text:
# B0850+054: a new gravitational lens system from CLASS

## 1 Introduction

The Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) (Myers et al., 2002; Browne et al., 2002) is a survey of flat-spectrum sources with a flux density in excess of 30 mJy at 5 GHz. 22 lenses have been found in CLASS from a total of 16,503 sources observed. The main aim of this survey is to identify gravitational lens systems. These can be used to constrain the cosmological parameters $`H_0`$ (e.g. Biggs et al., 1999; Fassnacht et al., 1999; Koopmans et al., 2000), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ (e.g. Kochanek, 1996; Helbig et al., 1999; Chae et al., 2002) as well as galaxy mass profiles (e.g. Rusin & Ma, 2001; Cohn et al., 2001).

CLASS B0850+054 has a 5-GHz GB6 (Gregory et al., 1996) flux density of 68 mJy and a two-point spectral index111We define the spectral index, $`\alpha `$, such that $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$. between 1.4 and 5 GHz of $`\alpha =0.2`$, thus satisfying the criteria for inclusion in the CLASS sample. The original 8.5-GHz VLA snapshot (30-s on source) revealed two compact components separated by 0.7 arcsec, with a flux density ratio of $``$6:1. Here we present follow-up observations of B0850+054 in the radio, optical and infra-red which leave little doubt that B0850+054 is a lens system.

## 2 Radio observations

B0850+054 has been observed with the VLA, the Multi-Element Radio-Linked Interferometer Network (MERLIN), the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT). A summary of the observations presented in this paper is given in Table 1.

### 2.1 VLA

The VLA data consist of observations at 5, 8.5 and 15 GHz. At each frequency two channels of 50-MHz bandwidth were used and the target observed for about 10 min. Initial calibration was done with the NRAO aips package and the data were then mapped and self-calibrated in difmap (Shepherd, 1997). The resultant maps are shown in Fig. 1. These show that the source consists of two compact components aligned approximately north–south. As is customary, the brighter of the two components is denoted image A and the other image B. The results of model-fitting to the ($`u,v`$) data in difmap, using an unresolved point (delta) component to represent each image, are presented in Table 2. We also tabulate the flux density ratios, demonstrating that the spectral index of each component is the same.

### 2.2 MERLIN

The MERLIN 5-GHz observations were taken over a period of 9 h, with a bandwidth of 16 MHz, and were phase-referenced. The data were calibrated in aips and mapped and self-calibrated in difmap; a map made from naturally-weighted data is shown in Fig. 1. As with the VLA data we modelfit using difmap and show the results in Table 2. The higher resolution of MERLIN allows a more accurate estimation of the image separation ($`679\pm 1`$ mas) and also allows us to detect signs of resolution in image A. For this reason we fit an elliptical Gaussian to image A whilst still modelling image B with a delta component. No evidence for polarisation of the images has been found down to the noise limit. This implies that the polarisation of the lensed radio source is $`<1`$ per cent ($`5\sigma `$) at 5 GHz.

### 2.3 VLBA

Phase-referenced observations were taken with the VLBA at a frequency of 5 GHz for a total of 12 h. A total bandwidth of 32 MHz was observed in four separate, but contiguous, bands of 8 MHz each. The data rate was 128 Mb s-1. Calibration and mapping took place within aips following standard procedures. Naturally-weighted maps of images A and B of 0850+054 are shown in Fig. 2. Image A is found to have a total length of about 20 mas and consists of a bright “core” region (containing two sub-components of similar brightness) near to its eastern extremity and several bright knots to the west of this. To the east of these sub-components there is a short extension which is most likely a counterjet. As expected for a de-magnified version of A, image B is relatively compact. It is, however, resolved north-south suggesting that with higher resolution the sub-components in the jet could be mapped.

### 2.4 WSRT

In order to obtain a low-frequency flux density measurement of B0850+054, observations were made with the WSRT with its broadband “92-cm” system for two periods of 2 h, separated by about 4 h. Three of the eight 5-MHz bands were affected by RFI and discarded. After mapping and self-calibrating we detected a source of $`50\pm 5`$ mJy close to the position of the target. Due to the very elongated beam at this declination the possibility of confusion with unrelated sources is significant. After searching the 1.4-GHz NVSS (Condon et al., 1998) and FIRST (Becker, White & Helfand, 1995) surveys, both of which detect B0850+054, we identified a $``$14 mJy confusing source 22 arcsec west and 144 arcsec north of B0850+054, well within the WSRT beam. As this source is also detected in our VLA data at 5 and 8.5 GHz, together with the 1.4-GHz flux densities we are able to calculate its spectral index, $`\alpha =0.8`$.

Assuming that the spectrum of this source does not turn over, its flux density at 360 MHz would be $``$41 mJy, thus suggesting that it is contributing significantly to the measured WSRT flux density. We have aligned the Right Ascension reference frame of the WSRT 360-MHz image with that of the NVSS using six sources that are common to both. The scatter in this relative astrometry is less than 1 arcsec and from it we have determined that the WSRT detection lies approximately midway between the NVSS positions of the two sources. Therefore we conclude that each contribute about equally to the combined flux density and adopt a value of $`25\pm 5`$ mJy for B0850+054 at 360 MHz.

## 3 UKIRT observations

Service observations with the United Kingdom Infra-Red Telescope (UKIRT) in $`K`$ band (2.2 $`\mu `$m) were taken on the nights of 2001 March 17 and 2001 March 18 using the UKIRT Fast-Track Imager (UFTI). Both nights’ observations were made using a mosaic mode, each mosaic consisting of nine 60 s pointings with an offset between each of 10 arcsec. A total of nine mosaics were obtained over the two nights. Short observations (20 s) of the standard star FS15 were taken on each night so that the data could be flux calibrated. Data reduction was performed using the UKIRT pipeline analysis tool, ORAC-DR. The $`K`$-band image resulting from the sum of all mosaics is shown in Fig. 3.

We detect an 18.7 mag source at the location of the radio images, but unfortunately the seeing is not adequate to resolve the radio images. From measurements of the sizes of stars in the field we measure a seeing-disc size of about 0.6 arcsec, only marginally less than the separation between the radio components. The source is however extended, with a major axis (FWHM $``$0.8–0.9 arcsec) that is aligned approximately north–south ($`\theta 10\mathrm{°}`$). As this is similar to the orientation of the lensed images it is likely that some lensed emission has been detected. We have attempted to accurately align the radio and UKIRT images by using the position of one of the stars in the UKIRT field that has been measured with the Carlsberg Automatic Meridian Circle (D. W. Evans, private communication). The positions of the radio components are also plotted in Fig. 3. The accuracy of our astrometry is set by the positional accuracy of the Carlsberg star which, with a positional uncertainty of about 150 mas, means that we cannot be certain if most of the emission we see is from the lens or the lensed images.

## 4 Discussion

We have presented radio and infra-red observations of the CLASS source B0850+054. In this section we describe the evidence that leads us to believe that this source is in fact a doubly-imaged lensed system.

The most convincing evidence is provided by the radio data. Our VLA, MERLIN and WSRT measured flux densities at 15, 8.5, 5 and 0.325 GHz, plus the 1.4-GHz NVSS measurement are plotted as a function of frequency in Fig. 4. Below 5 GHz the existing maps do not have the resolution to enable us to separate the A and B images and so only a total A+B flux density is plotted. At frequencies $``$5 GHz the excellent agreement between the radio spectra of A and B is clear and the flux ratios in Table 2 confirm that the two components have identical spectra to within the errors.

Further support for the lensing hypothesis comes from a consideration of surface brightness arguments. As a lens system preserves surface brightness, the weaker image must be the more compact as demonstrated particularly well by the VLBA data. Moreover, the extension of B along the line of the A-B separation is characteristic of gravitational lensing and the lack of detectable polarisation in each image is also consistent with the lensing hypothesis.

A spectrum taken with the W. M. Keck I telescope has measured a redshift for the lensing galaxy of $`z_l=0.59`$ (McKean et al., in preparation), based on the detection of Ca H & K and G-band absorption as well as a 4000 Å break. Also detected is a single emission line which is almost certainly associated with the lensed radio source. The most likely identification for this line is Mg ii ($`z_s=1.14`$) though it could possibly be Ly$`\alpha `$ ($`z_s=3.93`$). Assuming that Mg ii is the correct identification, the image separation together with the measured lens redshift and a source redshift of 1.14 predicts a $`K`$ magnitude for the lens galaxy of 17.9,222Invoking the Faber-Jackson relation (Faber & Jackson, 1976) and assuming that an $`L^{}`$ galaxy at $`z=0.6`$ has a $`K`$ magnitude of 16.4. close to the measured UKIRT magnitude of 18.7. Unfortunately, the present optical data do not provide enough constraints (in particular, the galaxy position relative to the lensed images is unknown) to make any attempt at mass modelling fruitful.

From Fig. 4 it can be seen that the source spectrum has a turn-over at approximately 1 GHz, thus making it a member of the giga-hertz peaked spectrum (GPS) class. Low flux density variability is a generally recognised characteristic of GPS sources, as is low polarisation (O’Dea, 1998) and so B0850+054 seems consistent with the GPS identification. The source is $`<1`$ per cent polarised, and would also appear to be only moderately variable, if at all. Flux density measurements from the VLA and MERLIN data, the GB6 survey and the Parkes-MIT-NRAO (PMN) survey (Griffith et al., 1995), all at 5 GHz, are identical to within their errors. At 8.5 GHz, recent monitoring with the VLA (six epochs over three months) found no evidence for significant variability. Furthermore, an intrinsic size for the GPS source of $``$10 mas (as measured from the VLBA map of image A and corrected for a lens magnification of $``$2, a plausible value) is consistent with the frequency and flux density (also corrected for the lens magnification) of the turnover using the relation found by Snellen et al. (2000) for GPS sources.

## 5 Summary and future work

We have discovered a new lens system during the course of the CLASS survey, B0850+054. It consists of two images of a GPS radio source with a separation of 0.7 arcsec and a flux density ratio of $``$6:1. UKIRT $`K`$-band imaging does not resolve the lens galaxy and the lensed images, but a lens galaxy redshift of 0.58 has been measured with the W. M. Keck telescope.

