text:
# Effects of nonlocality in time of interactions of an atom with its surroundings on the broadening of spectral lines of atoms

## Abstract

We investigate effects of nonlocality in time of the interaction of an atom with its surroundings on the spectral line broadening. We show that these effects can be very significant: In some cases nonlocality in time of this interaction can give rise to a spectral line splitting.

PACS: 03.65.Bz; 32.70.Jz; 31.70.Hq.

Separation of scales plays an important role in many problems of physics because it allows one to select relevant degrees of freedom and to describe a quantum system only in their terms. Integrating out other degrees of freedom results in nonlocality in time of the interaction in this system. As is well known, the dynamics of such a system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation, since this equation is local in time, and interaction Hamiltonians describe instantaneous interactions. At the same time, in Ref.  it has been shown that the Schrödinger equation is not the most general dynamical equation consistent with the current concepts of quantum physics, and a more general equation of motion has been derived as a consequence of the Feynman  and canonical approaches to quantum theory. Being equivalent to the Schrödinger equation in the case of instantaneous interactions, this generalized dynamical equation permits the generalization to the case where the dynamics of a quantum system is generated by a nonlocal-in-time interaction. It has been shown  that the generalized quantum dynamics (GQD) developed in this way may be an important tool for solving various problems in quantum theory.

An invaluable tool for computing physical quantities in the theories with disparate energy scales are effective field theories (EFT’s) . Following the pioneering work of Weinberg , the EFT of nuclear forces has become very popular in nuclear physics (for a rewiew, see ). To describe low energy processes involving nucleons and pions, all operators consistent with the symmetries of QCD are included in an effective Lagrangian. A fundamental difficulty is that such Lagrangians yield graphs which are divergent, and give rise to singular quantum mechanical potentials. These potentials do not satisfy the requirements of ordinary quantum mechanics and need to be regulated, and renormalization must be performed. In this way one can successfully perform calculations of many quantities in nuclear physics. However, in such a way one cannot parametrize the $`NN`$ interaction by using some Hamiltonian, and there are not any equations for renormalized amplitudes in subtractive EFT’s. As a result, in nuclear physics the Schrödinger equation is not valid even in the nonrelativistic limit. Meanwhile, as has been shown in , only the generalized dynamical equation must be valid in all the cases, not the Schrödinger equation. In Ref.  it has been shown that, in fact, low energy nucleon dynamics in the EFT of nuclear forces is governed by the generalized dynamical equation with nonlocal-in-time interaction operator when this equation is not equivalent to the Schrödinger equation. Moreover, in leading order this dynamics is just the same as in the case of the model  developed as a test model illustrating the possibility of the extension of quantum dynamics provided by the formalism of the GQD. This shows the predictive power of the GQD: In Refs.  it has been shown that the existence of the quark and gluon degrees of freedom should give rise to the fact that low energy nucleon dynamics is governed by a nonlocal-in-time interaction operator. In the case where the interaction is separable the form of this operator is uniquely determined by the corresponding form factor . At the same time, as it follows from the general analysis of the diagrams of the EFT, the leading order two nucleon $`T`$ matrix is separable with the unite form factor. Thus the GQD predicts, without summing diagrams and performing procedures of regularization and renormalization, that the leading order two nucleon $`T`$ matrix in the EFT approach should be the same as in the above model with the unite form factor, and this really takes a place. This predictive power of the GQD is a result of the fact that the generalized dynamical equation, which forms the basis of this formalism, has been derived in Ref.  as the most general dynamical equation consistent with the current concepts of quantum physics.

The above gives us the expect that the GQD can be applied in the theory of open quantum system where the separation of scales also plays an important role. In this theory one consider an open system in contact with its surroundings consist of a practically infinite number of degrees of freedom and act as a whole identify, referred as the thermal bath, on the open system. It is assumed that the time scale of the open system is very long compared with the relaxation time of the bath, but shorter than the recurrence time for the whole system considered a closed system. For describing the dynamics of open quantum systems one can start with a closed system. A reduction to a small subsystem (open system) produces nonlocal-in-time equations. The application of these equations to real situations is extremely complex. For this reason it is natural to describe the evolution of an open system only in terms of its degrees of freedom by using a dynamical equation derived from the first principles of quantum theory. Such a program has been realized, for example, in the Lindblad theory . The possibility of the application of this theory to some practical problems was considered, for example, in the works \[14-17\]. However, the dynamical equation of this theory is a Markovian-type equation, i.e., it does not take into account nonlocality of the interaction in time. Note, in this connection, that the Markovian assumption is usually used to overcome the above mentioned difficulties in the theory. For this reason Lindblad theory is based on the axioms which imply that the theory is local in time. This allows one to derive, as a consequence of the general principles, an equation, which governs the evolution of an open system, without entering into details of the physics of the external system. The aim of the present paper is to show that, keeping these advantages of Lindblad’s theory, the GQD allows one to describe the evolution of open quantum systems without using the Markovian assumption. By using the example of a two-level atom interacting with its environment, we will investigate the effects of the nonlocality in time of the interaction on the character of the dynamics of an open system.

