text:
# Eigenvalue spectrum for single particle in a spheroidal cavity: A Semiclassical approach

## I Introduction

Nuclei display a wide variety of phenomena, which originate from single particle to collective motion and their interplay. A basic framework for discussing these phenomena has been provided by the shell model, which focuses upon the shell structure in the single particle energy spectrum. Evolution of shell structure with particle numbers, nuclear shapes and angular momenta has been a central theme of nuclear structure physics for the past three decades . It has been the main guiding factor for a number of theoretical predictions and explanations of several nuclear phenomena such as fission isomers, shape coexistence, superheavy elements and superdeformation. Strutinsky’s shell correction method  has been a central approach to the calculations of potential energy surfaces , which is a key to understand these phenomena. The method, also known as the macroscopic plus microscopic approach, obtains the fluctuating part of the level density (the shell correction term) arising from the quantal shell correction energy, which together with the liquid drop term gives the total energy. The energy landscape so obtained have played an important role in predicting phenomena like the occurrence of superheavy elements  and superdeformation .

Parallel to the Strutinsky’ method, a new and radically different understanding of shell structure has evolved in recent times, which is based on the closed periodic paths in a given cavity . A semiclassical approach led Gutzwiller  to propose a trace formula for the fluctuating part of level density of a quantum system as

$$\delta g(E)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{PO}{}\frac{T_{PPO}}{\sqrt{det\stackrel{~}{M}_{PO}I}}cos\left(\frac{S_{PO}}{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{PO}\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(1)
The left hand side of equation (1) is a quantum mechanical quantity, whereas the right hand side contains only classical quantities. Here, $`T_{PPO}`$ represents the time period of the primitive periodic orbit or, the fundamental orbit and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{PO}`$ is the monodromy stability matrix. The oscillations are controlled by action $`S_{PO}`$ of each periodic orbit and $`\sigma _{PO}`$ is the Maslov index. This trace formula is, however, applicable if all the periodic orbits are isolated and a summation is carried out over all periodic orbits.

Strutinsky et al.  generalized the Gutzwiller’s trace formula to systems with continuous symmetries by explicitly taking into account the degeneracy of the classical motion. this method was successfully applied to phenomenological potentials used in nuclear physics , yielding a semiclassical interpretation of ground state deformation as a function of particle number.

Later on, Frisk  presented calculations for the spheroidal cavities both in oblate and prolate region of deformations by using the method of Berry and Tabor . For prolate deformation, his outcome is consistent with Strutinsky et al. and confirms the role of equatorial orbits in the shell structure at large deformation. In his calculations, the contribution of equatorial orbits were included from the formalism of Balian and Bloch , as the Berry and Tabor formula was not applicable for such type of orbits. In a more recent work carried out by Magner et al , the Jacobian of transformation was calculated by using the caustic method. Further in the spherical limit, it shows divergences. Therefore, the calculations in the spherical limit were done by the so called the bridge trace formula.

The aim of the present paper is to bring the work of Strutinsky et al to a logical conclusion and to obtain the complete trace formula for spheroidal cavity, free from the above limitations. Here, we obtain the explicit eigenvalue spectrum for a particle enclosed in an infinitely deep spheroidal well and establish the importance of various types of orbits viz. the planar as well as the non-planar, 3D orbits. A comparison of the spectrum with the quantum mechanical eigenvalue spectrum  is made. Our main emphasis is on the role of 3D orbits in reproducing the eigenvalue spectrum even at normal deformation. Since these orbits are longer in length as compared to the planar orbits, it has been believed that 3D orbits have very little role in the shell structure and other properties. However our work conclusively demonstrates that the full eigenvalue spectrum cannot be obtained even at small deformation if 3D orbits are not included.

It may be noted that the trace formula has also been successfully used in explaining the magic numbers of metal clusters . The super shell structure predicted by Balian and Bloch  or, the beat pattern in the level density of a spherical billiard  can be understood very simply in terms of the interference of the shortest two orbits, namely, the square and the triangular orbits. This semiclassical approach has been extended by Brack et al  to provide a beautiful and more transparent explanation of the mass asymmetry in nuclear fission; the only physical input is the Fermi energy where the shell correction is minimum for the fission isomeric shape. Inclusion of the shortest orbits with constant action in a deformed cavity and the related pitchfork bifurcation was enough to reproduce this effect. More recently, this semiclassical approach has been used in  to obtain the bifurcation of 3D orbits, establishing its importance in the region of superdeformation by obtaining the gross shell structure.

The trace formula for spheroidal cavity is given in Section II. In this formula, the bifurcation of 3D orbits begins to appear at specific minimum deformation and continues afterwards. Section III is devoted to results and discussion. The conclusions are summarized in Section IV. The derivation of Jacobian of transformation, which involves classical equations of motion, is given in the Appendix.

## II Trace formula for spheroidal cavity

For the bound states of a single particle Hamiltonian $`H`$, the level density is generally defined as a sum of Dirac delta distributions,

$$g(E)=\underset{i}{}\delta (EE_i).$$
(2)
This sum runs over all the eigen-energies $`E_i`$ (including degeneracies). It can be split into a smooth and an oscillating part:

$$g(E)=\stackrel{~}{g}(E)+\delta g(E).$$
(3)
Following Strutinsky et al. , the oscillating component of single particle level density, $`\delta g(E)`$, in cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,\varphi ,z)`$ is given by

$$\delta g(E)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}\underset{\beta ,m}{}f_{\beta ,m}sin(\frac{S_{\beta ,m}}{\mathrm{}}+\alpha _{\beta ,m})𝑑\rho 𝑑z\sqrt{p_\rho \rho J(p_\rho p_zt_{\beta ,m};\rho ^{}z^{}E)}_{\rho ^{},z^{}\rho ,z}.$$
(4)
The factor $`f_{\beta ,m}`$ equals to 1 for the diametric orbits and 2 for other orbits like triangles, squares etc. The time period for the path from the initial point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ to the final point $`\stackrel{}{r^{}}`$ for energy E is defined as

$$t_\beta =\frac{S_\beta (\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r^{}},E)}{E}.$$
(5)
The quantity J in equation (4) is the Jacobian of transformation between two sets of classical quantities $`(p_\rho ,p_z,t_{\beta ,m})`$ and $`(\rho ^{},z^{},E)`$, which are related by the classical equations of motion. Here, $`\beta `$ denotes the type of orbits and m is the number of repetitions of a given type of orbit.

In this study, we have approximated the nuclear mean field by a spheroidal cavity with an infinitely high boundary, so that a particle makes a perfect reflection on striking the walls. The potential inside the well is assumed to be zero. The Hamiltonian for a single particle of mass M is expressed in terms of spheroidal coordinates $`(u,v,\varphi )`$ and the conjugate momenta $`(p_u,p_v,p_\varphi )`$ as

$$H=\frac{p_u^2+p_v^2}{2M\zeta ^2(cosh^2vsin^2u)}+\frac{p_\varphi ^2}{2M\zeta ^2cos^2usinh^2v}$$
(6)
Here, the parameter $`\zeta `$ (=$`\sqrt{c^2a^2}`$; c and a being the semi-major and semi-minor axes, respectively)is fixed by the volume conservation condition and is given by

$$\zeta =R_0\eta ^{\frac{1}{3}}\sqrt{\eta ^21},$$
(7)
where, $`\eta (=\frac{c}{a})`$ is the deformation parameter and $`R_0`$ is the radius of an equivalent sphere.

Equation (6) leads to the Hamilton Jacobi equation, which can be solved by using the separation of variable technique. Therefore, the classical dynamics of a particle is determined by the following three partial actions:

$`s_u={\displaystyle 𝑑u\sqrt{2M\zeta ^2\left[ϵEsin^2u\frac{l_z^2}{2M\zeta ^2cos^2u}\right]}}`$ (8)
$`s_v={\displaystyle 𝑑v\sqrt{2M\zeta ^2\left[Ecosh^2vϵ\frac{l_z^2}{2M\zeta ^2sinh^2v}\right]}}`$ (9)
$$s_\varphi =2\pi l_z$$
(10)
The constants of motion $`ϵ`$ and $`l_z`$ are related to the turning points $`u_{max},u_{max},v_{min},v_0`$ as given in equations (19)-(21) of , which, in turn, are fixed by the following periodicity conditions:

$$\frac{\omega _u}{\omega _v}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{F(\theta ,\kappa )}{F(\frac{\pi }{2},\kappa )}\right]=\frac{n_u}{n_v}$$
(11)
$$\frac{\omega _\varphi }{\omega _u}=\frac{n_\varphi }{n_u}$$
(12)
Here, $`n_u,n_v`$ and $`n_\varphi `$ are co-prime integers, which define a family of periodic orbits. An explicit expression for $`\frac{\omega _\varphi }{\omega _u}`$ is given in . In equations (9) and (10), we have used the standard definitions of the elliptic integrals of the first and third kind with $`\kappa `$ and $`\theta `$ defined as

$`\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{sinu_{max}}{coshv_{min}}}`$ (13)
and

$$\theta =sin^1\left(\frac{coshv_{min}}{coshv_0}\right)$$
(14)
The total action in equation (4) is thus obtained as

$$S_\beta =n_us_u+n_vs_v+n_\varphi s_\varphi =\sqrt{2ME}L_\beta $$
(15)
where, $`L_\beta `$ is the length of the orbit. By using the transformation of coordinates, the radial $`(\rho )`$ and axial (z) coordinates are given by

$`\rho =\zeta cosusinhv`$ (16)
$$z=\zeta sinucoshv$$
(17)
The corresponding canonically conjugate momenta $`p_\rho `$ and $`p_z`$ are

$$p_\rho =\sqrt{2ME}\frac{[Asinusinhv+Bcosucoshv]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}$$
(18)
$$p_z=\sqrt{2ME}\frac{[Acosucoshv+Bsinusinhv]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}$$
(19)
where,

$$A=\sqrt{\sigma _1sin^2u\frac{\sigma _2}{\mathrm{cos}^2u}}$$
(20)
and

$$B=\sqrt{cosh^2v\sigma _1\frac{\sigma _2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2v}}$$
(21)
with $`\sigma _1=\frac{ϵ}{E}`$ and $`\sigma _2=\frac{l_z^2}{2ME\zeta ^2}`$. An explicit analytical expression for Jacobian of transformation, J, is derived in the Appendix. Here, we would like to mention that Strutinsky et al.  have given only a rough estimate for J, while the same is obtained by Magner et al. using the caustic method. Our approach for the calculations of J is simpler.