A priority for future work is the acquisition of a high-resolution optical/infra-red image either with the $`HST`$ or with ground-based adaptive optics. Knowing the relative positions of the lens and the lensed images will enable detailed mass modelling to be undertaken. We also plan higher resolution VLBI observations to look for the substructure in image B that must be there. At the same time we hope to detect motion of the sub-components. There is the exciting possibility, if B0850+054 is really a two-sided object, of being able to measure the advance speeds of the approaching and receding jets, made more easily visible by the lens magnification. When combined with measurement of the relative flux densities of the receding and approaching components, this opens up the prospect of an independent constraint on the Hubble constant (e.g. Taylor & Vermeulen, 1997).

## Acknowledgments

JPM, MAN and PMP acknowledge the receipt of PPARC studentships. LVEK acknowledges grants from the National Science Foundation and NASA (AST 99-00866, STScI-GO 06543.03-95A and STScI-AR-09222). The VLA and the VLBA are operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory which is a facility of the NSF operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. MERLIN is run by the University of Manchester as a National Facility on behalf of PPARC. The WSRT is operated by ASTRON (Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy) with support from the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO). UKIRT is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of PPARC. We would like to thank the support staff of UKIRT with their help with the observations and Dafydd Wyn Evans for his help with the UKIRT astrometry. The W. M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and NASA. This research was supported in part by the European Commission TMR Programme, Research Network Contract ERBFMRXCT96-0034 ‘CERES’. We appreciate the comments of the anonymous referee.


format: text

text:
# Mirror matter admixtures in Ω⁻ two body non-leptonic decays and the |Δ𝐼|=1/2 rule

## A priori mixings in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

To implement the mixing between ordinary and mirror hadrons we have used an ansatz, described in Ref. . Here we shall review it briefly, more details may be found there. Mirror hadrons are assumed to have parities opposite to the ones of their ordinary matter counterparts. There exists a connection between the two worlds which leads to an off-diagonal piece in the mass operator. The final diagonalization of this operator is performed by rotation operators $`R`$ and $`R^M`$ that yield small admixtures of mirror hadrons in the physical (mass eigenstates) ordinary hadrons. These operators are assumed to obey $`U`$-spin type ladder transformation properties and both the ordinary spin 3/2 resonances and their mirror counterparts belong to decuplet $`SU(3)`$ representations (or to 20-plets $`SU(4)`$ representations which include charm). Skipping details, the action of the several $`U`$-type $`R`$ and $`R^M`$ matrices upon these representations leads to a physical $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ with mirror matter admixtures, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}+\frac{a}{2}g_{10}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}+\frac{c^{}}{2}g_{10}^0\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
The coefficients $`a`$ and $`c^{}`$ were defined in Ref. , they belong to the expansion of $`R`$ and $`R^M`$ in terms of $`U`$-spin type operators. Here $`g_{10}`$ is a reduced matrix element between states in the same 10 representation and $`g_{10}^0`$ is a reduced matrix element between states in this 10 and the mirror 10 representations. In order to make connection with our previous work we must identify

$$\sigma =a(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}g_{10}),$$
(2)
$$\delta ^{}=c^{}(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}g_{10}^0),$$
(3)
and then (1) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}\sqrt{3}\sigma \mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}+\sqrt{3}\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
The subindeces $`s`$ and $`p`$ stand for positive and negative intrinsic parities, respectively, and the dots in (1) and (4) refer to other mixings (with strong flavors other than strangeness) which are not relevant here. Our phase conventions are those of Ref. .

We must point out that the identifications (2) and (3) have a parallelism at the quark level . This means that they are necessary if one hopes to ever develop a formulation of mirror matter admixtures starting at this level .

## Two-body non-leptonic decays amplitudes of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

We shall study the decays $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$. They are described by a Lorentz invariant amplitude of the form

$$M(q)B^{}(p^{})|H|B(p)=\overline{u}(p^{})(+\gamma ^5𝒞)q^\mu u_\mu (p),$$
(5)
where $`u`$ and $`u_\mu `$ are Dirac and Rarita-Schwinger spinors, respectively, and $``$ and $`𝒞`$ are $`p`$-wave (parity conserving) and $`d`$-wave (parity violating) amplitudes, respectively. $`H`$ is the transition operator and $`B(p)`$, $`B^{}(p^{})`$, and $`M(q)`$ represent $`s=3/2`$, $`s=1/2`$ baryons, and a pseudoscalar meson, respectively.

In our approach the transition operator $`H`$ is the strong flavor and parity conserving interaction hamiltonian responsible for the two-body strong decays of the other $`s=3/2`$ resonances in the decuplet where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}`$ belongs to. In this letter we shall neglect isospin breaking, i.e. we shall assume $`H`$ is a $`SU(2)`$ scalar.

In order to obtain explicit expressions for $``$ and $`𝒞`$ we need the mirror admixtures in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi ^0`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`K^{}`$. We take them from our previous work , namely

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^{}=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}+\delta ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{ph}^0=\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0\sigma (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^0+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)+\delta ^{}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^0+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_p)+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ph}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_s+\sigma \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}(\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0n_s)+\delta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0+\delta ^{}\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}n_p+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
$$\pi _{ph}^0=\pi _p^0\sigma \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K_p^0+\overline{K}_p^0)+\delta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(K_s^0\overline{K}_s^0)+\mathrm{}$$
(9)
$$\pi _{ph}^{}=\pi _p^{}+\sigma K_p^{}+\delta K_s^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(10)
$$K_{ph}^{}=K_p^{}\sigma \pi _p^{}+\delta ^{}\pi _s^{}+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
The states (4), (6) – (11), and the properties of $`H`$ discussed above, lead to

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}),$$
(12)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}\delta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(13)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}}}+g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}),$$
(14)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{K_s^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(15)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{}}}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_s^0\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}),$$
(16)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Xi }_p^0,\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}.$$
(17)
The constants $`g_{_{M_pB_s^{},B_s}}`$ are the Yukawa strong couplings observed in the strong two-body decays of $`s=3/2`$ resonances. The constants $`g_{_{M_pB_s^{},B_p}}`$, $`g_{_{M_sB_s^{},B_s}}`$ and $`g_{_{M_pB_p^{},B_s}}`$ are new, because they involve mirror matter. However, because of our assumptions they all have common properties. In the isospin limit they are related by

$$g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}},$$
(18)
$$g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=\sqrt{2}g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}},$$
(19)
where the subindeces $`s`$ and $`p`$ may be dropped out. In the $`SU(3)`$ limit one also has

$$g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}},$$
(20)
$$g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}.$$
(21)
## The $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule and other properties of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decay amplitudes.

In the explicit amplitudes (12) – (17) we can now replace the isospin equalities (18) and (19), with the $`s`$ and $`p`$ subindeces restored. Eqs. (12) – (17) become

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(22)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}\delta \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(23)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{6}g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(24)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{6}g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(25)
$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\sigma (\sqrt{3}g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}),$$
(26)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\delta ^{}\sqrt{3}g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}+\delta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}.$$
(27)
We have omitted the subindeces $`s`$ and $`p`$ in the $`g`$’s of the $``$ amplitudes because the states involved carry the normal intrinsic parities of hadrons.

One readily sees that the equalities

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})}=\frac{𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)}{𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(28)
are obtained. This is the so called $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule in these decay modes and applies to both decay amplitudes. The mirror admixtures in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ lead to the results of this rule. However, it must be recalled that in this approach these results are really a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ rule, since isospin is assumed unbroken.

If we now assume the $`SU(3)`$ limit, we can replace (20) and (21) in the amplitudes (22) – (27). In this case one obtains

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=0,$$
(29)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta ^{}g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}),$$
(30)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})=\delta ^{}g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}},$$
(31)
$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{})=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}(\delta ^{}g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_p^{}}}+\delta g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}).$$
(32)
In this limit we see that the parity-conserving amplitudes vanish while the parity-violating ones remain non-zero. This is the same result obtained as a theorem previously . It should be contrasted with the theorem of Hara , valid in $`W`$-mediated non-leptonic decays. This theorem states that in this limit it is the parity-violating amplitudes that vanish and the parity-conserving ones that remain non-zero.

The above formulation with mirror admixtures in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ shows that our earlier result for non-leptonic and weak radiative decays of hyperons  and non-leptonic decays of pseudoscalar mesons  are equally applicable in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ non-leptonic decays.

## Comparison with experiment.

So far our results are analytic. For completeness, it is necessary to verify that experimental results can be reproduced with reasonable values of the several parameters that appear in amplitudes (12) – (17). By this we mean that (i) the a priori mixing angles $`\sigma `$, $`\delta `$, and $`\delta ^{}`$ must be constrained to the values obtained before and that (ii) the Yukawa coupling constants have values comparably close to the already observed ones.

The observables in the three decays we discuss are the partial decay rates and the asymmetries. Their measured values are displayed in Table I. In terms of the decay amplitudes these observables are given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(q^3/12\pi M)[(E+m)||^2+(Em)|𝒞|^2]`$ and $`\alpha =(2|||c𝒞|)/(||^2+|c𝒞|^2)`$. Here, $`q^2=(Em)(E+m)`$, $`E\pm m=[(M\pm m)^2m_o^2]/2M`$, $`c^2=(Em)/(E+m)`$, and $`M`$, $`m`$, and $`m_o`$ are the masses of the $`s=3/2`$, $`s=1/2`$ baryons and the pseudoscalar meson, respectively. In addition we should take into acount the experimental measurement (also displayed in Table I) of the combined decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }\pi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{})`$, which constrains the couplings $`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$. These rates are given by the above formula when one inserts $`=g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}},g_{_{\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0,\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ and $`𝒞=0`$. The restrictions on the a priori mixing angles from hyperon weak radiative and non-leptonic decays are  $`\sigma =(4.9\pm 2.0)\times 10^6`$, $`\delta =(0.22\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$, and $`\delta ^{}=(0.26\pm 0.09)\times 10^6`$. We shall make a $`\chi ^2`$ fit. We have 10 restrictions to form the $`\chi ^2`$ function, the 7 experimental measurements and these three restrictions on the angles.

