuthal asymmetries may still provide information on the transversity distributions of the nucleon at small $`x`$, as well as on the Collins fragmentation functions. To check the effects from the unfavored fragmentation functions, we also present in Fig. (4) the predictions on the azimuthal asymmetries with only favored fragmentation functions included. We find big difference for $`\pi ^{}`$ production by comparing Fig. (4) with Fig. (1). This implies that the unfavored fragmentation functions are important for $`\pi ^{}`$ production from a proton target, as the $`u`$ quark content is dominant at large $`x`$ in the target, and consequently, the unfavored $`u\pi ^{}`$ fragmentation is important. Further theoretical and experimental studies are still needed to discriminate between different distribution functions and fragmentation functions as reflected in Approach 1 and Approach 2.

We also mention here that an alternative mechanism for the azimuthal asymmetries has been proposed . Here it was shown that the QCD final-state interactions (gluon exchange) between the struck quark and the proton spectators in semi-inclusive deep inelastic lepton scattering can produce single-spin asymmetries which survive in the Bjorken limit. This provides a physical explanation, within QCD, of these asymmetries, and it also predicts that the initial-state interactions from gluon exchange between the incoming quark and the target spectator system lead to leading-twist single-spin asymmetries in the Drell-Yan process $`H_1H_2\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}X`$ . So our study suggests that we also need to consider the new mechanism as a plausible source for the azimuthal asymmetries observed by HERMES.

The HERMES collaboration will also measure the azimuthal asymmetries for the kaon production. Thus it is necessary to make predictions of azimuthal asymmetries $`A_{UL}^{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }`$ for $`K^+`$, $`K_S^0`$, and $`K^{}`$ production from proton, deuteron, and neutron targets respectively. We present our numerical results with different approaches and options for the distribution functions and fragmentation functions in Figs. 5-7. In principle, the flavor structure of the kaon fragmentation functions is more complicated than that of the pion, but the available parametrizations  only make distinction between the favored fragmentation functions $`D^K`$, which are related to the valence quarks of the kaon, and the unfavored fragmentation functions $`\widehat{D}^K`$, which are related to the light-flavor sea quarks of the kaon. For $`K^\pm `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}D^{K^\pm }(z)=0.31z^{0.98}(1z)^{0.97},\hfill & \\ \widehat{D}^{K^\pm }(z)=1.08z^{0.82}(1z)^{2.55},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(16)
and for $`K_S^0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}D^{K_S^0}(z)=0.53z^{0.57}(1z)^{1.87},\hfill & \\ \widehat{D}^{K_S^0}(z)=1.45z^{0.62}(1z)^{3.84}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(17)
The predictions given in Fig. 5-7 are with both favored and unfavored fragmentation functions included. To reflect the influence from the unfavored fragmentation functions for kaon production, we give in Fig. 8 also predictions for the azimuthal asymmetries of kaon production, for a proton target, and with only favored fragmentation functions $`D^K`$ included. We find, by comparing Fig. 5 with Fig. 8, that the unfavored fragmentation functions also play an important role in $`K^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$ production. This is easy to understand, since the favored fragmentation should be $`\overline{u}K^{}`$ and $`sK^{}`$ for $`K^{}`$ production, and both the $`\overline{u}`$ and $`s`$ quarks belong to the sea content in the nucleon target. The sea in both the quark diquark model and pQCD based analysis is assumed to be unpolarized. Thus the azimuthal asymmetries for $`K^{}`$ production should have zero values in the two models with only favored fragmentation functions included. But the situation will be different if both favored and unfavored fragmentation functions are included, as the unfavored $`u`$ fragmentation will be enhanced due to the dominant $`u`$ quark content at large $`x`$ in the proton. The valence $`u`$ quark is positively polarized in both the quark diquark model and the pQCD based analysis, thus the $`K^{}`$ production is sensitive to the unfavored fragmentation functions. Therefore we conclude that the unfavored fragmentation functions cannot be neglected for $`K^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$ production in semi-inclusive DIS process, and this is different from the predictions in .

In summary, we reanalyzed the azimuthal spin asymmetries for pion production in deep inelastic scattering of unpolarized charged lepton beam on the longitudinally polarized nucleon target, by taking into account an important sign correction to previous formulas. We find that this sign correction causes significant changes to the predictions, and we also find that the predictions are very different with different approaches for distribution functions and fragmentation functions. With the result that now it is difficult to use this process for a direct measurement of transversity at large $`x`$. As a results of similarity between the results of Approach 1 and Approach 2 at small $`x`$, one can still attribute the recent HERMES measurements as a rough estimate of the transversity distributions of the nucleon at small $`x`$, thus the HERMES data can be used to provide some useful constraints on the transversity distributions and on the T-odd Collins fragmentation functions. Further theoretical and experimental studies are still necessary to reveal various distribution functions and fragmentation functions. This includes taking into account new physical mechanisms in these processes . Predictions for the azimuthal spin asymmetries of kaon productions are also presented with different approaches and options for the distribution functions and fragmentation functions, and we conclude that the unfavored fragmentation functions cannot be neglected for $`K^{}`$ and $`K_S^0`$ productions in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering.

Acknowledgments:  This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 19975052, 10025523, 90103007 and 10175074, by Fondecyt (Chile) 3990048 and 8000017, and also by Foundation for University Key Teacher by the Ministry of Education (China). We are grateful to A.V. Efremov, K. Goeke, and P. Schweitzer for the correspondences concerning the correction. We also thank W.-D. Nowak for helpful discussions and suggestions.