Next, the maximum limit for the repetition parameter $`m`$ in equation (4) is obtained by considering that the longest periodic orbit, out of the permissible families $`\beta `$, traverses only once in the cavity. This fixes the repetition numbers of the individual families with reference to that of the largest one i.e.

$$m_{max}=\frac{L_{largest}}{L_\beta (n_u,n_v,n_\varphi )}.$$
(22)
This technique is enough to remove the arbitrariness in the choice of $`m_{max}`$.

In the spheroidal cavity, we have the planar as well as the 3D orbits. The planar orbits are further classified into two categories. One is in the plane perpendicular to the axis of symmetry (z=0) and the other is in the plane containing the symmetry axis $`(l_z=0)`$. The former correspond to the equatorial planar orbits, hereafter referred to as Type I. The later category is designated as Type II.

Type I orbits have a lower degeneracy (K=1), while that of Type II is higher (K=2). The diametric orbit in the Type II family is isolated and has K=0. The 3D orbits have a degeneracy (K=2) same as that of Type II. We have included the effect of lower degeneracies in our calculations by dividing equation (4) by a factor $`\sqrt{kR_0}`$ and $`kR_0`$, respectively, for K=1 and K=0. Here, the wave number $`k=\frac{\sqrt{2ME}}{\mathrm{}}`$.

The orbits of Type I are determined by the condition z=0 and the equality $`\frac{\omega _v}{\omega _\varphi }=\frac{n_v}{n_\varphi }`$. This condition can be obtained by using both equations (9) and (10). On the other hand Type II orbits are obtained from the periodicity condition (9) along with $`l_z=0`$.

More important are the 3D orbits, which are characterized by the solutions $`\kappa (n_u,n_v,n_\varphi )`$ and $`\theta (n_u,n_v,n_\varphi )`$. These solutions exist for deformation $`\eta \eta _{min}`$, where

$$\eta _{min}=\frac{sin(\frac{\pi n_\varphi }{n_v})}{sin(\frac{\pi n_u}{n_v})}$$
(23)
at which point $`\kappa =0,\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}(12\frac{n_u}{n_v})`$ along with the conditions

$$v_0>v_{min}>0;0<u_{max}<\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(24)
The Maslov index $`\alpha _{\beta ,m}`$ in (4) plays a very crucial role in the periodic orbit sum as it decides the relative phase of the various terms in the summation. Following Creagh and Littlejohn  and Brack and Bhaduri , we obtain the following Maslov indices for Type I, Type II and 3D orbits.
Type I: For diametric orbits

$$\alpha _{\beta ,m}=\frac{3}{2}mn_v\pi +\frac{\pi }{4};$$
(25)
for other orbits

$$\alpha _{\beta ,m}=\frac{3}{2}mn_v\pi (mn_\varphi 1)\pi +\frac{\pi }{4}.$$
(26)
Type II: For diametric orbits

$$\alpha _{\beta ,m}=\frac{3}{2}mn_v\pi +\frac{\pi }{4};$$
(27)
for other orbits

$$\alpha _{\beta ,m}=\frac{3}{2}mn_v\pi (mn_u1)\pi +\frac{\pi }{4}.$$
(28)
For 3D:

$$\alpha _{\beta ,m}=\frac{3}{2}mn_v\pi (mn_u1)\pi mn_\varphi \pi +\frac{\pi }{4}$$
(29)
Thus, the fluctuating part of the level density is fully established by including all the above mentioned terms in equation (4). The total level density $`\delta g(E)`$, is

$$\delta g(E)=\delta g^{TypeI}+\delta g^{TypeII}+\delta g^{3D}.$$
(30)
Since the maximum contribution to the gross shell structure comes from the shortest periodic orbits, it has now become customary to carry out a smooth truncation of the contributions of the longer periodic orbits by folding the level density with a Gaussian function  of width $`\frac{\gamma }{R_0}`$,

$$\delta g_{av}=\underset{\beta ,m}{}\delta g(E)exp[(\frac{\gamma L_{\beta ,m}}{2R_0})^2].$$
(31)
The averaging width $`\gamma `$ is chosen to be larger than the mean spacing between the energy levels within a shell, but much smaller than the distance between the gross shells. This averaging ensures that all longer paths are strongly damped and only the shortest periodic orbits contribute to the oscillating part of the level density.

Finally, the smooth part is obtained by using the Weyl’s expansion  as given below:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(E)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2})^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{E}V\frac{1}{16\pi }(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2})S+\frac{1}{12\pi ^2}(\frac{2M}{\mathrm{}^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{C}{\sqrt{E}}.$$
(32)
Here, V, S and C refer to the volume, surface area and radius of curvature, of the cavity respectively. Following the geometrical procedure, we have obtained these terms for the spheroidal cavity and are given below:

$$V=\frac{4}{3}\pi a^2c,$$
(33)
$$S=2\pi a^2\left[1+\frac{sin^1f}{f\sqrt{1f^2}}\right],$$
(34)
$$C=\frac{c}{2}[1+\frac{1f^2}{2f}ln\frac{1+f}{1f}],$$
(35)
with $`f=\frac{\sqrt{c^2a^2}}{c}`$.

## III Results and Discussion

Firstly, we have obtained the semiclassical eigenvalue spectrum at $`\eta =1.0001`$ (in the limit of spherical shape). In our numerical calculations, we have varied $`n_\varphi `$=1 to 200 and $`n_v=2n_\varphi `$ to 200 for Type I and $`n_u`$=1 to 200 and $`n_v=2n_u`$ to 200 for Type II orbits. The parameter m is varied from 1 to $`m_{max}`$. Here, the convergence factor $`\gamma `$ is chosen as $`0.02R_0`$. The results of $`g(E)`$ vs. $`kR_0`$ arising from partial sums for Type I and II orbits are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. It is interesting enough to note that both these figures 1 and 2 show the same spectrum and are in good agreement with the quantum mechanical eigenvalues of spherical cavity. An exact comparison is seen upto second decimal place at $`kR_07`$. The combined spectrum of Type I and II orbits is shown in Fig. 3. These results confirm that our calculations for both Type I and Type II orbits give correct eigenvalues in the spherical limit. The partial sums over Type I and II orbits presented above lead us to similar results in the spherical limit as the two types of orbits become identical in this limit. It is well known that the trace formula calls for a simultaneous sum of all orbits. We, however, present the results of partial sums also in view of their direct relationship with eigenvalues belonging to distinct symmetry classes; this becomes more clear when a deformation is introduced.

Here, we would like to mention that our present results are greatly improved in comparison to our earlier ones  due to the following reasons. (i) The inclusion of the sum over repetition of the periodic orbits, which has not been taken into account in our earlier calculations. (ii) The last term in the Maslov indices, as given in equations (21)-(24), has been replaced from $`\frac{3\pi }{4}`$ to $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$. The present spheroidal trace formula, which diverges for $`\eta `$=1.0, still gives very good results in the limit $`\eta 1.0`$. We have separately obtained a trace formula for the case of the spherical billiard by using the same approach . The trace formula of Magner et al  also diverges in the spherical limit; as a result, they have obtained their results in this limit by using the so called bridge trace formula.

As we increase the deformation from the spherical limit, interesting results emerge from our trace formula. Here, we discuss the results at $`\eta =1.3`$, a normal value of deformation in nuclei. Also, we again carry out partial sums as well as total sum. The convergence factor $`\gamma `$ is taken to be 0. This choice ensures that no eigenvalue in the spectrum is missing. The variation of $`(n_u,n_v,n_\varphi )`$ for Type I and II orbits is kept same as in the spherical limit. For 3D orbits, we have varied $`n_u`$=1 to 200, $`n_v=2n_u`$ to 200 and $`n_\varphi `$=1 to 100. The variation of $`g(E)`$ vs. $`kR_0`$ for each of the three families viz. Type I, II and 3D are shown in Figs. 4-6, respectively. On comparing these results with that of quantum mechanical one obtained from Ref. , the following salient features emerge.
(i) All the quantum mechanical eigenvalues corresponding to maximum projection of the angular momentum i.e $`L=L_z`$ are seen in Fig. 4 that refers to Type I. (ii) The quantum mechanical values corresponding to $`L>2N`$ (N being the usual quantum number) and $`L_z=0`$ are visible in Fig. 5 that refers to Type II.
(iii) Rest of the quantum mechanical eigenvalues i.e. $`LL_z`$ are seen in our 3D plots, shown in Fig.6.

In order to understand the origin of these remarkable results, let us once again consider the results shown for the above spherical case. The identical nature of the spectrum of Type I and II orbits, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively, reveals that periodic orbit theory can not separate the eigenvalues of Type I (refer to $`L=L_z`$) from that of Type II (refer to $`LL_z`$). It may be remarked that 3D orbits do not exist in the spherical limit due to condition(19). Quantum mechanics also shows the same characteristics. This shows that the outcome of periodic orbit theory is consistent with that of the quantum mechanics. The emergence of eigenvalues belonging to distinct symmetry sectors from the partial sums of distinct types of orbits is at once striking and beautiful.

The increase in deformation from spherical limit to $`\eta =1.3`$, shows the complete separation of the eigenvalues of Type I from that of Type II and 3D orbits. Our quantum mechanical results (see Table 1) also show that $`L=L_z`$ eigenvalues have no overlap with any of the eigenvalues of $`LL_z`$. Here, no overlap means, the difference between these two sets is quite significant. This reveals that there is one to one correspondence between the two results.