Our interest here is to explore the possible success of the above formulation of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule. Accordingly, we shall work in the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry limit and use Eqs. (22) – (27). These amplitudes depend on 10 parameters, 3 ordinary Yukawa couplings ($`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$, and $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$), 4 mirror couplings involving mirror hadrons ($`g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}`$, and $`g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}`$) and the angles $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. To avoid confusions we add the subindex $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when the angles are used as free parameters through Eqs. (22) – (27). We shall deal with the mirror couplings following the analysis of Ref. . As was discussed there, the assumption that strong interactions are the same for ordinary and mirror matter allows us to put the magnitudes of the mirror couplings equal to their counterparts involving ordinary hadrons. However, their signs may differ. We must allow two signs in front of each of the magnitudes of the four mirror couplings. This way we have 6 free parameters, the 3 ordinary couplings and the 3 mixing angles, and the signs of the mirror couplings. Our $`\chi ^2`$ fit consists of fitting these 6 parameters to a $`\chi ^2`$ with 10 constraints, allowing for each possible choice for the relative signs between ordinary and mirror couplings. There is no essential difficulty in doing this, although it is a tedious task.

Our best result yields the predictions displayed in Table I. The total $`\chi ^2`$ is 25.16. The 6 parameters take the values, $`g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=4.326\pm 0.401`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}=10.35\pm 1.01`$, $`g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}=7.773\pm 0.592`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Omega }=(5.1\pm 2.8)\times 10^6`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }=(0.263\pm 0.067)\times 10^6`$, and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=(0.215\pm 0.064)\times 10^6`$. These couplings are in $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$. The signs of the mirror couplings of this fit are given by the equalities $`g_{_{\pi _p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}=g_{_{\pi ^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$, $`g_{_{\overline{K}_s^0\mathrm{\Xi }_s^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}=g_{_{\overline{K}_p^0\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_s^{}}}=g_{_{\overline{K}^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}}`$, and $`g_{_{K_p^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_s,\mathrm{\Xi }_p^{}}}=g_{_{K^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$.

## Discussion.

In this letter we have studied how to extend our previous approach to non-leptonic and weak radiative decays to the two-body non-leptonic decays of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. This extension is necessary if one expects that the enhancement phenomenon observed in these decays may be attributed to small admixtures of mirror hadrons with ordinary ones.

Assuming the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry limit, the predictions of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule accompanying this enhancement are reproduced for both the parity conserving and parity violating amplitudes. In the $`SU(3)`$ limit the former amplitudes vanish, as was the case in our earlier work. The fitted values of $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\delta _\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are consistent with the previous values of the mixing angles which we use as constraints, within the errors bars of the latter. This points towards a universality property of these angles, a feature which is necessary if one is ever to be able to obtain these admixtures starting at the quark level. The experimental decay rates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{}`$ are reproduced within $`20\%`$ and $`15\%`$, respectively. While the other observables are reproduced within a very small percentage. The three Yukawa couplings take values that are of the correct order of magnitude, compared to reported Yukawa couplings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}p\pi ^+`$ of $`15.7\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ . Also, these values are consistent with small breaking of the $`SU(3)`$ symmetry relationships (20) and (21). The results are satisfactory.

We have limited our analysis to the validity of the $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=1/2`$ rule in the enhancement phenomenon and not to its breaking. In $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ decays this rule is experimentally observed to be valid within a $`35\%`$ in the quotient of branching ratios of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0\pi ^{}`$, which here is reflected in the above $`20\%`$ and $`15\%`$ deviations (or the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=14.67`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=9.96`$). In the near future, in a separate cover we shall address these deviations.

The authors are grateful to CONACyT (México) for partial support.


text:
# Little helpers for your experiment - NOBUGS2002/013

## I Introduction

Visiting a user facility such as a synchrotron or neutron source for the first time to carry out an experiment can be a overwhelming experience. One of the major stepping stones is to learn how to use the control software for the instrument and how to extract, process and view the data collected. But there are also minor issues such as, how do I find out about the activation of my sample after a two day neutron diffraction experiment. The World Wide Web (WWW) is a great tool to provide documentation that help users to prepare for an experiment and to find answers to common questions during the experiment. While much can be accomplished by static WWW documents, a lot of useful help can be added by including interactive WWW pages. A perfect example are the various interactive pages offered to users by the Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, France at http://barns.ill.fr. Another example is a diffraction physics tutorial prnebi01  which allows students to simulate disordered structures and explore the corresponding scattering pattern. This is achieved by interfacing the diffuse scattering simulation program DISCUS prne97  with a WWW based form allowing students to change various parameters of the simulation.

In this paper we will briefly show how easy it is to add a WWW form interface to a given program and we present three of our own examples. Here we are mainly concerned with the WWW interface, in a separate paper thomas;cabs037  we discuss how old programs can be improved by adding a graphical users interface.

## II Simple example

As a simple example, we will present a WWW based tool that converts temperatures from Fahrenheit to Celsius. The conversion is

$$T_C=\frac{5}{9}(T_F32.0)$$
(1)
The first part is to create the WWW page that contains the form that allows one to enter the parameters, in our case the temperature in F. The HTML code for our example page is listed in Fig. 1.

After the usual HTML header lines, the form is started with the tag form. The field action specifies the location of the script that will process the form input. Obviously one needs to have a WWW server running that allows one to run scripts in the cgi-bin directory. The tag input specifies the input field for the temperature that we want to convert. Note the field name="TEMP" which labels this input field. This label will be used later in the script that is called once the Convert to C button is pressed. The actual appearance of our little form in a WWW browser is shown in Fig. 2.

Next we need to discuss the script that will actually obtain the value we entered in the form, execute the temperature conversion and display the result in the WWW browser. Although one can use a variety of programming languages for the script in question, a very common and easy to use language for this type of scripts in PERL. The listing of the compete script of our temperature converter is listed in Fig. 3.

In the first two lines the module CGI is loaded and a new CGI object is initialized. Next the value entered in the form is obtained using the statement $ftemp=$cgi-\>param(’TEMP’). Note that TEMP is the value of the name field of the corresponding input fiels in the HTML page listed above (Fig. 1). Next we calculate the corresponding temperature in degrees Celsius using Eq. 1. The last four lines of the script produce the HTML output. First a correct HTML header is written, followed by the title and the line containing the result. Finally the HTML document is closed. The output from our conversion script as is appears in a WWW browser is shown in Fig. 4.

Hopefully this simple example has illustrated how easy it is to create interactive WWW pages. As we have mentioned before, a script called by a WWW form can also execute more complex external programs, allowing one to use the WWW as a computer platform independent graphical users interface. Obviously the result can also be in graphical form (see interactive guide on diffraction physics prnebi01 ). There is also a large number of books about creating WWW pages.

## III Examples

In this section we will briefly discuss three scripts that we think are useful to users. The scripts and more information can be obtained by contacting the authors.

### III.1 Activate

Before putting a sample in the beam of an instrument at a spallation neutron source, it is helpful to estimate how active the sample will get as a result of being irradiated by neutrons for the duration of the experiment. Although this estimate is straight forward and in many cases the needed material constants, are listed in the beamline documentation, it is still a barrier to the experimentalist who has to worry about many details of the experiment. To make the activation estimate as easy as possible, we have developed a WWW interface that allows one to enter sample composition, sample mass and neutron beam current. As a result the estimated storage time as well as additional information is listed. The script also displays an extensive help text that aids users to understand the resulting numbers and it also emphasizes that fact that is is a simple estimate and not a details activation calculation.

### III.2 Beam time scheduler

Another common task during an experiment is to estimate a schedule of the experiment taking into account sample cooling and warming rates, measuring time and the time required to change a sample. This helps to determine when the experimenter needs to be back at the instrument to e.g. change the sample and how many temperature points one can fit in the given beam time allocation. However, as things change during the experiment, this schedule needs to be updated and one might need to decide to drop a temperature point or reduce the measurement time. A WWW based tool that aids these estimates is the beam time scheduler. A screen shot is shown in Fig. 5. The tool allows one to specify sample cooling and warming rates as well as the typical sample change time. Then the sample compositions and measurement times are entered. By comparing temperatures and sample compositions, the script determines the total time required for a measurement and calculated starting data and time for each experiment. Once a run is started, the real starting time is entered and all the following times are recalculated. This way one has always am as accurate as possible estimate of the starting times for all subsequent measurements, assuming of course nothing goes wrong. The authors have used this tool many times and found it to be a very helpful tool. The printer format button creates a table suitable for printing and adding to the experiment log book.

### III.3 Experimental data database

The last tool available is a database for experimental data. Although most user facilities have data bases for all experimental data collected, a single research group might collect data at many different facilities. The experimental data data base PDFsearchN is a simple WWW based tool to search a local data base of experimental data. The WWW search tool is accompanied by a check-in and check-out script for those data. The idea is that after an experiment is done, the data and all relevant experiment information are entered. This way the information written down in individual experiment log books become easily available to the research group and finding data several years after they were measured becomes very simple.

## IV Conclusions

The WWW is the perfect way to distribute documentation and interactive tools in a simple and computer platform independent way. Most people are familiar with using a WWW browser and having the information ”on the net” also allows users to learn about a particular instrument before they actually arrive at the facility. Apart from documentation, there are many examples of helpful tools that can be implemented as interactive WWW forms. In this paper we have presented a simple example of a temperature converter, illustrating how easy it is to develop those interactive WWW based tools. We also have shown three simple tools that might be particularly helpful to users of large radiation facilities. Comments or requests for software or more information are welcome by the authors.