Let us briefly consider the main features of the GQD. The basic concept of the canonical formalism of quantum theory is that it can be formulated in terms of vectors of a Hilbert space and operators acting on this space. The postulates establish the connection between the vectors and operators and states of a quantum system and observables, and prescribe how the probability of an event should be computed (see, for example ). In the canonical formalism these postulates are used together with the dynamical postulate according to which the time evolution of a quantum system is governed by the Schrödinger equation. In the equivalent Feynman formalism quantum theory is formulated in terms of probability amplitudes without resorting to vectors and operators acting on a Hilbert space. In this approach the following assumption is used as a basic postulate:

The probability of an event is the absolute square of a complex number called the probability amplitude. The joint probability amplitude of a time-ordered sequence of events is the product of separate probability amplitudes of each of these events. The probability amplitude of an event which can happen in several different ways is a sum of the probability amplitudes for each of these ways.

In particular, $`\psi _2|U(t,t_0)|\psi _1`$, being the probability of finding, the quantum system in the state $`|\psi _2`$ in a measurement at time $`t`$ if at time $`t_0`$ it was in the state $`|\psi _1`$, can be represented as a sum of contributions from all alternative ways of realization of the corresponding evolution process. Dividing these alternatives in different classes, we can then analyze such a probability amplitude in different ways . For example, subprocesses with definite instants of the beginning and end of the interaction in the system can be considered as such alternatives. In this way the amplitude $`\psi _2|U(t,t_0)|\psi _1`$ can be written in the form

$$\psi _2|U(t,t_0)|\psi _1=\psi _2|\psi _1+_{t_0}^t𝑑t_2_{t_0}^{t_2}𝑑t_1\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1,$$
(1)
where $`\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1dt_1dt_2`$ is the probability amplitude that at time $`t_1`$ the system in the state $`|\psi _1,`$ then the interaction in the system begins in the time interval $`(t_1,t_1+dt_1)`$ and ends in the time interval $`(t_2,t_2+dt_2)`$ and at time $`t_2+dt_2`$ the system will be in the state $`|\psi _2.`$ Eq. (1) is a consequence of the first postulate of Feynman’s approach to the quantum theory and, therefore, derived from first principles of quantum theory. According to the above assumption the probability amplitude $`\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ can itself be represented by the sum of amplitudes for each of the ways in which the subprocess with completely specified instants of the beginning and end of the interaction in a quantum system can be realized. However, some supplementary assumptions about the history of the system are needed. In the Feynman approach it is assumed that the history of the system can be represented by some path in space-time. In this case the amplitude $`\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ can be in the form of integrals over all paths corresponding to processes in which the interaction begins at $`t_1`$ and ends at $`t_2`$. If, we also assume that each path gives a contribution is an exponential whose (imaginary) phase is the classical action (in units of $`\mathrm{}`$) for this path (the second postulate of Feynman’s theory) and substitute the expression obtained in this manner into Eq. (1), we arrive at Feynman’s sum-over-paths formula for the transition amplitudes. At the same time, in Ref.  it has been shown that the use of the operator formalism of the canonical approach allows one to derive a relation for the amplitudes $`\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$, which can be used as a dynamical equation without resorting to the supplementary assumptions like the second postulate of Feynman’s theory.

By using the operator formalism, we can represent the amplitudes $`\psi _2|U(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ by the matrix elements of the evolution operator $`U(t,t_0)`$, which must be unitary

$$U^+(t,t_0)U(t,t_0)=U(t,t_0)U^+(t,t_0)=\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(2)
and satisfy the composition law

$$U(t,t^{})U(t^{},t_0)=U(t,t_0),U(t_0,t_0)=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(3)
At the same time, $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ whose matrix elements are $`\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ may be only an operator-valued generalized function of $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ , since only $`U(t,t_0)=\mathrm{𝟏}+_{t_0}^t𝑑t_2_{t_0}^{t_2}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ must be an operator on the Hilbert space. Nevertheless, it is convenient to call $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ an ”operator”, using this word in generalized sense. In the case of an isolated system the operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ can be represented in the form

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)=exp(iH_0t_2)\stackrel{~}{T}(t_2t_1)exp(iH_0t_1),$$
(4)
where $`H_0`$ is the free Hamiltonian.