An interesting point is that all these spectral lines in Fig. 5, correspond to the lowest angular momentum projection quantum mechanical eigenvalues only. At this point our results differ from that of . In their calculations of gross shell structure, they mentioned that Type II orbits have a higher degeneracy (K=2) and contribute more strongly at smaller and normal deformation. At smaller deformation, it is true and consistent with our results shown in Fig.2 (see the amplitudes in Fig.1 and 2). But at normal deformation, Type II orbits show only the lowest projection eigenvalues. Its role in comparison to the 3D orbits appear to be much smaller. Since, 3D orbits are larger in length, so Magner et al have not seen its contribution in the gross shell structure.

An explicit comparison of each of the three types of orbits is given in Table I. It is clear from comparison that the difference between eigenvalues of Type I orbits and that of quantum calculations is nearly constant ($`0.26`$). This difference may be due to choice of Maslov index and the less number of orbits in the sum. Here, we would like to mention that in all our present calculations, we have not changed the choice of the Maslov index.

Finally, the complete spectrum at $`\eta =1.3`$ is shown in Fig. 7. As the Type I orbits have smaller degeneracy, so their contribution is not seen in the final plot. On the other hand, 3D orbits have higher degeneracy and occupy the larger volume at normal deformation.

## IV Conclusions

A complete trace formula for the level density of a spheroidal cavity is presented which follows the Strutinsky’s trace formula. This formula reproduces the eigenvalues of sphere as we approach the spherical limit and comparison with that of quantum mechanical ones is found to be excellent upto second decimal place at $`kR_07`$. The same formula works well for equatorial, axis of symmetry plane and 3D orbits with appropriate boundary conditions. Contrary to the general prescription, at normal deformation, the 3D orbits are found to be more important as compared to the planar orbits in the axis of symmetry plane, while equatorial orbits reproduce only the quantum mechanical eigenvalues corresponding to maximum projection of angular momentum. The overall eigenvalue spectrum compares reasonably well with that of the quantum mechanical one. Our studies firmly establish the expected, important role of the 3D orbits in the appearance of the spectrum of a particle in a spheroidal well in spite of the fact that they are longer in length.

Our studies suggest a way for a ”semiclassical” shell model. We have been able to identify each quantum level with a specific type of periodic orbits. If we consider shell model built on these orbits, we can fill up two fermions of opposite spin in each state. Seen in this way, the magic numbers would appear at large deformation only when we consider the filling of the states lying in bunches. The bunching of levels would not be reproduced correctly unless the 3D orbits are correctly placed. Thus, the shell structure may now be entirely understood in terms of occupation of particles on periodic orbits instead of being on energy levels. Also, the fact that each level is marked by a periodic orbit of a certain kind, shows that the entire spectrum of the spheroidal system has eigenfunctions which are scarred by periodic orbits .

Such a trace formula can be envisaged to have a number of applications from nuclei to atoms and metallic clusters. Calculation of 3D plots of the deformation energy based on the periodic orbit trace formula could successfully explain the onset of mass asymmetry of fission in terms of few periodic orbits . A large number of studies have recently applied this approach to the metal clusters , and quantum dots  with a good measure of success. It is, therefore, expected that the formulation presented here will play a useful role and lead to further applications in nuclei and metallic clusters.

## V Acknowledgment

We acknowledge financial support from the Department of Atomic Energy (Govt. of India) and the Department of Science and Technology (Govt. of India).

## VI APPENDIX

Calculation of the Jacobian The Jacobian, J, of transformation is defined as    $`\frac{p_\rho }{\rho ^{}}`$ $`\frac{p_\rho }{z^{}}`$ $`\frac{p_\rho }{E}`$  $`\frac{p_z}{\rho ^{}}`$ $`\frac{p_z}{z^{}}`$ $`\frac{p_z}{E}`$  $`\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{\rho ^{}}`$ $`\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{z^{}}`$ $`\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{E}`$.

This determinant is solved by using the values of $`p_\rho ,p_z`$ and $`t_{\beta ,m}`$ from equations (14), (15) and (5), respectively. The explicit expressions are

$$\left(\frac{p_\rho }{\rho ^{}}\right)_{\rho ^{}\rho }=\frac{\sqrt{2ME}K_1}{\zeta }$$
(36)
where,

$$K_1=\left[\frac{T_1}{sinusinhv}+\frac{T_2}{cosucoshv}\right]$$
(37)
$`T_1={\displaystyle \frac{\left[Acosusinhv+\frac{sinusinhv(sinucosu+\frac{\sigma _2sinu}{cos^3u})}{A}Bsinucoshv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}}`$ (38)
$`+2sinucosu{\displaystyle \frac{\left[Asinusinhv+Bcosucoshv\right]}{(cosh^2vsin^2u)^2}}`$ (39)
$`T_2={\displaystyle \frac{\left[Asinucoshv+\frac{cosucoshv(coshvsinhv+\frac{\sigma _2coshv}{sinh^3v})}{B}+Bcosusinhv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}}`$ (40)
$`2sinhvcoshv{\displaystyle \frac{\left[Asinusinhv+Bcosucoshv\right]}{(cosh^2vsin^2u)^2}}`$ (41)
$$\left(\frac{p_\rho }{z^{}}\right)_{z^{}z}=\frac{\sqrt{2ME}K_2}{\zeta }$$
(42)
where,

$$K_2=\left[\frac{T_1}{cosucoshv}+\frac{T_2}{sinusinhv}\right]$$
(43)
$$\frac{p_\rho }{E}=\frac{M}{\sqrt{2ME}}K_3$$
(44)
$$K_3=\frac{\left[Asinusinhv+Bcosucoshv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}$$
(45)
$$\left(\frac{p_z}{\rho ^{}}\right)_{\rho ^{}\rho }=\frac{\sqrt{2ME}K_4}{\zeta }$$
(46)
where,

$$K_4=\left[\frac{T_3}{sinusinhv}+\frac{T_4}{cosucoshv}\right]$$
(47)
$`T_3={\displaystyle \frac{\left[Asinucoshv\frac{cosucoshv(sinucosu+\frac{\sigma _2sinu}{cos^3u})}{A}+Bcosusinhv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}}`$ (48)
$`+2sinucosu{\displaystyle \frac{\left[Acosucoshv+Bsinusinhv\right]}{(cosh^2vsin^2u)^2}}`$ (49)
$`T_4={\displaystyle \frac{\left[Acosusinhv+\frac{sinusinhv(coshvsinhv+\frac{\sigma _2coshv}{sinh^3v})}{B}+Bsinucoshv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}}`$ (50)
$`2sinhvcoshv{\displaystyle \frac{\left[Acosucoshv+Bsinusinhv\right]}{(cosh^2vsin^2u)^2}}`$ (51)
$$\left(\frac{p_z}{z^{}}\right)_{z^{}z}=\frac{\sqrt{2ME}K_5}{\zeta }$$
(52)
where,

$$K_5=\left[\frac{T_3}{cosucoshv}+\frac{T_4}{sinusinhv}\right]$$
(53)
$$\frac{p_z}{E}=\frac{M}{\sqrt{2ME}}K_6$$
(54)
$$K_6=\frac{\left[Acosucoshv+Bsinusinhv\right]}{cosh^2vsin^2u}$$
(55)
$$\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{\rho ^{}}_{\rho ^{}\rho }=\frac{M}{m\sqrt{2ME}}K_7$$
(56)
$$K_7=\left[\frac{An_u}{sinusinhv}+\frac{Bn_v}{cosucoshv}\right]$$
(57)
$$\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{z^{}}_{z^{}z}=\frac{M}{m\sqrt{2ME}}K_8$$
(58)
$$K_8=\left[\frac{An_u}{cosucoshv}+\frac{Bn_v}{sinusinhv}\right]$$
(59)
$$\frac{t_{\beta ,m}}{E}=\frac{M}{m2ME\sqrt{2ME}}L_\beta $$
(60)
Thus, the above determinant yields

$$J=\frac{M^2}{m\sqrt{2ME}\zeta }\left[K_1K_5L_\beta K_1K_8K_6+K_2K_4L_\beta +K_2K_7K_6+K_4K_8K_3K_7K_5K_3\right].$$
(61)
It may be noted that $`J`$ diverges for $`\zeta `$=0.0 or, $`\eta `$=1. We, therefore, calculate the results for a sphere in the limit $`\zeta `$0.0 by choosing a deformation $`\eta `$=1.0001.


format: text

text:
# Quantum computing with spatially delocalized qubits

## Abstract

We analyze the operation of quantum gates for neutral atoms with qubits that are delocalized in space, i.e., the computational basis states are defined by the presence of a neutral atom in the ground state of one out of two trapping potentials. The implementation of single qubit gates as well as a controlled phase gate between two qubits is discussed and explicit calculations are presented for rubidium atoms in optical microtraps. Furthermore, we show how multi-qubit highly entangled states can be created in this scheme.

PACS numbers: 03.67.-a, 32.80.Pj, 42.50.-p

Optical lattices olat  and arrays of optical microtraps PRLBirkl  are promising candidates for the implementation of quantum information processing with neutral atoms. Many of the requirements for quantum computation with optical microtraps have been recently demonstrated in 2D arrays of $`80`$ traps with $`100`$ atoms per trap PRLBirkl . Some remarkable characteristics of optical microtraps are the possibility to scale, miniaturize and parallelize the required atom optics devices. In addition, they offer two fundamental advantages over optical lattices: (i) the possibility of individually addressing single traps due to the large separation of the microlenses foci, e.g., $`125\mu \mathrm{m}`$; and (ii) the independent displacement of rows and columns of microtraps and, eventually, of single microtraps. Single atoms in dipole traps singledt  and the Mott insulator transition with one atom per trap in optical lattices singleMott  have been reported, and, therefore, the achievement of 1D and 2D arrays of optical microtraps containing none or one atom per trap in a deterministic way can be foreseen for the near future. We will make use of all these features of optical microtraps to propose a novel implementation for quantum information processing.

In our scheme, each qubit consists of two traps separated by a distance $`2a`$ and one single atom. Per definition, the detection of the atom in the ground state of the left trap represents $`|0`$ and in the right trap $`|1`$, i.e., $`|0=|0_L`$ and $`|1=|0_R`$, where $`|0_{L,R}`$ are the vibrational ground states of the left and right trap, respectively. Throughout the paper we will call this implementation the spatially delocalized qubit (SDQ), since $`\left|0|\stackrel{}{r}|01|\stackrel{}{r}|1\right|=2a`$ with $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ the position operator. To implement the SDQ we will assume that we are able to deterministically store none or one single atom per trap and cool it to the vibrational ground state in 3D.