###### Acknowledgements.

Argonne National Laboratory is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, BES-Materials Science, under Contract @-31-109-ENG-38. Los Alamos National Laboratory is funded by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.


text:
# Nonlinear response of electron dynamics to a positive ion

## 1 Introduction

The total electric field at a particle in a plasma determines the dominant radiative and transport properties of that particle. The properties of fields due to positive ions at a positive particle have been studied in some detail for both the static distribution of fields  and the dynamics of the electric field autocorrelation function . The latter poses a real challenge since finite charge on the site at which the field is considered precludes the use of standard linear response methods. The corresponding study of fields at a positive ion due to electrons has been considered more recently for the simplest case of a single ion of charge number $`Z`$ in an semiclassical electron gas. The static properties (electron charge density, electron microfield distribution) have been discussed in some detail elsewhere . Here, attention is focused on the dynamics via the electric field autocorrelation function. The case of opposite sign electron fields at a positive ion is qualitatively different from same sign ion fields, since in the former case electrons are attracted to the ion leading to strong electron-ion coupling for the enhanced close configurations. It is difficult a priori to predict the qualitative features of the correlation function due to this inherent strong coupling. Consequently, the analysis here has been based on MD simulation of the correlation function followed by an attempt to model and interpret the observed results. The simulations represent classical mechanics for Coulomb interactions with the ion-electron potential modified at short distances to represent quantum diffraction effects. The details have been discussed elsewhere  and will not be repeated here. There are only three dimensionless parameters: the charge number of the ion, $`Z`$, the electron-electron coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the de Broglie wavelength relative to the interelectron distance, $`\delta `$. The electron-ion coupling is measured by the maximum value of the magnitude of the regularized ion-electron potential at the origin, $`\sigma =Z\mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta `$. In this brief report results are reported for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.1`$ and $`\sigma =0.25Z`$, with $`Z=8,20,30,`$ and $`40`$. The corresponding density and temperature are $`n=2.5\times 10^{22}`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>and $`T=7.9\times 10^5`$ $`K`$.

The primary observations from the simulations of the field autocorrelation function for increasing charge number are: 1) an increase in the initial value, 2) a decrease in the correlation time, and 3) an increasing anticorrelation at longer times. The stopping power for the ion by the electron gas is proportional to the time integral of the field autocorrelation function in the limit of large ion mass . This same integral determines the self-diffusion and friction coefficients in this same limit . The nonlinear dependence of these properties on $`Z`$ is therefore the result of competition between the increase of the integral due to 1) and the decrease due to 2) and 3). The results from simulation show that the latter two dynamical effects dominate the former static effect. To interpret this, a simple model for the field correlation function is proposed such that the initial correlations are given exactly, but the dynamics is determined approximately from a single electron-ion trajectory. The model reproduces well the MD simulation results and suggests an interpretation of 2) and 3).

## 2 MD simulation of field dynamics

The system considered consists of $`N_e`$ electrons with charge $`e`$, an infinitely massive positive ion with charge $`Ze`$ placed at the origin, and a rigid uniform positive background for overall charge neutrality. The regularized electron-ion potential is chosen to be $`V(r)=Ze^2\left(1e^{r/\delta }\right)/r`$ where $`\delta =\left(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/m_ek_BT\right)^{1/2}`$ is the electron thermal de Broglie wavelength. For values of $`r>>\delta `$ the potential becomes Coulomb, while for $`r<<\delta `$ the Coulomb singularity is removed and $`V(r)Ze^2/\delta `$. This is the simplest phenomenological form representing the short range effects of the uncertainty principle . Dimensionless variables are based on scaling coordinates with the average electron-electron distance, $`r_0`$, defined in terms of the electron density $`n_e`$ by $`4\pi n_er_0^3/3=1`$, and scaling time with the inverse electron plasma frequency. The electron electric field at the ion is obtained from the total regularized potential

$$𝐄=_0V(\left\{r_{i0}\right\})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐞\left(𝐫_{i0}\right)$$
(1)
where $`𝐫_{i0}=𝐫_i𝐫_0`$ is the position of the $`i^{th}`$ electron relative to the ion, and

$$V(\left\{r_{i0}\right\})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}V(r_{i0}),𝐞\left(𝐫_{i0}\right)=e\frac{\widehat{𝐫}_{i0}}{r_{i0}^2}(1\left(1+\frac{r_{i0}}{\delta }\right)e^{r_{i0}/\delta })$$
(2)
The dimensionless field autocorrelation function is defined by

$$C(t)=\frac{r_0^4}{e^2}<𝐄\left(t\right)𝐄>.$$
(3)
The brackets denote an average over the classical Gibbs ensemble for the composite electron-ion system at equilibrium.

The results for $`C(t)`$ from MD simulation are shown in Figure 1 for $`Z=8,20,30,`$ and $`40`$. The initial value increases approximately as a third order polynomial in $`Z`$ . The correlation time $`t_c`$ is defined to be the time at which the correlation function first goes to zero, $`C(t_c)=0`$, and is seen to decrease as $`Z`$ increases. Finally, in all cases there is anticorrelation ($`C(t)<0`$) for $`t>t_c`$. The physical basis for the increase in the initial value is easy to understand. As $`Z`$ increases, the electron density near the ion increases and the magnitude of the field increases for these more probable closer configurations. An explanation for the correlation time and anticorrelation is more difficult, and is the objective of the following sections. First, some consequences of this behavior are illustrated.

## 3 Stopping power, friction, and self-diffusion

The case of an infinitely massive ion considered here leads to exact relationships between transport coefficients characterizing three physically different phenomena: 1) the low velocity stopping power $`𝒮`$ for a particle injected in the electron gas, 2) the friction coefficient $`\xi `$ for the resistence to a particle being pulled through the gas, and 3) the self-diffusion coefficient $`D`$ of a particle at equilibrium with the gas. The exact relationship is

$$m_0\xi =\left(\beta D\right)^1=𝒮(v)/v=\beta Z^2r_0^4_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tC(t)$$
(4)
This Green-Kubo representation allows determination of these transport properties from an equilibrium MD simulation. Previous simulations of stopping power have studied the nonequilibrium state of the injected particle, measuring directly the energy degradation . As discussed below, (4) provides the basis for additional interpretation of the results.

Figure 2 shows the dimensionless stopping power obtained from the results of Figure 1 as a function of $`Z`$. Also shown is the Born approximation $`Z^2`$, valid for small $`Z`$. Previous simulations  and some experiments  suggest a crossover at larger $`Z`$ to a weaker growth $`Z^2`$. The data in Figure 2 has been fit to a such a crossover function showing consistency with these earlier results. This behavior is somewhat puzzling in light of the strong growth of the initial value $`C(0)Z^3`$ at large $`Z`$. Making this explicit, the stopping power can be expressed as

$$𝒮(v)/vZ^5_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tf(t),f(t)=C(t)/C(0)$$
(5)
Evidently, the dynamical effects of the normalized correlation function $`f(t)`$ *decrease* the stopping power as $`Z^{3.5}`$ for large $`Z`$. A possible explanation for this is given in the following section.

## 4 Single particle dynamics

Consider again the initial covariance $`C(0)`$ for which three representations can be given

$`C(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{𝐫𝐞}\left(𝐫\right)\left[g_{ie}(r)𝐞\left(𝐫\right)+\frac{3}{4\pi }𝑑𝐫^{}g_{ie}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝐞\left(𝐫^{}\right)\right]}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi Z\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫g_{ie}(r)𝐞\left(𝐫\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫g_{ie}(r)𝐞_{mf}\left(𝐫\right)𝐞\left(𝐫\right)}`$
The first equality expresses the covariance in terms of the one and two electron correlations with the ion, $`g_{ie}(r)`$ and $`g_{ie}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ respectively. The second equality exploits the relationship for the field to the Gibbs factor $`\beta U(\left\{r_{i0}\right\})=Z\mathrm{\Gamma }V(\left\{r_{i0}\right\})`$ and an integration by parts. This second representation requires only the one electron correlation function. The third representation is obtained from the second by an integration by parts to identify the mean force field $`𝐞_{mf}\left(𝐫\right)=\mathrm{ln}g_{ie}(r)`$. The third equality of (6) is similar to the first with apparent neglect of the two electron-ion correlations. However, these latter contributions are incorporated exactly in the mean force field $`𝐞_{mf}\left(𝐫\right)`$. This suggests a corresponding model for finite times

$$C(t)\frac{3}{4\pi }𝑑𝐯𝑑𝐫\varphi (v)g_{ie}(r)𝐞_{mf}\left(𝐫\right)𝐞\left(𝐫(t)\right)$$
(7)
where $`\varphi (v)`$ is the normalized Maxwellian and $`𝐫(t)`$ is a single electron trajectory in the presence of the ion, generated by the potential associated with $`g_{ie}(r)`$ for stationarity. Further details and a justification based on the Vlasov equation will be given elsewhere. Clearly, the initial covariance is given exactly by this approximation. For practical purposes $`g_{ie}(r)`$ and the associated field and potential are represented here by the non-linear Debye-Huckel approximation with effective charge number and screening length adjusted to fit the MD data.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of (7) with the MD results of Fig. 1 for $`Z=8`$ and $`Z=30`$. The agreement is very good, indicating that the dominant $`Z`$ dependence is captured by the initial correlations and the single particle dynamics.

## 5 Discussion

The good agreement of the simple model in the previous section suggests that the decrease in correlation time and build up of anticorrelation can be understood in terms of one electron dynamics. As $`Z`$ increases the probability of close electron ion configurations increase. The electron is subjected to greater acceleration toward the ion and the time to reverse its sign decreases. This is the effect of decreasing correlation time. Once the field has reversed sign there is anticorrelation. Since the closer configurations imply larger field values the magnitude of this anticorrelation also increases with increasing $`Z`$. It remains to quantify this picture but the single electron dynamics appear to provide qualitative confirmation. A more complete discussion will be provided elsewhere.

## 6 Acknowledgments

Support for this research has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG03-98DP00218. J. Dufty is grateful for the support and hospitality of the University of Provence.


text:
# Single Spin Asymmetry in Heavy Quark Photoproduction (and Decay) as a Test of pQCD*footnote **footnote *Talk given at the NATO Advanced Spin Physics Workshop, Yerevan, June 30- July 3, 2002.