As has been shown in Ref. , for the evolution operator given by (1) to be unitary and satisfy the composition law (3), the operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ must satisfy the following equation

$$(t_2t_1)\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)=_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t_4_{t_1}^{t_4}𝑑t_3(t_4t_3)\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_4)\stackrel{~}{S}(t_3,t_1).$$
(5)
With this equation one can obtain the operators $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ for any $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, if the operators $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2^{},t_1^{})`$ corresponding to infinitesimal duration times $`\tau =t_2^{}t_1^{}`$ of interaction are known. It is natural to assume that most of the contribution to the evolution operator in the limit $`t_2t_1`$ comes from the processes associated with the fundamental interaction in the system under study. Denoting this contribution by $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$, we can write

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)\underset{t_2t_1}{}H_{int}(t_2,t_1)+o(\tau ^\epsilon ),$$
(6)
where $`\tau =t_2t_1`$. The parameter $`\epsilon `$ is determined by demanding that $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ must be so close to the solution of Eq. (5) in the limit $`t_2t_1`$ that this equation has a unique solution having the behavior (6) near the point $`t_2=t_1`$.Thus this operator must satisfy the condition

$$H_{int}(t_2,t_1)\underset{t_2t_1}{}_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t_4_{t_1}^{t_4}𝑑t_3\frac{t_4t_3}{t_2t_1}H_{int}(t_2,t_4)H_{int}(t_3,t_1)+o(\tau ^ϵ).$$
(7)
Note that the value of the parameter $`ϵ`$ depends on the form of the operator $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1).`$

Within the GQD the operator $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ plays the same role as the interaction Hamiltonian in the ordinary formulation of quantum theory: It generates the dynamics of a system. Since this operator is a generalization of the interaction Hamiltonian, we call this operator the generalized interaction operator. If $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ is specified, Eq. (5) allows one to find the operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1).`$ Formula (1) can then be used to construct the evolution operator $`U(t,t_0)`$ and accordingly the state vector $`|\psi (t)=|\psi (t_0)+_{t_0}^t𝑑t_2_{t_0}^{t_2}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)|\psi (t_0)`$ at any time $`t.`$ Thus Eq. (5) can be regarded as an equation of motion for states of a quantum system. It should be noted that Eq. (5) is written only in terms of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1),`$ and does not explicitly contain operators describing the interaction in a quantum system. It is a relation for $`\stackrel{~}{S}(t_2,t_1)`$ which contains the contributions to the evolution operator from the processes with specified instants of the beginning and end of the interaction in the system. This relation is a unique consequence of the composition law (3) and the representation (1) expressing the Feynman superposition principle (the above assumption). For this reason the relation (5) must be satisfied in all the cases. A remarkable feature of this fundamental relation is that it works as a recurrence relation. For constructing the evolution operator, it is sufficient to know the contributions to this operator from the processes in which the duration time of interaction is infinitesimal, i.e., from the processes ruled by the fundamental interaction in the system. This makes it possible to use the fundamental relation (5) as a dynamical equation. Its form does not depend on the specific features of the interaction (the Schrödinger equation, for example, contains the interaction Hamiltonian). Since Eq. (5) must be satisfied in all the cases, it can be considered as the most general dynamical equation consistent with the current concepts of quantum theory. This generalized dynamical equation approaches the Schrödinger equation for appropriate boundary conditions.

By using (1), the evolution operator can be represented in the form

$`n_2|U(t,t_0)|n_1=n_2|n_1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}[i(zE_{n_2})t]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{n_2|T(z)|n_1\mathrm{exp}[i(zE_{n_1})t_0]}{(zE_{n_2})(zE_{n_1})}}`$ (8)
where $`z=x+iy`$, and $`y>0`$, $`n`$ stands for the entire set of discrete and continuous variables that characterize the system in full, $`|n`$ are the eigenvectors of the free Hamiltonian $`H_0`$, and $`n_2|T(z)|n_1`$ is defined by

$$n_2|T(z)|n_1=i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}(iz\tau )n_2|\stackrel{~}{T}(\tau )|n_1.$$
(9)
The equation of motion (5) is equivalent to the following equation for the T matrix :