Single and two-qubit gate operations will be performed by adiabatically approaching two traps which will be modeled as follows: The initial separation of the traps is $`2a_{max}`$. The process of approaching them to the minimum separation $`2a_{min}`$ takes a raising time $`t_r`$. The temporal evolution of the distance $`a`$ is described by the first half of a period of a cosine. The two wells remain at the minimum separation for an interaction time $`t_i`$ and, finally, are adiabatically separated to the initial distance. To simplify the numerical analysis we will assume piecewise harmonic trapping potentials as in ref. ourQCpaper  and, eventually, consider realistic Gaussian potentials as they are present in the experiment PRLBirkl ; BirklOC .

Single-qubit operations, e.g., a Hadamard gate, are performed by adiabatically approaching the traps and allowing tunneling to take place. In order to illustrate this operation, it is convenient to consider the two lowest energy eigenstates of the double well potential. These two states are symmetric and antisymmetric, denoted by $`|S`$ and $`|A`$ respectively, with energies $`E_{S,A}(a)=E(a)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(a)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the splitting frequency. In terms of these states, our qubit basis reads: $`|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|S+|A\right)`$, and $`|1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|S|A\right)`$. Let us assume that the atom is initially in the left trap, i.e, $`|\psi (t=0)=|0`$, then it is straightforward to check that its time evolution will be given by

$$|\psi (t)=e^{i\frac{Et}{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}t\right)|0+i\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}t\right)|1\right].$$
(1)
Thus, the atomic wavefunction oscillates in a Rabi-type fashion between left and right traps at the flopping frequency $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(a)`$. Obviously, for large trap separations states $`|S`$ and $`|A`$ become degenerate in energy, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }(a)=0`$ for $`a\mathrm{}`$, and then the atom does not evolve in time (up to a trivial phase). Therefore, it is possible to realize single-qubit operations via tunneling by experimentally controlling the “Rabi frequency” through $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`t_r`$ and $`t_i`$.

These single-qubit operations are illustrated in Fig. 1 through a numerical integration of the 1D Schrödinger equation in the parameter plane $`t_r`$ versus $`t_i`$ with $`|0`$ being the initial state. Fig. 1 shows (a) the population of state $`|1`$, denoted by $`\rho _1`$, and (b) the total ground state population of left and right traps, i.e., $`\rho _0+\rho _1`$, after the whole cycle of approaching and separating the traps. This oscillating population resembles the Rabi-flopping in the interaction of a laser with a two-level system and, for this reason, we have added in Fig. 1 dashed lines indicating the $`\frac{\pi }{2},\pi ,\frac{3\pi }{2},2\pi `$ laser pulse notation conventionally used in quantum optics. For small $`t_r`$, non-adiabaticity results in the population of excited vibrational states, which, as shown in Fig. 1 (b), yields $`\rho _0+\rho _1<1`$. In what follows, we will focus only in the adiabatic regime.

For the two-qubit gate operations we assume that the two qubits are arranged either (i) in a 1D configuration, i.e., the four traps form a line, or (ii) side-by-side in a 2D configuration, i.e., the traps form a square, c.f. Fig. 2(a). The traps involved are labeled $`A_0`$, $`A_1`$ for the first qubit and $`B_0`$, $`B_1`$ for the second, and the respective ground states are denoted $`|0_A`$, $`|1_A`$ and $`|0_B`$, $`|1_B`$. A two-qubit gate will be realized via the collisional interaction between bosonic neutral atoms na2 . We will consider 87Rb atoms whose collisional interaction can be described by a contact potential of the form $`U(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r_2})=4\pi a_t\mathrm{}^2m^1\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r_2})`$, where $`a_t=106a_0=5.61\mathrm{nm}`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length in the spin triplet. Because the states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ are localized in different positions, it is enough to perform a suitable spatiotemporal variation of the potentials in order to pick up a collisional phase shift e.g. only if both atoms are in $`|1`$. This is sufficient to implement a two-qubit phase gate, which transforms product states $`|i_A|j_B`$, $`i,j\{0,1\}`$, into $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _{i1}\delta _{j1}\pi )|i_A|j_B`$ and, supplemented by arbitrary single-qubit gates, forms a universal set of gates.

For the in-line arrangement, the change of the potential leading to a phase gate is shown in Fig. 2(b), where horizontal and vertical axes denote space and time, respectively. As the first step a $`\pi `$ pulse is applied on the second qubit, exchanging $`|0_B`$ and $`|1_B`$. During this step only single-particle phases arise which can be included into the definition of the single-particle states. If the initial state was $`|0_A|0_B`$ then after the $`\pi `$ pulse, traps $`A_1`$ and $`B_0`$ would contain no atom. For initial states $`|1_A|0_B`$ or $`|0_A|1_B`$, an atom would be either in $`A_1`$ or in $`B_0`$ and as seen before, we could approach and eventually separate $`A_1`$ and $`B_0`$ such that a $`n2\pi `$ pulse is applied with $`n`$ integer. In this case initial and final state coincide, except for a single particle phase $`\varphi _S`$ which again can be included into the definition of $`|1_A`$ or $`|0_B`$. If we started from $`|1_A|1_B`$, then after the first pulse $`A_1`$ and $`B_0`$ would both be occupied, and during the $`n2\pi `$ pulse the two atoms would collide. For an adiabatic evolution we can neglect not only the probability to populate excited vibrational states, but also to find two atoms in the same trap, since, due to the collisional interaction, these states are not degenerated with states where each atom occupies a different trap ourQCpaper . Thus for $`a_t0`$ initial and final state are the same except for a phase $`\varphi `$ and, in order to realize the desired phase gate operation, we need its collisional part $`\varphi _C=\varphi 2\varphi _S`$ to be an odd multiple of $`\pi `$. The fidelity of this operation can be expressed as $`F=\rho (\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _C\pi )+1)/2`$, which is plotted for the adiabatic regime in Fig. 2(c). Here $`\rho `$ is the final probability to find the atom in the same state as it was before the $`n2\pi `$ pulse, neglecting the collisional phase. To calculate the collisional phase $`\varphi _C`$, we have integrated the two-particle 1D Schrödinger equation replacing $`U(\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)`$ by an effective 1D interaction potential under the assumption that no transverse excitations occur na2 . Finally, to complete the phase gate operation another $`\pi `$ pulse is applied to the second qubit.

In the case of 2D arrays of traps, as they are typically realized in the experiment PRLBirkl , the easiest operation is to move complete columns of microtraps. To realize the gate it is enough to be able to move selectively some columns, with the additional benefit that the operation is applied to many pairs of qubits in parallel which might allow for an easy implementation of error correcting codes. For the side-by-side arrangement, the initial and final $`\pi `$ pulse can be omitted and only the $`2\pi `$ pulse between traps $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ is needed. Although conceptually much more easier, the implementation in this arrangement demands the ability to move single traps instead of columns which makes it experimentally more involved.

The SDQ scheme allows also for the creation of maximally entangled states in a very straightforward way. Let us consider again four microtraps in the side-by-side arrangement, Fig. 3(a), with the two atoms located in the upper-left and lower-right traps, respectively, i.e., the initial two particle state is $`|0_A|1_B`$. During an approach of the traps, Fig. 3(b), the general two-particle state of the system will be:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{00}|0_A|0_B+c_{01}|0_A|1_B+`$ (2)
$`c_{10}|1_A|0_B+c_{11}|1_A|1_B+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=A,B}{}}c_j|0_j|1_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=A,B}{}}c_{ij}|i_j|i_j.`$
Thus, the state of the system includes the four states of the computational basis, but also double qubit occupation, defined as $`\rho _{\mathrm{dq}}`$=$`_{j=A,B}c_jc_j^{}`$, and double trap occupation, $`\rho _{\mathrm{dt}}`$= $`_{i=0,1}_{j=A,B}c_{ij}c_{ij}^{}`$. In order to create maximally entangled states, the approach of the traps must be both, adiabatic and symmetric, i.e, $`a(t)=b(t)`$. Again, adiabaticity means that the population of excited vibrational states, as well as of double trap occupation states, can be neglected, c.f. Fig 3(c). A symmetric approach results in $`\rho _{00}(t)=\rho _{11}(t)=\rho _{\mathrm{dq}}(t)/2`$ during the whole process. In particular, these populations oscillate at the same frequency and, at the oscillation nodes, the state of the system is a combination only of $`|0_A|1_B`$ and $`|1_A|0_B`$. Therefore, choosing appropriate parameter values, such as those of Fig. 3, it is possible to obtain a maximally entangled state at the end of the process. Clearly, it is straightforward to generalize this approach to more than two qubits and, consequently, to prepare multiparticle entangled states in one single step.

Although we have assumed harmonic trapping potentials so far, the experimental situation is described by Gaussian potentials of the form $`V(x)=V_0\mathrm{exp}((1/2)m\omega _x^2x^2/V_0)`$. An analysis of the energy eigenvalues and eigenstates of the superposition of two such potentials as a function of the trap separation shows that the cosine function previously used to adiabatically approach the traps leads to values of $`t_r`$ larger by more than two orders of magnitude compared to harmonic traps. We have therefore applied the techniques from optimization  to optimize the temporal variation of the trap separation while suppressing the population of excited vibrational states. For $`V_0=200\mathrm{}\omega _x`$, Fig. 4(a) shows the result of this optimization for single-qubit operations, where the optimization is done with respect to the symmetric ground and first excited states. We notice that for the minimal distance $`2a_{min}`$ the two traps are no longer separated by a tunneling barrier, but they form a single flat trap. Fig. 4(b) shows the population of the right trap, $`\rho _1`$. The error rate due to the excitation of other vibrational states can be made smaller than $`1\%`$ for $`w_xt_r>1100`$ which is a reduction by one order of magnitude compared to the non-optimized function $`a(t)`$.