## I Introduction

In the framework of perturbative QCD, the basic spin-averaged characteristics of heavy flavor hadro-, photo- and electroproduction are known exactly up to the next-to-leading order (NLO). During the last ten years, these NLO results have been widely used for a phenomenological description of available data (for a review see ). At the same time, the key question still remains open: How to test the applicability of QCD at fixed order to the heavy quark production? The problem is twofold. On the one hand, the NLO corrections are large; they increase the leading order (LO) predictions for both charm and bottom production cross sections approximately by a factor of two. For this reason, one could expect that higher-order corrections, as well as nonperturbative contributions, can be essential in these processes, especially for the $`c`$-quark case. On the other hand, it is very difficult to compare directly, without additional assumptions, pQCD predictions for spin-averaged cross sections with experimental data because of a high sensivity of the theoretical calculations to standard uncertainties in the input QCD parameters: $`m_Q`$, the factorization and renormalization scales, $`\mu _F`$ and $`\mu _R`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ and the parton distribution functions .

In recent years, the role of higher-order corrections has been extensively investigated in the framework of the soft gluon resummation formalism . Unfortunately, formally resummed cross sections are ill-defined due to the Landau pole contribution, and numerical predictions for the heavy quark production cross sections can depend significantly on the choice of resummation prescription . Another open question, also closely related to convergence of the perturbative series, is the role of subleading contributions which are not, in principle, under control of the resummation procedure .

For this reason, it is of special interest to study those observables which are well defined in pQCD. A nontrivial example of such an observable is proposed in , where the charm and bottom production by linearly polarized photons,

$$\gamma ^{}+NQ+X[\overline{Q}],$$
(1)
was consideredThe well known examples are the shapes of differential cross sections of heavy flavor production which are sufficiently stable under radiative corrections.. In particular, the single spin asymmetry (SSA) parameter, $`A_Q(p_{QT})`$, which measures the parallel-perpendicular asymmetry in the quark azimuthal distribution,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _Q}{\mathrm{d}p_{QT}\mathrm{d}\phi _Q}(p_{QT},\phi _Q)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _Q^{\mathrm{unp}}}{\mathrm{d}p_{QT}}(p_{QT})\left[1+A_Q(p_{QT})𝒫_\gamma \mathrm{cos}2\phi _Q\right],$$
(2)
has been calculated. In (2) $`\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _Q^{\mathrm{unp}}}{\mathrm{d}p_{QT}}`$ is the unpolarized cross section,$`𝒫_\gamma `$ is the degree of linear polarization of the incident photon beam and $`\phi _Q`$ is the angle between the beam polarization direction and the observed quark transverse momentum, $`p_{QT}`$. The following remarkable properties of the SSA, $`A_Q(p_{QT})`$, have been observed :

* The azimuthal asymmetry (2) is of leading twist; in a wide kinematical region, it is predicted to be about $`0.2`$ for both charm and bottom quark production.
* At energies sufficiently above the production threshold, the LO predictions for $`A_Q(p_{QT})`$ are insensitive (to within few percent) to uncertainties in the QCD input parameters.
* Nonperturbative corrections to the $`b`$-quark azimuthal asymmetry are negligible. Because of the smallness of the $`c`$-quark mass, the analogous corrections to $`A_c(p_{QT})`$ are larger; they are of the order of $`20\%`$.

In Ref. , radiative corrections to the $`\phi `$dependent cross section (2) have been investigated in the soft-gluon approximation. Calculations  indicate a high perturbative stability of the pQCD predictions for $`A_Q`$. In particular,

* At the next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) level, the NLO and NNLO predictions for $`A_Q`$ affect the LO results by less than $`1\%`$ and $`2\%`$, respectively.
* Computations of the higher order contributions (up to the 6th order in $`\alpha _s`$) to the NLL accuracy lead only to a few percent corrections to the Born result for $`A_Q`$. This implies that large soft-gluon contributions to the spin-dependent and unpolarized cross sections cancel each other with a good accuracy.

So, contrary to the the production cross sections, the single spin asymmetry in heavy flavor photoproduction is an observable quantitatively well defined in pQCD: it is stable, both parametricaly and perturbatively, and insensitive to nonperturbative corrections. Measurements of this asymmetry would provide an ideal test of the conventional parton model based on pQCD.

Concerning the experimental aspects, the azimuthal asymmetry in charm photoproduction can be measured at SLAC where a coherent bremsstrahlung beam of linearly polarized photons with energies up to 40 GeV will be available soon . In the planned E160 and E161 experiments, the charm production will be investigated using the inclusive spectra of the decay lepton:

$$\gamma ^{}+Nc+X[\overline{c}]\mu ^++X.$$
(3)
In this paper, we analyze a possibility to measure the SSA in heavy quark photoproduction using the decay lepton spectra. We calculate the SSA in the decay lepton azimuthal distribution:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{}T\mathrm{d}\phi _{\mathrm{}}}(p_\mathrm{}T,\phi _{\mathrm{}})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{unp}}}{\mathrm{d}p_\mathrm{}T}(p_\mathrm{}T)\left[1+A_{\mathrm{}}(p_\mathrm{}T)𝒫_\gamma \mathrm{cos}2\phi _{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(4)
where $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the angle between the photon polarization direction and the decay lepton transverse momentum, $`p_\mathrm{}T`$. Our main results can be formulated as follows :

* The SSA transferred from the decaying $`c`$-quark to the decay muon is large in the SLAC kinematics; the ratio $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_T)/A_c(p_T)`$ is about $`90\%`$ for $`p_T>`$1 GeV.
* pQCD predictions for $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_\mathrm{}T)`$ are also stable, both perturbatively and parametricaly.
* Nonperturbative corrections to $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_\mathrm{}T)`$ due to the gluon transverse motion in the target and the $`c`$-quark fragmentation are small; they are about $`10\%`$ for $`p_\mathrm{}T>`$1 GeV.
* The SSA (4) depends weekly on theoretical uncertainties in the charm semileptonic decays§§§For a review see Ref. ., $`c\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}X_q`$ $`(q=d,s)`$. In particular,

+ Contrary to the the production cross sections, the asymmetry $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_\mathrm{}T)`$ is practically insensitive to the unobserved stange quark mass, $`m_s`$, for $`p_\mathrm{}T>`$1 GeV.
    + The bound state effects due to the Fermi motion of the $`c`$-quark inside the $`D`$-meson have only a small impact on $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_\mathrm{}T)`$, in practically the whole region of $`p_\mathrm{}T`$.

So, we conclude that the SSA in the decay lepton azimuthal distribution (4) is also well defined in the framework of perturbation theory and can be used as a good test of pQCD applicability to heavy flavor production.

## II pQCD Predictions for SSA

### A LO Results

At the Born level, the only partonic subprocess which is responsible for the reaction (3) is the heavy quark production in the photon-gluon fusion,

$$\gamma ^{}(k_\gamma )+g(k_g)Q(p_Q)+\overline{Q}(p_{\overline{Q}})\mathrm{}(p_{\mathrm{}})+\nu _{\mathrm{}}+q+\overline{Q},$$
(5)
with subsequent decay $`c\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}q`$ $`(q=d,s)`$ in the charm case and $`b\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}q`$ $`(q=u,c)`$ in the bottom one. To calculate distributions of final particles appearing in a process of production and subsequent decay, it is useful to adopt the narrow-width approximation,

$$\frac{1}{\left(p_Q^2m_Q^2\right)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q^2m_Q^2}\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Qm_Q}\delta \left(p_Q^2m_Q^2\right),$$
(6)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q`$ the total width of the heavy quark. Corrections to this approximation are negligibly small in both charm and bottom cases since they have a relative size $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q/m_Q)`$.

In the case of the linearly polarized photon, the heavy quark produced in the reaction (5) is unpolarized. For this reason, the single-inclusive cross section for the decay lepton production in (5) is a simple convolution:

$$E_{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{d}^3p_{\mathrm{}}}(\stackrel{}{p}_{\mathrm{}})=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3p_Q}{E_Q}\frac{E_Q\mathrm{d}^3\widehat{\sigma }_Q}{\mathrm{d}^3p_Q}(\stackrel{}{p}_Q)\frac{E_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}}{\mathrm{d}^3p_{\mathrm{}}}(p_{\mathrm{}}p_Q).$$
(7)
The leading order predictions for the $`\phi _Q`$-dependent cross section of heavy flavor production,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_Q\mathrm{d}^3\widehat{\sigma }_Q}{\mathrm{d}^3p_Q}}(\stackrel{}{p}_Q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2s\mathrm{d}^3\widehat{\sigma }_Q}{\mathrm{d}u_1\mathrm{d}t_1\mathrm{d}\phi _Q}}(s,t_1,u_1,\phi _Q)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi s}}\left[B_Q(s,t_1,u_1)+\mathrm{\Delta }B_Q(s,t_1,u_1)𝒫_\gamma \mathrm{cos}2\phi _Q\right],`$ (9)
are given in . Radiative corrections to the cross section (9) was investigated in the soft gluon approximation in Ref. .

At the tree level, the invariant width of the semileptonic decay $`c\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}q`$ $`(q=d,s)`$ can be written as

$$\frac{E_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}}{\mathrm{d}^3p_{\mathrm{}}}(x)I_{\mathrm{sl}}(x)=\frac{G_F^2m_Q^3}{(2\pi )^4}\left|V_{CKM}\right|^2\frac{x\left(1x\delta ^2\right)^2}{1x}$$
(10)
Here $`V_{CKM}`$ denotes the corresponding element of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix, $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`x=2(p_{\mathrm{}}p_Q)/m_Q^2`$ and $`\delta =m_q/m_Q`$.

Let us discuss the hadron level pQCD predictions for the asymmetry in azimuthal distribution of the decay lepton. In this paper, we will consider only the charm photoproduction at the SLAC energy $`E_\gamma `$ 35 GeV, $`E_\gamma =(Sm_N^2)/2m_N`$. Unless otherwise stated, the CTEQ5M  parametrization of the gluon distribution function is used. The default value of the charm quark mass is $`m_c=`$ 1.5 GeV.