$$\frac{dn_2|T(z)|n_1}{dz}=\underset{n}{}\frac{n_2|T(z)|nn|T(z)|n_1}{(zE_n)^2},$$
(10)
with the boundary condition

$$T(z)\underset{|z|\mathrm{}}{}i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{exp}(iz\tau )H_{int}^{(s)}(\tau ),$$

where $`H_{int}^{(s)}(t_2t_1)=exp(iH_0t_2)H_{int}(t_2,t_1)exp(iH_0t_1)`$ is the generalized interaction operator in the Schrödinger picture. As has been shown in Ref. , the dynamics governed by Eq. (5) is equivalent to the Hamiltonian dynamics in the case where the generalized interaction operator is of the form

$$H_{int}(t_2,t_1)=2i\delta (t_2t_1)H_I(t_1).$$
(11)
Here $`H_I(t_1)`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian in the interaction picture. In this case the evolution operator given by (1) satisfies the Schrödinger equation. The delta-function in (11) emphasizes the fact that in this case the fundamental interaction is instantaneous. At the same time, Eq. (5) permits the generalization to the case where the interaction generating the dynamics of a system is nonlocal in time . In Ref.  this point was demonstrated on exactly solvable models.

Let us consider an atom with its radiation field as an open quantum system interacting with its surroundings. We will consider the surroundings as a whole identity, referred as the thermal bath. Let the bath be non-Gaussian-Markovian, i.e., the time scale $`t_c`$ of the bath with respect to the system dynamics is very short but $`t_c0`$. Further, we assume that the evolution operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ defined on the subspace $`\text{H}_{op}`$ describing the open system satisfies the semi-group law

$$U_{op}(t_2,t)U_{op}(t,t_1)=U_{op}(t_2,t_1),t_2tt_1,$$
(12)
and $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)1`$ for all $`t_2>t_1`$. Obviously, due to a loss of probability from the open system, the evolution operator is not unitary. Thus open quantum systems are unstable. An approach to the theory of unstable quantum systems based on the semi-group law has been developed in the works of Williams , Sinha  and Horwitz et all  (for reviews see Ref. ). It is assumed that the evolution operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ satisfies the semi-group law and is strongly continuous. If this assumption can be seen as fulfilled from the physical point of view, the above approach provides a fundamental description of the dynamics of open quantum systems. In fact from Stone’s theorem  it follows that in the case of a closed system the assumption that the evolution operator satisfies the composition law (3), and is unitary and strongly continuous is equivalent to the assumption that the evolution of a quantum system is governed by the Schrödinger equation . This result can be generalized to the case of open quantum systems. However, the semi-group law (12) is not satisfied in general. It is satisfied only in the case when at any time during the evolution the system remains in a pure state belonging to the subspace $`\text{H}_{op}`$. But this, of course, does not take place in the general case. This fact by itself allows us to conclude that a semi-group law cannot hold for the evolution operator on the Hilbert space $`\text{H}_{op}`$, while the evolution operator acting on the Banach space of density operators satisfies the semi- group law in the general case. Thus the theory has to be reformulated in the language of the density operator. This program has been realized in the Lindblad theory. This theory is founded on the same assumptions as the above approach translated into the language of the density operator, i.e., on the assumptions that the evolution operator on the Banach space of density operators satisfies the semi-group law and is continuous. However in this theory the interaction generating the dynamics of a quantum system is instantaneous. However, the interaction with the non-Gaussian-Markovian bath must be nonlocal in time.

The GQD allows the extension of quantum theory to the case when the evolution operator is not continuous, and precisely in this case the interaction in a system is nonlocal in time . As for the validity of the semi-group law (11), the GQD deals with the probability amplitudes in the spirit of the Feynman approach, and the representation (5) can be written for probability amplitudes of any event concerning the evolution of the system. In this case the operator $`U(t_2,t_1)`$ should be defined as an operator whose matrix elements represent these amplitudes. In the case under consideration we can define the matrix element $`\psi _2|U_{op}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ as the probability amplitude that if at time $`t_1`$ the system was in the state $`|\psi _1\text{H}_{op}`$, then all the time between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ the system will be in states belonging to the subspace $`\text{H}_{op}`$, and at time $`t_2`$ the system will be found in the state $`|\psi _2\text{H}_{op}`$. The fact that in the time interval $`(t_2,t_1)`$ the system is only in states belonging $`\text{H}_{op}`$ means that all the time between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ we deal with the atom but not with its decay products (nuclear or ions and electrons). Thus the matrix elements $`\psi _2|U_{op}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1`$ represent some alternative way of realization of the evolution process. The operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ defined in this way is not equivalent to the ordinary evolution operator defined on the space $`\text{H}_{op}`$. Since the operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ satisfies the semi-group law (12), we can describe the system in terms of state vectors on the space $`\text{H}_{op}`$. The operator $`U_{op}(t,t_0)`$ can then be represented in the form