Typical trapping frequencies for state-of-the-art 2D optical microtraps arrays of 87Rb atoms are $`10^5`$-$`10^6`$ s-1 in the transverse directions and $`10^4`$-$`10^5`$ s-1 along the laser beam direction PRLBirkl ; BirklOC . In order not to populate excited vibrational states and neglect double trap occupation, the trap displacement has to be adiabatic with respect to the lowest relevant trapping frequency. This adiabaticity condition yields realization times for single and two-qubit operations on the order of $`1`$ ms and $`10`$ ms, respectively. These values should be compared with the typical lifetime of the atoms in the microtraps of $`1`$ s, and the rate of spontaneous scattering of photons from the trapping laser of $`1`$-$`10`$ s-1. The rate of decoherence for qubits encoded in external states is further reduced by a factor of 10-100 due the strong localization and almost harmonic trapping potential echo . In addition, sideband cooling can be used to cool the atoms to the ground state of each trap in all dimensions.

As discussed here, the SDQ configuration with neutral atoms in optical microtraps presents important practical advantages with respect to the use of either internal states na2 ; na  or vibrational states vibrational ; ourQCpaper  to encode the qubit. (i) Spontaneous emission leads to decoherence only in a much reduced fashion. As long as the microtraps are moved adiabatically, atoms remain in the ground state of both the internal and external degrees of freedom for typical gate times. (ii) There is no momentum transfer in single or two-qubit operations as, in general, it is the case when these operations are realized via laser pulses. This momentum transfer could heat the atoms and, eventually, take them out from the microtrap. (iii) There is no need of state dependent interaction to realize the two-qubit operations. In the SDQ configuration one has that $`\left|0|\stackrel{}{r}|01|\stackrel{}{r}|1\right|0`$ and, therefore, we can make use of the fact that all interactions are space dependent to realize the gate. (iv) The measurement of the state of the system is straightforward. Optical microtraps can be separated to distances well beyond $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ which allows to detect the population of the trap by focusing a laser field in one single trap and detecting the fluorescence signal PRLBirkl . Finally, (v) single and two-qubit gates are realized by the same kind of operation, i.e. by approaching the microtraps, which implies a strong simplification in the experimental set-up.

Finally, it is important to note that most of the concepts developed in this Letter can be also applied to quantum dots with the qubit encoded in two tunnel-split ground states and the Coulomb interaction between electrons used to realize the qubit operations qdots ; and to Josephson-junctions based on the charge degree of freedom with the Cooper-pairs tunneling coherently through the superconducting junction Josephson .

This work is supported by the European Commission through IST projects EQUIP and ACQUIRE, as well as through a Marie Curie Fellowship under contract HPMF-CT-2000-00916 (J.M.), and by the DFG (Schwerpunktprogramm ’Quanteninformationsverarbeitung’ and SFB 407). We thank D. Bruß, R. Dumke, T. Müther, A. Sanpera, and M. Volk.


text:
# The doubly heavy baryons

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by RFBR grants ## 00-02-16363 and 00-15-96786.


text:
# High 𝑝_𝑇 identified hadron ratios in √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁}=200 GeV Au+Au Collisions

## 1 Introduction

The PHENIX measurement of high-$`p_T`$ suppression of neutral pions and inclusive charged hadrons reveals flavor dependence in the strength of the suppression . Identified charged particle spectra hint that the difference is due to the unexpectedly high yields of high-$`p_T`$ ($`>2GeV/c`$) (anti)protons that appear to be unsuppressed. Studying the particle composition at high-$`p_T`$ is an important step in understanding baryon production and transport, system evolution, and the interplay between soft and hard processes.

The high statistics $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV Au+Au data set obtained by PHENIX in RHIC RUN-2 and the results from $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV Au+Au data in RUN-1  realized the systematic measurement of the ratio of baryon to meson through the ratios of $`p`$($`\overline{p}`$) to $`\pi `$. The $`\overline{p}`$ to $`p`$ ratios were also measured up to 3.8 GeV/$`c`$ as a function of centrality. This paper reports the results on the high $`p_T`$ identified hadron ratios in $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

## 2 Experimental Setup and Data analysis

The PHENIX detector  has the capability of identifying charged hadrons and neutral pions over a broad momentum range. The charged hadrons are tracked by a drift chamber followed by a pad chamber. Time-of-flight measurement using Beam-Beam counters (BBC) and a TOF-wall provides $`\pi ^{+/}`$ identification up to $`p_T`$ = 2 GeV/$`c`$, and $`p`$($`\overline{p}`$) up to $`p_T`$ = 4 GeV/$`c`$. Neutral pions are measured by an electromagnetic calorimeter via $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay channel over the $`p_T`$ range of 1 GeV/$`c`$$`p_T`$10 GeV/$`c`$. Combining the two techniques, $`p`$($`\overline{p}`$)$`/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios are obtained in the range of 0.5 GeV/$`c`$$`p_T`$3.8 GeV/$`c`$. The acceptance of the PHENIX detectors used in this analysis are $`\pm `$0.35 in pseudo-rapidity and $`\pi /4`$ for charged hadron identification and $`\pi `$ for neutral pions in azimuth, respectively.

Minimum bias events are triggered and classified into centrality selections using BBC and Zero-Degree calorimeters. The trigger efficiency is evaluated by simulation to be 91.4 % of the inclusive inelastic cross-section. The analyzed data set includes around 4 M Au+Au minimum bias events for the charged hadron analysis and 30 M for the neutral pion analysis.

Charged particle spectra were corrected for acceptance, decay in flight and tracking efficiency using a single particle Monte Carlo. Multiplicity-dependent corrections were evaluated by embedding simulated tracks into real events. The $`p_T`$-dependent part of the systematic errors on the measurement of $`\pi ^+`$($`\pi ^{}`$) and $`p`$($`\overline{p}`$) are 7 % and 11 %, respectively . These include uncertainties in particle identification and detector fiducial area cuts. The $`p_T`$-independent part of the errors that are dominated by the uncertainty in the multiplicity-dependent corrections are 14 % and 18 % for $`\pi ^+`$($`\pi ^{}`$) and $`p`$($`\overline{p}`$) for central events, while 14 % and 16.4 % for peripheral events, respectively. By taking the ratios of anti-particle to particle, the $`p_T`$-independent errors cancel out. The $`p_T`$-dependent part of the systematic errors on $`\pi ^0`$ measurement is 20-30 %, and the $`p_T`$-independent part is 9 %. Details on the contributing sources are given elsewhere .

## 3 Results

### 3.1 $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios

Figure 1 shows the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios as a function of $`p_T`$ for 0-5 % and 60-91.4 % centrality selections. The error bars show the statistical errors, and the gray error bands show the systematic errors on the data points. The ratio for central events is almost flat over 0.5 GeV/$`c`$$`<`$$`p_T`$$`<`$3.8 GeV/$`c`$ within the current systematic and statistical errors, while it decreases at high $`p_T`$ for peripheral events.

For a detailed study, the ratios are also evaluated as a function of centrality for four different $`p_T`$ ranges. Figure 2 shows the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios as a function of number of participants which are associated with centrality using a Glauber model calculation.

The error bars show the statistical errors, and the gray error bands show the systematic errors. It can be concluded that the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios are almost independent of centrality within the current systematic and statistical errors.

### 3.2 $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ and $`p/\pi `$ ratios

Figure 3 shows the $`p/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ ratios as a function of $`p_T`$ for two different centralities.

For the $`p/\pi `$ ratio, $`p/\pi ^+`$ is plotted below 2 GeV/$`c`$, and $`p/\pi ^0`$ is overlayed above 1 GeV/$`c`$ to obtain the ratio from 0.5 to 3.8 GeV/$`c`$. The same method is applied for negative particles, i.e., $`\overline{p}`$/$`\pi ^{}`$ below 2 GeV/$`c`$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi ^0`$ above 1 GeV/$`c`$. Lines show the $`p_T`$-independent systematic error bands, and the error bars show the quadrature sum of statistical and $`p_T`$-dependent systematic errors. Both $`p/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ ratios show a clear centrality dependence. In central collisions, they reach to unity at 2$``$3 GeV/$`c`$, while in peripheral collisions the ratios saturate at a level $`0.30.4`$.

Figure 4 shows the comparison of 0-10 % central $`p/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ ratios with the 130 GeV result.

The trend observed at 130 GeV is also evident in the higher statistics 200 GeV data, although the $`p/\pi `$ ratio at 200 GeV is systematically lower. The present level of statistical and systematic errors does not provide a definite conclusion on whether or not the relative proton contribution to the hadron spectra in central Au-Au collisions changes with beam energy. This observation, however, is consistent with the independently measured inclusive charged hadron spectra .

## 4 Conclusion

The PHENIX detector at RHIC measured high $`p_T`$ identified hadron ratios in $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. Within the current systematic and statistical errors, $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratios that are measured up to 3.8 GeV/c are almost independent of both $`p_T`$ and centrality. The $`p/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ ratios, on the other hand, show strong centrality dependence. In central collisions, the (anti)proton yields are comparable to the pion yields at $`p_T`$ 2$``$4 GeV/$`c`$, while for peripheral collisions $`p/\pi `$ and $`\overline{p}/\pi `$ saturate at $`0.30.4`$ .


text:
# How common are Earths? How common are Jupiters?

## 1. How Common are Jupiters? The statistics of massive detectable exoplanets

Long before we detect Earth-like planets we will have a good general picture of the variety of massive planets in planetary systems. Since Jupiter is the most prominent feature of our planetary system, and our knowledge of other planetary systems is still rudimentary, we may, with current data reasonably hope to answer the less ambitious question: How typical is Jupiter? The relevant analysis is now possible because a statistically significant sample is starting to emerge from which we can determine meaningful distributions in mass and period. To quantify these distributions as accurately as possible, we have identified a subsample of exoplanets that is minimally affected by the selection effects of the Doppler detection method (Fig. 1). Within this subsample, after a simple completeness correction, we quantify trends in mass and period that are less biased than trends based on the full sample of exoplanets. Straightforward extrapolations of these trends, into the area of parameter space occupied by Jupiter, indicates that Jupiter lies in a region densely occupied by exoplanets (Lineweaver & Grether 2002). Our analysis suggests that Jupiter is more typical than indicated by previous analyses. For example, instead of $`M_{Jup}`$ planets being twice as common as $`2M_{Jup}`$ planets, we find they are 3 times as common. The latest exoplanet data (detected between January and August 2002) supports and strengthens this conclusion (Lineweaver, Grether & Hidas 2003). Our claims for Jupiter being a typical massive planet are well-defined in terms of $`Msin(i)`$ and period but can not yet include orbital eccentricity since the eccentricity of most exoplanets is larger than the $`0.1`$ typical of our Solar System.