Our calculations of the quantities $`A_\mu (p_T)`$ and $`A_c(p_T)`$ are given in Fig.1 by solid and dashed lines, respectively. One can see that the asymmetry transferred from the decaying $`c`$-quark to the decay muon is large in the SLAC kinematics; the ratio $`A_\mu (p_T)/A_c(p_T)`$ is about $`90\%`$ for $`p_T>`$1 GeV. Note that $`p_Tp_{QT}`$ when we consider the heavy quark production and $`p_Tp_\mathrm{}T`$ when the quantity $`A_\mu (p_\mathrm{}T)`$ is discussed.

We have analyzed also the dependence of the SSA in the lepton distribution on the unobserved strange quark mass, $`m_s`$. Our analysis shows that the LO predictions for $`A_\mu (p_T)`$ are practically independent of $`\delta =m_s/m_c`$ at sufficiently large $`p_T>`$1 GeV. For more details see Ref. .

### B Radiative Corrections

We have computed both spin-dependent and unpolarized differential distributions (9) of the heavy-quark photoproduction at NLO to the next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. The NLO corrections to the width of the heavy quark semileptonic decays are known exactly . We have found that radiative corrections to the leptonic SSA, $`A_\mu (p_T)`$, in the reaction (3) are of the order of (1-2)$`\%`$ in the SLAC kinematics.

Two main reasons are responsible for perturbative stability of the quantity $`A_\mu (p_T)`$. First, radiative corrections to the SSA in heavy quark production are small . Second, the ratio $`I_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{NLO}}(x)/I_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{Born}}(x)`$ is a constant practically at all $`x`$, except for a narrow endpoint region $`x1`$ . (Note that $`I_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{Born}}(x)`$ is the LO invariant width of the semileptonic decay $`c\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}X_q`$ given by (10) while $`I_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{NLO}}(x)`$ is the corresponding NLO one.)

## III Nonperturbative Contributions

Let us discuss how the pQCD predictions for single spin asymmetry are affected by nonperturbative contributions due to the intrinsic transverse motion of the gluon and the hadronization of the produced heavy quark. Because of the low $`c`$-quark mass, these contributions are especially important in the description of the cross section for charmed particle production . At the same time, our analysis shows that nonperturbative corrections to the single spin asymmetry are not large.

Hadronization effects in heavy flavor production are usually modeled with the help of the Peterson fragmentation function ,

$$D(y)=\frac{a_\epsilon }{y\left[11/y\epsilon /(1y)\right]^2},$$
(11)
where $`a_\epsilon `$ is a normalization factor and $`\epsilon _D=0.06`$ in the case of a $`D`$-meson production.

Our calculations of the asymmetry in a $`D`$-meson production at LO with and without the Peterson fragmentation effect are presented in Fig.2 by dotted and solid curves, respectively. It is seen that at $`p_{DT}1`$ GeV the fragmentation corrections to $`A_c(p_T)`$ are less than $`10\%`$.

Analogous corrections to the asymmetry in the decay lepton azimuthal distribution, $`A_\mu (p_T),`$ are given in Fig.3. One can see that the effect of the fragmentation function (11) is practically negligible in the whole region of $`p_\mathrm{}T`$.

To introduce $`k_T`$ degrees of freedom, $`\stackrel{}{k}_gz\stackrel{}{k}_N+\stackrel{}{k}_T`$, one extends the integral over the parton distribution function to the $`k_T`$-space,

$$\mathrm{d}zg(z,\mu _F)\mathrm{d}z\mathrm{d}^2k_Tf\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T\right)g(z,\mu _F).$$
(12)
The transverse momentum distribution, $`f\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T\right)`$, is usually taken to be a Gaussian:

$$f\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T\right)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{k_T^2/k_T^2}}{\pi k_T^2}.$$
(13)
Values of the $`k_T`$-kick corrections to the asymmetry in the charm production, $`A_c(p_T)`$, are shown in Fig.2 by dashed ($`k_T^2=0.5`$ GeV2) and dash-dotted ($`k_T^2=1`$ GeV2) curves. One can see that $`k_T`$-smearing is important only in the region of relatively low $`p_{QT}m_c`$. Note also that the fragmentation and $`k_T`$-kick effects practically cancel each other in the case of $`k_T^2=0.5`$ GeV2.

Corresponding calculations for the case of the lepton asymmetry are presented in Fig.3. It is seen that $`A_\mu (p_T)`$ is affected by $`k_T`$-corrections systematically smaller than $`A_c(p_T)`$.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper we analyze the possibility to measure the SSA in open charm photoproduction in the E160/E161 experiments at SLAC where a coherent bremsstrahlung beam of linearly polarized photons with energies up to 40 GeV will be available soon. In these experiments, the charm production will be investigated with the help of inclusive spectra of the secondary leptons. The SSA transferred from the decaying $`c`$-quark to the decay muon is predicted to be large for SLAC kinematics; the ratio $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_T)/A_c(p_T)`$ is about $`90\%`$ at $`p_T>`$1 GeV. Our calculations show that the SSA in decay lepton distribution preserves all remarkable properties of the SSA in heavy flavor production: it is stable, both perturbatively and parametricaly, and practically insensitive to nonperturbative contributions due to the gluon transverse motion in the target and the heavy quark fragmentation. We have also found that the QCD predictions for $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_T)`$ depend weekly on theoretical uncertainties in the charm semileptonic decays. We conclude that measurements of $`A_{\mathrm{}}(p_T)`$ in the E160/E161 experiments would provide a good test of pQCD applicability to open charm production.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank S.J. Brodsky, L. Dixon, A. Kotzinian, A.E. Kuraev, A.G. Oganesian, M.E. Peskin, A.V. Radyushkin and J. Tjon for useful discussions.


text:
# References

SPECTRAL DUALITY AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXPONENTS
FOR TRANSFER MATRICES
OF BLOCK TRIDIAGONAL HAMILTONIANS

(revised, february 2003)

Luca Molinari
Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Università degli Studi di Milano
and I.N.F.N., sezione teorica di Milano. Via Celoria 16, I-20133 Milano
luca.molinari@mi.infn.it

Abstract:

I consider a general block-tridiagonal matrix and the corresponding transfer matrix. By allowing for a complex Bloch parameter in the boundary conditions, the two matrices are related by a spectral duality.

As a consequence, I derive some analytic properties of the exponents of the transfer matrix in terms of the eigenvalues of the (non-Hermitian) block matrix. Some of them are the single-matrix analogue of results holding for Lyapunov exponents of an ensemble of block matrices, that occur in models of transport.

The counting function of exponents is related to winding numbers of eigenvalues. I discuss some implications of duality on the distribution (real bands and complex arcs) and the dynamics of eigenvalues.

P.A.C.S.: 02.10.Yn (matrix theory), 72.15.Rn (localization effects), 72.20.Ee (mobility edges, hopping transport)

1. Introduction

A tridiagonal Hermitian matrix whose entries are square matrices of size $`M`$ is a block tridiagonal matrix. By denoting $`H_i=H_i^{}`$ the diagonal blocks and by $`L_i`$ the blocks in the next upper diagonal, the eigenvalue equation written in the block components of an eigenvector $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ is:

$`H_i\underset{¯}{u}_i+L_i\underset{¯}{u}_{i+1}+L_{i1}^{}\underset{¯}{u}_{i1}=E\underset{¯}{u}_i`$ (1)
We may view $`H_i`$ as Hamiltonian matrices of a chain of subsystems, each with $`M`$ internal states, sequentially coupled by matrices $`L_i`$. We shall make the only requirement $`detL_i0`$.

Band matrices are in this class, with non-diagonal blocks being triangular. Random band matrices are studied for quantum chaos and transport, mainly by numerical means  or by a mapping on a non-linear supersymmetric sigma model . The block structure is typical of tight binding models, as Anderson’s model for the transport of a particle in a lattice with impurities . Here, the matrices $`H_i`$ are the Hamiltonians of isolated slices transverse to some direction and the matrices $`L_i`$ contain the hopping amplitudes between lattice sites of neighboring slices. Tridiagonal arrays of random matrices were studied in the context of multichannel scattering in mesoscopic or nuclear physics  or as multi-matrix models in the large size limit . For recent reviews of applications of random matrices in physics, see .

The second-order recursive character of (1) makes it useful to introduce a transfer matrix $`T_i(E)`$, of size $`2M\times 2M`$

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{u}_{i+1}\\ \underset{¯}{u}_i\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}L_i^1(EH_i)& L_i^1L_{i1}^{}\\ I& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{u}_i\\ \underset{¯}{u}_{i1}\end{array}\right)`$ (2)
The block components of the eigenvector are reconstructed by applying a product of transfer matrices to an initial block pair. A length $`N`$ of the chain corresponds to the transfer matrix $`T(E)=T_N(E)\mathrm{}T_1(E)`$:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{u}_{N+1}\\ \underset{¯}{u}_N\end{array}\right)=T(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{u}_1\\ \underset{¯}{u}_0\end{array}\right)`$ (3)
The transfer matrix is the main tool for investigating boundary properties of the Hamiltonian’s eigenvectors, or the transmission matrix of the chain coupled to leads. I developed a theory for transfer matrices of general block-tridiagonal Hamiltonians in . Recently the formalism was applied to transport in nanotubes and molecules and generalized to allow for non-invertible off-diagonal blocks .

In this paper I describe some interesting consequences of a nice algebraic identity involving the characteristic polynomials of the two matrices . Though this spectral duality holds in general, I here restrict to Hermitian block tridiagonal matrices because of their relevance in physics.