$$\psi _2|U_{op}(t,t_0)|\psi _1=\psi _2|\psi _1+_{t_0}^t𝑑t_2_{t_0}^{t_2}𝑑t_1\psi _2|\stackrel{~}{S}_{op}(t_2,t_1)|\psi _1,$$
(13)
where the operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ describes the contribution to the operator $`U_{op}(t,t_0)`$ from the process in which the interaction in the system begins at time $`t_1`$ and ends at time $`t_2`$. If the condition of the bath does not change in time, the evolution of the open system under study must be invariant in time, and consequently the operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ can be represented in the form $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{op}(t_2,t_1)=exp(iH_0t_2)\stackrel{~}{T}(t_2t_1)exp(iH_0t_1)`$, and the corresponding $`T(z)`$ is defined by (9). Here we use the same notation for the operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\tau )`$ as in the case of closed systems.

The operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ characterizes the evolution process in the open quantum system. As example, let us consider a two-level atom. The matrix element $`𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|U_{op}(t_2,t_1)|2`$, is the probability amplitude that if at time $`t_1`$ the system was in the state $`|2`$, then at time $`t_2`$ the system will be found in the state $`|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1`$. Here $`|2`$ and $`|1`$ denote the excited and ground states of the atom, respectively, $`𝐤`$ is the momentum of a photon and $`\epsilon _\lambda `$ being the photon polarization. If the ground state $`|1`$ of the atom can be regarded as stable, then $`_{\lambda =1,2}|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|U_{op}(\mathrm{},0)|2|^2d\omega `$ is the probability of a photon being emitted by a single atom with energy in the interval $`(\omega ,\omega +d\omega )`$. From this it follows that the spectral-line profile is described by the formula

$$\frac{dW_{21}(\omega )}{d\omega }=\underset{\lambda =1,2}{}|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|U_{op}(\mathrm{},0)|2|^2.$$
(14)
Thus the operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$ determines the broadening of spectral lines of atoms caused by the interaction with their environment. Let the generalized interaction operator describing the interaction of the atom with its own radiation field and the bath be of the form

$$H_{int}^{(s)}(\tau )=2i\delta (\tau )H_I^{(v)}+H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau ),$$
(15)
with

$$H_I^{(v)}=d^3xj_\mu (𝐱,0)A^\mu (𝐱,0).$$

Here $`j_\mu (x)`$ is the current density operator, $`A_\mu (x)`$ is the electromagnetic field potential and $`H_{int}^{(b)}(t)`$ is as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill l|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|j=\left(f(\tau )2i\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta (\tau )\right)\delta _{l2}\delta _{j2},& & \\ \hfill 𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,l|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|j=\psi (𝐤)f(\tau )\delta _{l1}\delta _{j2},& & \\ \hfill l|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,j=\psi ^{}(𝐤)f(\tau )\delta _{l2}\delta _{j1},& & \\ \hfill 𝐤_2,\epsilon _{\lambda _2},l|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|𝐤_1,\epsilon _{\lambda _1},j=\psi (𝐤_2)\psi ^{}(𝐤_1)f_1(\tau )\delta _{l1}\delta _{j1},& & \end{array}$$
(16)
where the form factor $`\psi (𝐤)`$ is chosen as $`\psi (𝐤)=c_1(d^2+k^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`c_1`$ and $`d`$ being some constants. The function $`f(\tau )`$, characterizing the nonlocality in time of the interaction, is not arbitrary since the interaction operator (15) must satisfy the condition (7). For this condition to be satisfied, the function $`f(\tau )`$ must be of the form

$$f(\tau )=\frac{i}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}exp(iz\tau )\left(\frac{b_1}{\mathrm{ln}(z)}+\frac{b_2}{\mathrm{ln}^2(z)}\right)𝑑z,$$
(17)
where $`b_1=\frac{1}{4\pi c_1^2}`$ and only one parameter $`b_2`$ is free. The operator $`H_I^{(v)}`$ describes the interaction of an isolated atom with the electromagnetic field, while the operator $`H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )`$ describes the interaction in which the bath manifests itself.