The frequency of Jupiter-like planets may have implications for the frequency of life in the Universe. A Jupiter-like planet shields inner planets from an otherwise much heavier bombardment by planetesimals, comets and asteroids

during the first billion years after formation of the central star. Wetherill (1994) has estimated that Jupiter significantly reduced the frequency of sterilizing impacts on the early Earth during the important epoch $`4`$ billion years ago when life originated on Earth. The removal of comet Shoemaker-Levy by Jupiter in 1994, is a more recent example of Jupiter’s protective role. However, we know so little about the details of the biochemistry of biogenesis that impacts may also play a constructive (not necessarily destructive) role in biogenesis.

## 2. How Common are Earths?

Indirect evidence for wet rocky planets being common includes theoretical inferences from conservation of angular momentum in gravitationally collapsing objects and observations of the ubiquity of circumstellar disks and the appropriate-for-planet-formation time scales of their disappearance from around young stars (Hillenbrand et al. 2002). The high frequency of accreted (not-captured) moons in our Solar System also suggests that satellite formation is a run-of-the-mill product of star formation. Rocky planets appear to be the most natural repositories of the remnant refractory material from high and average metallicity circumstellar disks.

Wetherill (1995) has suggested that Jupiters may be harder to form than rocky/terrestrials because a Jupiter may need a rocky core of $`10M_{Earth}`$ in place very early in order to start runaway collapse of the gaseous (H, He) protoplanetary disk before it dissipates. Apparently it is not easy to develop a rocky core quickly enough. Since we find that Jupiters are probably typical, this implies that rocky/terrestrial planets are even more typical.

Water is probably the most common triatomic molecule in the Universe. The billions of dirty snowballs orbitting the Sun are the remnants of a larger population which, for a billion years, heavily bombarded the inner Solar System, repeatedly adding a wet veneer to the rocky planets. Such cometary bombardments are probably a universal feature of planet formation. Whether these veneers typically last long enough to permit biogenesis depends on the mass, atmosphere and orbital distance of the particular rock. Fig. 2. shows the phase diagram of water and the scatter of the phases of $`H_2O`$ gravitationally attached to some of the rocks of our Solar System.

The most plausible arguments mustered against the idea that Earths are common include the following: planets may not form if erosion, rather than growth, occurs during collisions of planetesimals (Kortenkamp & Wetherill 2000). The present day asteroid belt may be an example of such non-growth. In addition, not all circumstellar disks produce an extant planetary system. Some fraction may spawn a transitory system only to be accreted by the central star along with the disk (Ward 1997). Also, observations of star-forming regions indicate that massive stars disrupt the protoplanetary disks around neighboring lower mass stars, aborting their efforts to produce planets (Henney & O’Dell 1999).

We have been assuming that Earth-like planets are wet rocks. If we define Earth-like to mean only planets exactly like Earth, then of course the more detailed our description the less common such planets will be. The difficulty of differentiating details that are important for biogenesis from details that merely modify the evolutionary path of life undermine the relevance of including precise details in our description of “Earth-like” planet.

## References

Gaudi, S. et al. 2002, Astrophys. J.

Henney, W.J. & O’Dell, C.R. 1999, Astronomical Jour., 118, 2350-2368

Hillenbrand, L.A., Meyer, M.R., Carpenter, J.M. 2002, Astron. Jour. submitted

Kortenkamp, S.J. & Wetherill, G.W. 2000, Icarus, 143, 60

Lineweaver, C.H. and Grether, D. 2002, Astrobiology, in press, available online at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0201003

Lineweaver, C.H., Grether, D. & Hidas, M. 2003, in “Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets” edited by D. Deming et al., in press, ASP Conference Series Vol. 28?

Ward, W. 1997, Astrophys. Jour., 482, L211-L214

Wetherill, G.W. 1994, Astrophys. and Space Sci. 212, 23-32

Wetherill, G.W. 1995, Nature, 373, 470


text:
# KEK-CP-131 Light hadron spectrum with two flavors of 𝑂(𝑎) improved dynamical quarks : final results from JLQCDTalk presented by T. Kaneko

## 1 Introduction

Precise determination of the light hadron spectrum with dynamical up, down and strange quarks is a key step for validating QCD at low energies. As a step toward this goal, we have pursued a systematic calculation in two-flavor QCD using the non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$-improved Wilson quark action . In this article, we present the final results of the hadron spectrum and quark masses from this calculation. A test of the one-loop chiral perturbation theory formula in our lattice data is discussed in a separate talk .

Our simulations were performed at $`\beta =5.2`$, where the scale is $`a=0.0887(11)`$ fm, on $`12^3\times 48`$, $`16^3\times 48`$ and $`20^3\times 48`$ lattices. We simulated five sea quark masses $`K_{\mathrm{sea}}=0.1340`$, 0.1343, 0.1346, 0.1350 and 0.1355, which cover the range of $`m_{\mathrm{PS},\mathrm{sea}}/m_{\mathrm{V},\mathrm{sea}}=0.80`$ – 0.60. For further details of the simulations, we refer the reader to the previous reports  and a forthcoming paper . The main progress after the last conference is that we accumulated doubled statistics (12000 HMC trajectories) on the largest lattice.

## 2 Finite size effects

Finite size effects (FSE) are more pronounced in full QCD than in quenched QCD. Since our largest volume size $`(\text{1.8 fm})^3`$ is not so large, it is important to check FSE in our data.

In Fig. 1, we plot the relative mass shift between the two larger lattices $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=(m(N_s=16)m(N_s=20))/m(N_s=20)`$ for pseudo-scalar mesons and the octet baryons as a function of valence $`1/K_{\mathrm{val}}`$ for each sea quark mass. We see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ is consistent with zero for the whole range of valence quark mass down to the second lightest sea quark at $`K_{\mathrm{sea}}0.1350`$. The size effect becomes visible and increases with reduced $`1/K_{\mathrm{val}}`$ for the lightest sea quark at $`K_{\mathrm{sea}}=0.1355`$.

The wrapping of valence quarks in the spatial directions leading to FSE due to the size of hadrons is suppressed by the center $`Z(3)`$ symmetry in quenched QCD . In full QCD, $`Z(3)`$ symmetry is broken by the wrapping of sea quarks in the spatial directions, whose magnitude increases toward lighter sea quark. A qualitative understanding of the behavior in Fig. 1 would be that the $`Z(3)`$ breaking turns on rather quickly around our lightest sea quark.

The volume dependence of our data is well described by the power law ansatz $`m(N_s)m(N_s=\mathrm{})1/N_s^3`$ . For pseudo-scalar and vector mesons, the magnitude of FSE indicated by this fit is about 3 % at $`K_{\mathrm{val}}=0.1350`$, which roughly corresponds to the strange quark mass, and increases to 5 % toward the chiral limit. However, since the volume dependence is expected to turn into a milder behavior $`\mathrm{exp}[m_{\mathrm{PS}}N_s]`$ for sufficiently large volumes, the actual size of FSE should be smaller. In particular, at strange quark mass, FSE should not exceed a few % level.

Finite size effects are more pronounced for baryon masses. For our lightest sea quark, the magnitude of FSE is about 5 % at $`K_{\mathrm{val}}=0.1350`$ and increases to 10 % for $`K_{\mathrm{val}}=K_{\mathrm{sea}}=0.1355`$. This is comparable with the typical size of the quenching error. Therefore, masses of light baryons such as $`m_N`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ may be affected by FSE.

## 3 Hadron masses

In Fig. 2, we compare the valence quark mass dependence of the vector meson mass at each sea quark mass and in quenched QCD. The full QCD data have a steeper slope than the quenched QCD, and show a better agreement with the experimental points.

The increase of the slope can be explicitly seen in the $`J`$ parameter  shown in Fig. 3. The value of $`J`$, which is consistent with the quenched value for heavier sea quark masses, increases as the sea quark mass decreases. The chiral limit is still significantly lower than the phenomenological value, which may be attributed to quenching of strange quarks.

Finite size effects, possibly present at a few percent level, do not alter these results since masses at larger volumes would show a steeper slope in Fig. 2.

The hadron spectrum at the physical quark mass is calculated using data on the largest lattice. We use $`m_\pi `$ and $`m_\rho `$ to fix the scale and the light quark mass $`m_{ud}`$. The strange quark mass $`m_s`$ is determined from either $`K`$ or $`\varphi `$ meson mass.

Our results for the spectrum are plotted in Fig. 4. The deviation of the meson spectrum from experiment is reduced significantly by the inclusion of dynamical up and down quarks. The strange baryon masses, such as $`m_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, also show a closer agreement with experiment in full QCD. However, sea quark effects are less clear in lighter baryons like $`m_N`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is probably due to FSE, which is enhanced for the lighter baryons.

We make a comparison of $`m_K^{}`$ with $`K`$-input with the CP-PACS results  in Fig. 5. A good agreement with their result in the continuum limit suggests that the scaling violation in our data is small.

## 4 Quark masses

Calculation of $`m_{ud}`$ and $`m_s`$ is performed with the bare quark mass defined through either the vector (VWI) or axial vector Ward identity (AWI). For the latter, we use the improved axial current with $`c_A`$ at one-loop . The continuum $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ quark mass is obtained by the one-loop matching  at scale $`\mu =a^1`$ and evolved to $`\mu =2`$ GeV using four-loop beta function.