For a chain of length $`N`$ we must provide boundary conditions. With periodic boundary conditions we require $`L_0=L_N`$ for Hermiticity and $`\underset{¯}{u}_0=\underset{¯}{u}_N`$, $`\underset{¯}{u}_{N+1}=\underset{¯}{u}_1`$. However, it turns to be very convenient to allow for a complex Bloch parameter:

$`\underset{¯}{u}_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\underset{¯}{u}_N,\underset{¯}{u}_{N+1}=z\underset{¯}{u}_1`$ (4)
Therefore the Hamiltonian matrix is block-tridiagonal with corners:

$`(z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_1& L_1& & & & & \frac{1}{z}L_N^{}\\ L_1^{}& H_2& L_2& & & & \\ & L_2^{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & \\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& L_{N1}\\ zL_N& & & & & L_{N1}^{}& H_N\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
It is Hermitian only for $`|z|=1`$. Boundary conditions with $`z=e^{i\phi }`$ arise when decomposing the eigen-problem (1) for an infinite periodic chain of period $`N`$ in the eigen-spaces of the $`N`$-block translation operator, as well as in the topology of a $`N`$-site ring with a magnetic flux through it. In general it is:

$`(z)^{}=(1/z^{})`$ (6)
Non Hermitian tridiagonal matrices ($`M=1`$), with $`z=e^{Ng}`$ and $`g0`$, were introduced by Hatano and Nelson  in a study on vortex depinning in superconductors which promoted a burst of research, see for example . Spectral properties were analyzed in greater detail by Goldsheid and Khoruzhenko  who proved that, for $`g>g_{cr}`$, eigenvalues corresponding to extended states begin to migrate in the complex plane and distribute along the level curve of the single Lyapunov exponent of the model: $`\gamma (E)=g`$. Two wings of real eigenvalues correspond to exponentially localized eigenvectors, that are insensitive to the boundary.

These features also appear in the more difficult case of block matrices. For $`|z|`$ sufficiently greater or smaller than unity, the block matrix develops complex eigenvalues which are seen numerically to distribute along lines. The eigenvalues of an eptadiagonal matrix (M=3) with diagonal disorder and unit hopping amplitudes, are shown in Fig.2.

It is intuitive that there is a connection between boundary properties of eigenvectors, which are described by the transfer matrix, and the response of energy eigenvalues to variations of boundary conditions: namely, the Landauer and Thouless approaches to transport. This intuition has a formulation in the spectral duality.

After a short review of duality (section 2), I derive several analytic properties of the exponents of a single transfer matrix (section 3). In particular, I evaluate the counting function of exponents as the winding number of trajectories of eigenvalues of the source block matrix. In section 4, I use duality to describe qualitatively the distribution and dynamics of eigenvalues of Hermitian and non-Hermitian block-tridiagonal matrices.

2. Spectral Duality

In this section I review some basic properties of a transfer matrix $`T(E)`$ of a chain of length $`N`$, with $`L_0=L_N`$ .

$`T(E)`$ is a matrix polynomial in $`E`$ of degree $`N`$, with a non-zero determinant independent of $`E`$ and of diagonal blocks $`H_i`$:

$`detT(E)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{detL_i^{}}{detL_i}}`$ (7)
The block structure of the Hamiltonian and the corresponding factorization of the transfer matrix, makes a typical property of transfer matrices apparent:

Proposition 1: the symplectic property.

$`T(E^{})^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_NT(E)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_N,\mathrm{\Sigma }_N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& L_N^{}\\ L_N& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
Proof: it is a consequence of $`L_0=L_N`$ and of the factorization of $`T(E)`$ into a product of matrices $`T_k(E)`$, whose inverse is: $`T_k(E)^1=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k1}^1T_k(E^{})^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. $``$

Corollary: if $`z`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T(E)`$, then $`1/z^{}`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T(E^{})`$.

For real $`E`$, both $`z`$ and $`1/z^{}`$ are in the spectrum of $`T(E)`$. If $`T(E^{})=T(E)^{}`$, then both $`z`$ and $`1/z`$ are in the spectrum of $`T(E)`$.

These statements summarize in the useful identity:

$`det[T(E)z]=z^{2M}detT(0)det[T(E^{})1/z^{}]^{}`$ (9)
Let $`\underset{¯}{u}`$, with blocks $`\underset{¯}{u}_1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{u}_N`$, be an eigenvector of $`(z)`$ with eigenvalue $`E`$. Then, by eq. (3) and after imposing the boundary conditions (4):

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}z\underset{¯}{u}_1\\ \underset{¯}{u}_N\end{array}\right)=T(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}\underset{¯}{u}_1\\ 1/z\underset{¯}{u}_N\end{array}\right)`$ (10)
which means that $`z`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T(E)`$ with an eigenvector of blocks $`z\underset{¯}{u}_1`$ and $`\underset{¯}{u}_N`$. However the converse is true: given an eigenvector of T(E) with eigenvalue $`z`$ one reconstructs via products of matrices $`T_k(E)`$ the whole eigenvector of $`(z)`$ with eigenvalue $`E`$. Therefore $`det[E(z)]=0`$ if and only if $`det[T(E)z]=0`$; this duality among eigenvalues is made precise as an identity among characteristic polynomials :

Proposition 2: the spectral duality.

$`det[E(z)]=(z)^Mdet[L_1L_2\mathrm{}L_N]det[T(E)z]`$ (11)
Proof: we must show that $`det[T(E)z]`$ is a polynomial in $`E`$ of degree $`NM`$ with leading coefficient $`(z)^Mdet[L_1\mathrm{}L_N]^1`$. To this end, we first consider the leading terms in $`E`$ of both sides of eq.(9): the equality implies that the leading term of $`det[T(E)z]`$ is proportional to $`z^M`$. Next we derive the following leading block stucture of $`T(E)`$:

$$T(E)\left(\begin{array}{cc}E^NQ& E^{N1}QL_N^{}\\ E^{N1}L_NQ& E^{N2}L_NQL_N^{}\end{array}\right),Q=(L_1\mathrm{}L_N)^1$$

The leading term in $`E`$ of $`det[T(E)zI]`$ with the constraint of being proportional to $`z^M`$, is provided by the diagonal factors $`det(E^NQ)`$ and $`det(zI)`$. $``$

Corollary: If Im$`E0`$ then $`T(E)`$ has no eigenvalues on the unit circle.

Proof: for $`|z|=1`$ the matrix $`(z)`$ is Hermitian, and for $`\mathrm{Im}E0`$ it is always $`det[E(z)]0`$. By duality, this implies $`det[T(E)z]0`$. $``$

Notes: in  I provided a representation of $`T(E)z`$ in terms of the corner blocks of the resolvent of $`(z)`$. I also state the spectral duality for the matrix $`T^{}T`$.

In the tridiagonal case ($`M=1`$), blocks are numbers. If $`\lambda =L_1\mathrm{}L_N`$ the spectral duality simplifies to the known expression

$`det[E(z)]=\lambda \mathrm{tr}T(E)\lambda z\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}`$ (12)
3. The spectrum of exponents

Let us fix $`E`$ real or complex and denote as $`z_a(E)=e^{\xi _a+i\phi _a}`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}2M`$, the eigenvalues of $`T(E)`$. The real numbers $`\xi _a(E)`$ are the exponents of the transfer matrix. For real $`E`$ the symplectic property (8) assures that exponents come in pairs $`\pm \xi _a(E)`$.

The property $`|detT(E)|=1`$, see (7), implies:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}\xi _a(E)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ (13)
When considering an ensemble of random Hamiltonian matrices with tridiagonal block structure, one is often interested in the corresponding ensemble of transfer matrices. Being a product of $`N`$ random matrices, a transfer matrix develops exponents $`\xi _a(E)`$ that asymptotically grow linearly in the length $`N`$ , with a coefficient known as the Lyapunov exponent:

$`\gamma _a(E)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\xi _a(E)`$ (14)
For tridiagonal random matrices there is just one pair of opposite Lyapunov exponents, that can be evaluated with the Herbert-Jones-Thouless formula , with the knowledge of the average density of eigenvalues:

$$\gamma (E)=const+𝑑E^{}\rho (E^{})\mathrm{log}|EE^{}|$$

The extension to a complex value $`E`$ is discussed in .

For the Anderson model  or Band Random Matrices  there are several numerical studies of Lyapunov spectra. In these cases of great physical interest, transfer matrices are derived from the Hamiltonians and the analytic approach is difficult.

It is interesting that an analytic formula relating the distribution of the exponents to the spectrum of the Hamiltonian is possible. Note that the following statements are true for a single and general block-tridiagonal Hamiltonian.

We shall deduce several results from

Proposition 3:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}|det[E(e^{\xi +i\phi })]|={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{log}|detL_i|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}|\xi \xi _a(E)|`$ (15)
Proof: The duality relation (11) gives:

$`\mathrm{log}|det[E(e^{\xi +i\phi })]|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{log}|detL_i|=`$
$`=M\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}\mathrm{log}|e^{\xi _a+i\phi _a}e^{\xi +i\phi }|^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}\{\xi _a+\mathrm{log}[2\mathrm{cosh}(\xi _a\xi )2\mathrm{cos}(\phi _a\phi )]\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}|\xi _a\xi |{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}(\phi _a\phi )}{\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{}|\xi _a\xi |}`$ (16)
We used eq.(13) and the formula (see eq. 1.448.2 in ):

$$\mathrm{log}[2\mathrm{cosh}x2\mathrm{cos}y]=|x|2\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}y}{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{}|x|}$$

Eq. (16) is the Fourier expansion of $`\mathrm{log}|det[E(e^{\xi +i\phi })]|`$, which is a periodic function of $`\phi `$. The constant mode is just the proposition. $``$

In the special case $`\xi =0`$, the matrix $`(e^{i\phi })`$ is Hermitian, and (15) yields a formula for the sum of positive exponents ($`E`$ can be complex):

Proposition 4:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\xi _a>0}{}}\xi _a(E)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{log}|detL_i|+{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}|det(E(e^{i\phi }))|`$ (17)
By taking the derivative in $`\xi `$ of (15) we obtain the spectral counting function, which counts the exponents less than $`\xi `$, for any complex value $`E`$;

$`𝒩(\xi _a(E)\xi )={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{2M}{}}}\theta (\xi \xi _a(E))=`$ (18)
$`M+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}|det[E(e^{\xi +i\phi })]|`$ (19)
We now write $`|det[E(z)]|`$ in terms of the eigenvalues $`E_n(z)`$ and their complex conjugate, which equal $`E_n(1/z^{})`$, and evaluate the derivative:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\xi }}\mathrm{log}|det[E(e^{\xi +i\phi })]|=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_n(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n(z)}{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}E_n(z)^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n(z)^{}}{\xi }}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_n(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n(z)}{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}E_n(z)^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n(z)^{}}{\phi }}\right)`$ (20)
Let us denote with $`N_+(E)`$ and $`N_{}(E)`$ the numbers of positive and negative exponents of $`T(E)`$. We have:

Proposition 5: $`N_+(E)=N_{}(E)`$

Proof: for real $`E`$ we know that the exponents come in pairs $`\pm \xi _a(E)`$, because of proposition 1. Let us consider the case $`ImE0`$.