It is expected that various systematic uncertainties, such as scaling violation, partially cancel in the ratio defining the AWI mass $`m_q=A_4P^{}/(2PP^{})`$. This is supported by the good agreement with the CP-PACS results in the continuum limit  in Fig. 5. Such a cancellation is not expected in the VWI mass. Indeed there is a sizable difference between our AWI and VWI results, and scaling violation is large in the CP-PACS results.

We therefore quote the AWI masses in Table 1 as our central values. The quark masses decrease by 20 – 30 % in two-flavor QCD compared to quenched QCD. Sea quark effects also reduce the difference between $`m_s`$ with $`K`$\- and $`\varphi `$-inputs. These are consistent with the observation in Ref. .

## 5 Conclusions

We have demonstrated sea quark effects at simulation points in the meson sector using the $`O(a)`$-improved Wilson quark action and plaquette gauge action at $`a^12`$ GeV. A closer agreement of the strange meson and baryon masses with experiment is a natural consequence of the finding. We also observed that sea quark effects lead to a significant reduction of quark masses.

This work is supported by the Supercomputer Project No.79 (FY2002) of High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), and also in part by the Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education (Nos. 11640294, 12640253, 12740133, 13135204, 13640259, 13640260, 14046202, 14740173). N.Y. is supported by the JSPS Research Fellowship.


text:
# On the roots of the cubic defining the Tribonacci sequences

## Abstract

We consider a sequence of sums of powers of the the roots of the cubic equation characterizing the Tribonacci sequences and derive its relationship with a particular Tribonacci sequence. Then we make a conjecture on the possible generalization.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ be the roots of the cubic $`x^3x^2x1=0`$ (see for example , , ). Define

$$U_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{ni}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^j\gamma ^{nij}.$$

We can write

$$U_{n+1}=\gamma U_n+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+1i}+\alpha ^{n+1}.$$

It follows

$$U_{n+2}=\gamma U_{n+1}+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+2i}+\alpha ^{n+2},$$

$$U_{n+3}=\gamma U_{n+2}+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n+2}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+3i}+\alpha ^{n+3},$$

and

$$U_{n+4}=\gamma U_{n+3}+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n+3}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+4i}+\alpha ^{n+4}.$$

We want to prove

$$U_{n+4}=U_{n+3}+U_{n+2}+U_{n+1}.$$

We are going to use mathematical induction. First of all $`U_0=1`$,

$$U_1=\alpha +\beta +\gamma =1,$$

$$U_2=\alpha ^2+\beta ^2+\gamma ^2+\alpha \beta +\alpha \gamma +\beta \gamma =2,$$

$$U_3=\alpha ^3+\beta ^3+\gamma ^3+\alpha ^2\beta +\alpha \beta ^2+\alpha ^2\gamma +\alpha \gamma ^2+\beta ^2\gamma +\beta \gamma ^2+\alpha \beta \gamma =4.$$

These relationships follow from the fact $`\alpha \beta \gamma =1,\alpha \beta +\alpha \gamma +\beta \gamma =1,\alpha +\beta +\gamma =1`$. Then

$$U_3=U_2+U_1+U_0.$$

Now assume that

$$U_{n+3}=U_{n+2}+U_{n+1}+U_n.$$

Because $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are roots of the cubic $`x^3x^2x1=0`$ we have $`\alpha ^k=\alpha ^{k1}+\alpha ^{k2}+\alpha ^{k3}`$, $`\beta ^k=\beta ^{k1}+\beta ^{k2}+\beta ^{k3}`$, $`k=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$U_{n+4}=\gamma (U_{n+2}+U_{n+1}+U_n)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n+3}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+4i}+(\alpha ^{n+3}+\alpha ^{n+2}+\alpha ^{n+1}).$$

Furthermore

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+3}{}}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+4i}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^{n+4}+\alpha \beta ^{n+3}+\alpha ^2\beta ^{n+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha ^{n+3}\beta `$
$`=`$ $`(\beta ^{n+1}+\beta ^{n+2}+\beta ^{n+3})+\alpha (\beta ^n+\beta ^{n+1}+\beta ^{n+2})+\mathrm{}`$
$`+(\alpha ^n+\alpha ^{n+1}+\alpha ^{n+2})\beta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+1i}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+2i}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+2}{}}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{n+3i}.`$
Putting all together our claim is proved. So

$$U_n=U_{n1}+U_{n2}+U_{n3},$$

with initial conditions $`U_0=1,U_1=1,U_2=2`$, as it can be easily seen. Consider the Tribonacci sequence

$$T_n=T_{n1}+T_{n2}+T_{n3},T_0=0,T_1=1,T_2=1.$$

It follows immediately

$$U_n=T_{n+1}.$$

In an analogous way it can be proved that if $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the roots of the quadratic $`x^2x1=0`$ characterizing Fibonacci sequences ($`\alpha `$ is the golden ratio) then

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha ^i\beta ^{ni}=F_{n+1},$$

where $`F_n`$ are Fibonacci numbers

$$F_n=F_{n1}+F_{n2},F_0=0,F_1=1.$$

Conjecture.

Let $`\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ be the roots of

$$x^mx^{m1}x^{m2}\mathrm{}x1=0.$$

Then

$$\underset{i_1=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i_2=0}{\overset{ni_1}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{i_{m1}=0}{\overset{ni_1\mathrm{}i_{m2}}{}}\alpha _1^{i_1}\alpha _2^{i_2}\times \mathrm{}\times \alpha _{m1}^{i_{m1}}\alpha _m^{ni_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}=V_{n+1},$$

where

$$V_n=V_{n1}+V_{n2}+\mathrm{}+V_{nm+1}+V_{nm},$$

with initial conditions

$$V_0=0,V_1=V_2=\mathrm{}=V_{m2}=V_{m1}=1.$$


text:
# ELECTROWEAK BARYON NUMBER VIOLATION aafootnote ato appear in the Proceedings of the XIV-th Rencontre de Blois: Matter–Antimatter Asymmetry, June 2002.

## 1 Introduction

The conditions for baryogenesis in the early universe are well-known (cf. Refs. ):

1. C and CP violation,
2. thermal nonequilibrium,
3. violation of baryon number conservation.

How realistic are these requirements? Well, noninvariance under the charge conjugation transformation (C) and the combined charge conjugation and parity reflection transformation (CP) have been observed in the laboratory. Also, thermal nonequilibrium can perhaps be expected for certain (brief) epochs in the history of the early universe, as described by the Hot Big Bang Model. But no experiment has ever seen baryon number violation, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }BB(t_{\mathrm{out}})B(t_{\mathrm{in}})0`$.

Strictly speaking, we know of only one physical theory that is expected to display baryon number violation: the electroweak Standard Model. The problem is, however, that the relevant processes of the Standard Model are only known at relatively low scattering energies,

$$E_{\mathrm{center}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{mass}}E_{\mathrm{Sphaleron}}M_W/\alpha 10^4\mathrm{GeV},$$
(1)
and, worse, their cross-sections are negligible,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Delta }B0}|_{\mathrm{low}\mathrm{energy}}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w/\alpha ]0,$$
(2)
with $`\theta _w`$ the weak mixing angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w1/4`$) and $`\alpha `$ the fine-structure constant ($`\alpha 1/137`$). Similarly, baryon-number-violating transition rates are negligible at low temperatures, $`TT_c`$, where $`T_c10^2\mathrm{GeV}`$ sets the scale of the electroweak phase transition.

Clearly, we should study electroweak baryon number violation for the conditions relevant to the early universe—that is, for high temperatures,

$$T\text{ }>10^2\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(3)
The problem is difficult but well-posed, at least within the context of the Standard Model.

In this contribution, we focus on the *microscopic* process of electroweak baryon number violation. This means that we must really deal with the fermions \[3–9\].

## 2 First steps

Consider chiral $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills–Higgs theory with vanishing Yukawa couplings. Actually, forget about the Higgs field, which should be reasonable for temperatures above the electroweak phase transition. Natural units with $`c`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`k`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ are used throughout.

Now recall the existence of the well-known triangle anomaly in the AAA-diagram, which occurs provided the VVV-diagram is anomaly-free . Here, V and A indicate vector and axialvector vertices, respectively. (Note the obvious: the triangle anomaly is calculated with Feynman diagrams. In other words, the calculation is *perturbative*, with the interactions “turned off” in the asymptotic regions of spacetime; cf. Sec. 2 of Ref. . The importance of this remark will become clear later on.)

The gauge vertices of the electroweak Standard Model are V–A and the corresponding current must be nonanomalous (gauge invariance is needed for unitarity). Instead, the fermion number current is anomalous  and the baryon ($`B`$) and lepton ($`L`$) number, for $`N_{\mathrm{fam}}=3`$ families of quarks and leptons, change as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)=0,\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)=2N_{\mathrm{fam}}\times \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}.$$
(4)
In the second equation, we have on the left-hand side the difference of certain fermion charges between the times $`t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{out}}`$, and on the right-hand side a characteristic of the gauge field background, also between $`t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{out}}`$. Specifically, this gauge field characteristic is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}N_{\mathrm{CS}}(t_{\mathrm{out}})N_{\mathrm{CS}}(t_{\mathrm{in}}),$$
(5)
where the Chern–Simons number $`N_{\mathrm{CS}}(t)`$ is a particular functional of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field in the temporal gauge ($`A_0=0`$) at time $`t`$,

$$N_{\mathrm{CS}}(t)=N_{\mathrm{CS}}[\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x},t)].$$
(6)
The selection rule (4) shows that the fermion number $`B+L`$ changes as long as the Chern–Simons number of the gauge field changes. But there is an *energy barrier* for transitions between gauge field vacua with different Chern–Simons number (Fig. 1). The top of this energy barrier corresponds to the Sphaleron configuration, which has $`N_{\mathrm{CS}}=1/2mod1`$ (see Sec. 5 of Ref. ).

In a seminal paper , ’t Hooft calculated the amplitude for tunneling *through* the barrier. For this, he used the so-called BPST instanton, which is a finite-action solution of the *imaginary-time* Yang–Mills theory, i.e., the theory in Euclidean spacetime $`(\mathrm{M},\mathrm{g})=(^4,\delta _{\mu \nu })`$. The tunneling process has then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}[A_{\mathrm{finite}\mathrm{Euclidean}\mathrm{action}}]=Q[A_{\mathrm{finite}\mathrm{Euclidean}\mathrm{action}}],$$
(7)
where the topological charge $`Q`$ corresponds to the winding number of a particular map

$$S^3|_{|x|=\mathrm{}}SU(2)S^3.$$
(8)
It is important to understand this last statement. The decisive observation is that any gauge field with finite Euclidean action becomes *pure gauge* towards infinity ($`|x|^2`$ $``$ $`x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}`$, for $`x_\mu `$). Towards infinity, the Yang–Mills gauge field $`A_\mu (x)`$ can then be written as $`_\mu gg^1`$, with $`g(\widehat{x})SU(2)`$ for $`\widehat{x}_\mu x_\mu /|x|S^3`$. Hence, the gauge field at infinity is characterized by $`g(\widehat{x})`$, which corresponds to the map (8). \[Note that the $`SU(2)`$ manifold has the topology of the three-dimensional sphere $`S^3`$, because any group element $`gSU(2)`$ can be written as $`g=\stackrel{}{n}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }+n_41\mathrm{l}`$, with $`|\stackrel{}{n}|^2+n_4^2=1`$.\] The topological charge $`Q`$, now, measures how many times $`g(\widehat{x})`$ wraps around $`SU(2)`$ as $`\widehat{x}`$ ranges over the 3-sphere at infinity. This explains why the gauge-invariant topological charge $`Q`$ of Eq. (7) is an integer. Reference , incidentally, gives the selection rule (4) in the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)=2N_{\mathrm{fam}}Q`$, at least for configurations with topological charge $`Q=1`$. For later use, we prefer to write the relation (4) in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}`$.

The property (7) holds only for transitions from vacuum to vacuum, as far as the Yang–Mills gauge field is concerned. Practically, this means that the result can only be relevant for processes (4) at very low energies or temperatures. As mentioned above, the cross-section is then effectively zero by the tunneling factor (2), but, at least, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)`$ is an *integer*.

## 3 Crucial question

For *real-time* processes at high energies, e.g. in Minkowski spacetime $`(\mathrm{M},\mathrm{g})=(^4,\eta _{\mu \nu })`$, the topological charge $`Q`$ is, in general, a *noninteger*. The reason is that the energy density of a physical Yang–Mills gauge field (with a conserved nonzero total energy) is never exactly zero outside a bounded spacetime region; cf. Ref. . The implication is, of course, that the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)`$ can no longer just have $`2N_{\mathrm{fam}}Q`$ on the right-hand side, as might be expected from the triangle anomaly \[compare with Eqs. (4) and (7) above\].

The question, then, is what *does* appear on the right-hand side,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)\mathrm{which}\mathrm{gauge}\mathrm{field}\mathrm{characteristic}\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}$$
(9)
As will be shown in Section 5, the answer is fundamentally different for dissipative or nondissipative Yang–Mills gauge field solutions. Here, a gauge field is called *dissipative* if its energy density approaches zero uniformly as $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$.

At this point, let us introduce some further terminology . A spherically symmetric gauge field solution is called *strongly dissipative*, if both the (3+1)-dimensional and (1+1)-dimensional energy densities approach zero uniformly for large times ($`t`$ $``$ $`\pm \mathrm{}`$), and *weakly dissipative*, if the (3+1)-dimensional energy density dissipates with time but not the (1+1)-dimensional energy density. \[Note that the (1+1)-dimensional energy density divided by a factor $`4\pi r^2`$ corresponds to a spherically symmetric energy density in $`3+1`$ dimensions.\]

## 4 Spectral flow

It suffices for our calculations to consider $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills theory with a *single* isodoublet of left-handed Weyl fermions. \[A fully consistent $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills theory requires an *even* number of chiral isodoublets , which is the case for the electroweak Standard Model, with $`3`$ isodoublets of left-handed quarks and $`1`$ isodoublet of left-handed leptons per family. The fermion number $`B+L`$ of the electroweak Standard Model follows then from the fermion number of our simplified model by multiplication with a factor of $`(3\times 1/3+1\times 1)\times N_{\mathrm{fam}}`$ $`=`$ $`2N_{\mathrm{fam}}`$.\]

Start from the eigenvalue equation of the corresponding time-dependent Dirac Hamiltonian,

$$H(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x},t)=E(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x},t).$$
(10)
Then, the resulting *spectral flow* $``$ is related to the fermion number violation we are after. The definition of spectral flow is as follows: $`[t_{\mathrm{out}},t_{\mathrm{in}}]`$ is the number of eigenvalues of the operator considered (here, the Dirac Hamiltonian) that cross zero from below minus the number of eigenvalues that cross zero from above, for the time interval $`[t_{\mathrm{in}},t_{\mathrm{out}}]`$ with $`t_{\mathrm{in}}<t_{\mathrm{out}}`$. See Fig. 2 for a sketch and Ref.  for references to the mathematical literature.

## 5 Old and new results on spectral flow

For $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills theory with a single isodoublet of chiral fermions, the “crucial question” of Eq (9) can be rephrased as follows: *precisely which gauge fields lead to nontrivial spectral flow of the Dirac eigenvalues?*

The answer is known \[6–8\] for the case of *strongly dissipative* $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields:

$`[t_{\mathrm{out}},t_{\mathrm{in}}]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}[t_{\mathrm{out}},t_{\mathrm{in}}]`$ (11)
$``$ $`N_{\mathrm{CS}}[\stackrel{}{A}_{\mathrm{associated}\mathrm{vacuum}}(\stackrel{}{x},+\mathrm{})]N_{\mathrm{CS}}[\stackrel{}{A}_{\mathrm{associated}\mathrm{vacuum}}(\stackrel{}{x},\mathrm{})],`$
provided the time interval considered, $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt_{\mathrm{out}}t_{\mathrm{in}}`$, is sufficiently large. Here, the “associated vacuum” at $`t=+\mathrm{}`$ is the (zero-energy) vacuum configuration which the (finite-energy) gauge field would approach starting from $`t=t_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and similarly for the “associated vacuum” at $`t=\mathrm{}`$, starting from $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ but in the reversed direction. The right-hand side of Eq. (11) is then the difference of two integers, even though the relevant topological charge $`Q`$ of the gauge field may be a noninteger.

For strongly dissipative $`SU(2)`$ gauge fields in the electroweak Standard Model, the spectral flow result (11) reproduces the selection rule (4) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{CS}}`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)`$ vanishes, because the left-handed quark and lepton isodoublets behave in the same way, namely with identical spectral flow as given by Eq. (11).

Returning to the simple $`SU(2)`$ model with a single left-handed isodoublet, consider next the *spherically symmetric* gauge field solutions of Lüscher and Schechter (LS), which describe collapsing and re-expanding shells of energy . For three particular cases of these analytic solutions (which are, in fact, “weakly dissipative”), the change of winding number and the spectral flow have been calculated explicitly ,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{LS}\mathrm{case}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(\mathrm{low}\mathrm{energy}):\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}=0\mathrm{and}=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{LS}\mathrm{case}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\mathrm{moderate}\mathrm{energy}):\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}=1\mathrm{and}=1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{LS}\mathrm{case}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\mathrm{high}\mathrm{energy}):\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}=1\mathrm{and}=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Apparently, the spectral flow need not equal the change of winding number, at least for high enough energies with respect to a Sphaleron-like barrier of the potential energy. In other words, the previous result (11) does not hold in general.

The correct relation for the spectral flow in a generic spherically symmetric $`SU(2)`$ gauge field background follows from the existence of *another* gauge field characteristic, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{twist}}`$, so that

$$\left[=\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{twist}}\right]_{\mathrm{spherically}\mathrm{symmetric}\mathrm{fields}}.$$
(13)
Here, $`N_{\mathrm{twist}}(t)`$ is an integer number which can be calculated directly from the $`SU(2)`$ gauge field configuration at time $`t`$. For the special cases considered in Eq. (12), the relation (13) is verified with

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{twist}}& =& 0,\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LS}\mathrm{case}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{twist}}& =& 2,\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LS}\mathrm{case}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
It should be emphasized that the new selection rule (13) has two integers on the right-hand side, whereas the topological charge $`Q`$ may be a noninteger. Indeed, the LS cases 2 and 3 have $`Q=0.70`$ and $`Q=0.13`$, respectively.

For *weakly dissipative* or *nondissipative* $`SU(2)`$ Yang–Mills gauge fields in the electroweak Standard Model, one has thus

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(BL)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(B+L)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_{\mathrm{fam}}\times \left(\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}+\underset{¯}{\mathrm{extra}\mathrm{terms}}\right),`$ (15)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{winding}}`$ as defined by the right-hand side of Eq. (11). According to Eq. (13), there is a single “extra term” for the case of spherically symmetric fields, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{twist}}`$. But, in general, the “extra terms” of Eq. (5) are not known. Note also that the issue of gauge invariance deserves particular care.

## 6 Summary

To our knowledge, there is only one established theory in elementary particle physics for which baryon number violation can be expected to occur, namely the electroweak Standard Model. (Evaporating black holes may or may not violate baryon number conservation. Our current understanding does not allow for definitive statements about the ultimate fate of black holes; cf. Ref. .)

Most discussions of electroweak baryogenesis (cf. Ref. ) have been based on the selection rule (4), which holds in particular for the tunneling process at low energies . As remarked in the second paragraph of Section 2, this relation has first been derived from perturbation theory , with the interactions in the asymptotic regions of spacetime “turned-off.” It is then not altogether surprising that we have found relation (4) to be invalid for high-energy gauge field backgrounds which are weakly dissipative or nondissipative . Of course, precisely these fields are relevant to the physics of the early universe.

At this moment, we have only a partial result for the correct selection rule, namely Eqs. (13) and (5) for the case of *spherically symmetric* Yang–Mills gauge fields. To generalize this result to *arbitrary* Yang–Mills gauge fields will be difficult, but is absolutely necessary for a serious discussion of electroweak baryon number violation in the early universe.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the organizers of this conference for a splendid meeting and J. Schimmel for help with the figures.