As a consequence of duality we derived that no eigenvalue of $`T(E)`$ is on the unit circle, thus all exponents are non-zero: $`N_{}+N_+=2M`$. Therefore, if we set $`\xi =0`$ in (19), the left term is $`N_{}`$. We now show that $`N_{}=M`$ or, equivalently, that the integral in (19) vanishes for $`\xi =0`$. In the expression (20) the eigenvalues $`E_n(e^{i\phi })`$ are real periodic functions of $`\phi `$ in $`[0,2\pi ]`$, then

$`N_{}(E)M={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{NM}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_n}{d\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}E}{(\mathrm{Re}EE_n)^2+(\mathrm{Im}E)^2}}=0`$
As a function of $`\phi `$ ($`\xi `$ is fixed) an eigenvalue $`E_n(e^{\xi +i\phi })`$ makes a loop $`\gamma _n`$ in the complex $`E`$ plane. The loop $`\gamma _n^{}`$ of $`E_n^{}`$ is specular with respect respect of the real axis. Integration in $`\phi `$ of (20) yields Cauchy integrals

$`𝒩(\xi _a(E)<\xi )=M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left({\displaystyle _{\gamma _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE^{}}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}E}}{\displaystyle _{\gamma _n^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE^{}}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E^{}E^{}}}\right)`$
The first integral is the winding number of the (oriented) trajectory $`\gamma _n`$ of $`E_n(e^{\xi +i\phi })`$ around the value $`E`$. The second integral is the winding number of $`\gamma _n^{}`$ around $`E^{}`$ and has opposite sign because of opposite orientation.

We then obtain a nice geometric result:

Proposition 6: $`𝒩(\xi _a(E)<\xi )=M+𝒲(E)`$

The number of exponents of $`T(E)`$ less than $`\xi `$ equals $`M`$ plus the total winding number of loops of eigenvalues $`E_n(e^{\xi +i\phi })`$, $`\pi <\phi <\pi `$, that encircle $`E`$

As I said, these formulae hold for a single general block tridiagonal Hamiltonian matrix and its transfer matrix. For a statistical ensemble of Hamiltonians one performs ensemble averages in place of a phase average, and deals with Lyapunov exponents. Souillard  obtained the following formula for the positive Lyapunov exponents, which is the statistical analogue of (17):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\gamma _a(E)=const.+{\displaystyle 𝑑E^{}\rho (E^{})\mathrm{log}|EE^{}|}`$ (21)
$`\rho (E)`$ is the ensemble averaged spectral density of the Hermitian Hamiltonians. I am not aware of any statistical analogue of (19).

4. Bands, arcs and energy level motion.

Spectral duality provides information on the positions of the eigenvalues of $`(z)`$ and their motion under variations of the boundary parameter $`z`$.

It is useful to introduce the notion of discriminant. If $`z_a(E)`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T(E)`$, the discriminant is the eigenvalue of $`T(E)+T(E)^1`$ with same eigenvector:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)=z_a(E)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_a(E)}}=2\mathrm{cosh}\xi _a\mathrm{cos}\phi _a+2i\mathrm{sinh}\xi _a\mathrm{sin}\phi _a`$ (22)
Since the symplectic property implies that $`1/z_a^{}`$ is an eigenvalue of $`T(E^{})`$, it is, in general:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)^{}`$ (23)
Let us begin with the simpler case where $`H_i`$, $`L_i`$ are real matrices. Then $`T(E^{})=T(E)^{}`$ and the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix come in pairs $`z_a`$ and $`1/z_a`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}M`$. Moreover, if $`E`$ is real the characteristic polynomial of $`T(E)`$ has real coefficients and roots come also in pairs $`z_a`$, $`z_a^{}`$.

The spectral duality reads:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\left[\left(z_a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_a}}\right)\left(z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\right)\right]=det[L_1\mathrm{}L_n]^1det[E(z)]`$ (24)
Therefore the $`M`$ equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)=z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}`$ (25)
provide the $`NM`$ eigenvalues of $`(z)`$, which are naturally classified in subsets with label $`a`$. We consider two cases: $`|z|=1`$ and $`z`$ real.

When $`z=e^{i\phi }`$ all eigenvalues of $`(e^{i\phi })`$ are real periodic functions of $`\pi \phi <\pi `$. Each equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)=2\mathrm{cos}\phi `$ provides a number $`n_a0`$ of real solutions, and $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_M=NM`$. This means that $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)`$, as a function of the real variable $`E`$, crosses $`n_a`$ times the strip $`2y2`$ parallel to the $`E`$ axis. No extrema are allowed in the strip, for all branches must cut $`n_a`$ times the lines $`y=2\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, to ensure that $`(e^{i\phi })`$ has $`NM`$ real eigenvalues for all $`\phi `$. All branches of the functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)`$ cross their bands in the eigenvalues of $`(i)`$. See Fig. 1.

By changing $`\phi `$ the eigenvalues span bands in the real axis

$$E=E_{a,j}(\phi )a=1\mathrm{}M,j=1\mathrm{}n_a$$

with extrema given by the eigenvalues of the periodic ($`\phi =0`$) and antiperiodic ($`\phi =\pi `$) Hamiltonians. The velociy of level motion is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{\phi }}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\phi }{\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{}(E)}}`$ (26)
In the turning points the velocity vanishes. The second derivative is known as the curvature . This dynamics is invariant under the “time-reversal” operation $`\phi \phi `$, corresponding to the transposition of the Hamiltonian matrix.

Bands with same label $`a`$ may at most share an extremum, while bands related to different $`a`$ may overlap.

When a branch of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ and a branch of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{}`$ cross inside the strip in a point $`(E,2\mathrm{cos}\phi )`$, there is a crossing of two eigenvalues of $`(e^{i\phi })`$ (and a collision of two pairs of eigenvalues of $`T(E)`$ in the unit circle). This is a highly non-generic occurrence for one-parameter Hermitian matrices.

Energy bands of Hermitian periodic tridiagonal matrices ($`M=1`$) were studied in

Fig.1 Energy bands of a pentadiagonal matrix (M=2), solution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)=2\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, $`a=1,2`$, $`\pi \phi <\pi `$.

When $`z=e^{Ng}`$, with $`g0`$, the matrix $`(z)`$ is real. The equations $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)=2\mathrm{cosh}(Ng)`$ provide all $`NM`$ eigenvalues in subsets labelled by $`a`$. They imply the equation $`\xi _a(E)=\pm Ng`$. For finite $`g`$ and large $`N`$, given that the exponents grow linearly in $`N`$ with a coefficient that defines the Lyapunov exponent, the eigenvalues of the non-Hermitian matrix $`(z)`$ distribute along $`M`$ level lines

$`\gamma _a(E)=g`$ (27)
The distribution along arcs is shown in Fig. 2, for large $`z`$. For small $`z`$ the pattern of the eigenvalue distribution is complicate and intertwined.

For $`g`$ small enough, in continuity with the description given for the periodic case, the eigenvalues still belong to the real axis, outside their periodicity bands. By increasing $`g`$, eigenvalues with the same label $`a`$ pairwise approach until a pair condenses. Correspondingly, an extremum is reached for the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)`$ and the pair of eigenvalues acquires opposite imaginary parts. There is a critical value $`g_a`$ of $`g`$ for this to happen for each label $`a`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{}(E_a)=0\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E_a)=2\mathrm{cosh}(Ng_a)`$ (28)
Fig.2 The 600 eigenvalues of an eptadiagonal matrix (M=3, N=200), with diagonal uniform disorder $`|a_i|<0.5`$, unit off-diagonal elements, and $`z=20`$ (left), $`z=390`$ (right).

Finally, let us mention the case where $`H_i=H_i^{}`$ and $`L_i`$ are not real matrices. Another spectral identity is needed, which follows from spectral duality and the symplectic property . It holds for any value of $`z`$ or $`E`$ in the complex plane:

$`det[T(E)+T(E)^1(z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}})]=|detL_1\mathrm{}L_n|^2det[E(z)]det[E({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}})]`$ (29)
For $`z=e^{i\phi }`$ the right side is zero in $`2NM`$ real solutions, $`E_i(\phi )`$ and $`E_i(\phi )`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}NM`$, that span the same $`NM`$ bands as $`\phi `$ varies in $`\pi ,\pi `$. They are degenerate in $`\phi =0`$ ($`y=2`$) and $`\phi =\pi `$ ($`y=2`$).

The strip $`2y2`$ is thus crossed by $`2NM`$ branches $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }_a(E)`$ which join pairwise at the boundaries $`y=\pm 2`$ of the strip. Each pair, when intersected with the line $`y=2\mathrm{cos}\phi `$, determines the same band which the eigenvalue $`E(\phi )`$ covers with different speeds in the two directions.

For $`z=\pm e^{Ng}`$ we have again condensation of pairs of eigenvalues, which no longer become complex conjugate pairs. For large $`N`$ the eigenvalues move into $`M`$ level curves $`\gamma _a(E)=g`$ (the case $`g<0`$ leads to a different set of curves since in this case Lyapunov exponents need not be opposite pairs).

Conclusion

The spectral duality is a simple identity that links the eigenvalues of a matrix with block-tridiagonal structure to those of the corresponding transfer matrix. I have deduced some analytic properties for the exponents (sum of exponents, $`N_+=N_{}`$, counting function). They involve a phase average on eigenvalues of the block-matrix.

The large $`N`$ stability of exponents allows to describe the distribution of complex eigenvalues of the block matrix along arcs. Discriminants classify real eigenvalues (periodic case) in bands, and govern their motion and collisions.

These exact properties are hoped to allow a more analytic approach to the difficult study of Lyapunov spectra of transfer matrices, that are derived from an ensemble of random Hamiltonians. They also extend to block matrices some results which were known for purely tridiagonal matrices.