The main assumption that we have used in choosing the form of the operator $`H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )`$ is that its matrix element $`2|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1`$ should be of the form $`2|H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1=\psi ^{}(𝐤)f(\tau )`$. As has been shown in , there is a one-to-one correspondence between the form of the interaction operator and the ultraviolet (UV) behavior of the matrix elements of the evolution operator as functions of momenta of photons: If this behavior satisfies the requirements of conventional quantum theory, then $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ must necessarily be of the form (11), i.e., the interaction must be instantaneous, and, on the contrary, if this behavior is ”bad” and leads to UV divergences, then $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ must be nonlocal in time. In the case of separable interactions the above behavior and hence the form $`H_{int}(t_2,t_1)`$ are determined by the UV behavior of the corresponding form factors. Let the form factor has the following UV behavior $`\psi (𝐤)\frac{1}{|𝐤|^\alpha }`$. In the case $`\alpha >1`$, the function $`f(\tau )`$ must be of the form $`f(\tau )=A\delta (\tau )`$, where $`A`$ being some constant, i.e., the interaction is instantaneous. In the case $`0<\alpha 1`$ (the restriction $`\alpha >0`$ is necessary for the generalized dynamical equation (5) to have the mathematical meaning) the function $`f(\tau )`$ has no such singularity as the delta-function at $`\tau =0`$, and hence the interaction is nonlocal in time. Since the interaction of the atom with its surroundings is nonlocal in time, we have to use a form factor corresponding to the case $`0<\alpha 1`$. The interaction is nonlocal in time for any $`0<\alpha 1`$. However the case $`\alpha =1`$ seems to be most natural. In fact, in this case the UV behavior of the form factors gives rise to the logarithmic divergences in the Born series, i.e., to the one of the fundamental divergences of QED. The simplest form factor with such a UV behavior is of the form $`\psi (𝐤)=c_1(d^2+k^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (the parameter $`d`$ is needed in order to resolve the problem of the infrared divergences). For these reasons we have chosen the form factor in this form. From the condition (7) it follows that the operator $`H_{int}^{(s)}(\tau )`$ must also describe the processes of the atom-photon scattering, and the corresponding matrix element must be of the form $`𝐤_2,\epsilon _{\lambda _\mathrm{𝟐}},1|H_{int}^{(s)}(\tau )|𝐤_1,\epsilon _{\lambda _\mathrm{𝟏}},1=\psi (𝐤_2)\psi ^{}(𝐤_1)f(\tau )`$ with the same duration-time function $`f(\tau )`$ given by (17). Note that there is only one free parameter $`b_2`$ in this function. Thus the form of the interaction operator is determined by the UV behavior of the form factor $`\psi (𝐤)`$. However, this concerns only the nonlocal part of the interaction operator, and one may supplement the interaction operator by an instantaneous part . The interaction operator $`H_{int}^{(b)}(\tau )`$ also contains the instantaneous term. But in our model it describes only the interaction of the atom in the excited state. We do not take into account this interaction of the atom in the ground state, because we assume that the possibility for a photon decay is very small when the atom is in the ground state, and hence the interaction can lead only to an energy shift of this state.

Let us consider the case where $`c_1=0`$, i.e., where the interaction of the atom with its environment is reduced to the instantaneous interaction being described by the potential $`i|V|j=\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta _{i2}\delta _{j2}`$. We will assume that $`i|V|j`$ is such that the interaction of the atom with the radiation field can be considered as a small perturbation, and hence the problem can be solved by expanding in powers of $`H_I^{(v)}`$. In the first order, for $`𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|T(z)|2`$, we have

$$𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|T^{(1)}(z)|2=\frac{𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|H_I^{(v)}|2(zE_2)}{zE_2\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(18)
Substituting this expression into (8) and using (14), we then get

$$\frac{dW_{21}(\omega )}{d\omega }=A\omega \underset{\lambda =1,2}{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_k\left|\frac{𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|H_I^{(v)}|2}{E_1+\omega E_2\mathrm{\Delta }E_2+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\right|,$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2=Re\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=2Im\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and $`A`$ is a renormalization factor. In the model under consideration $`i|V|j`$ can be considered as the corresponding matrix elements of an potential which parametrize effects of impacts of the atom with particles from its surroundings, and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ can be interpreted, accordingly, as the impact line shift and width.

Thus in the case where the interaction with its surroundings is instantaneous, our model yields the same results as the theory of impact broadening of spectral lines. At the same time, our model allows the extension to the case where the interaction of the atom with its surroundings results not only in radiationless transitions between the excited and ground states, but also in the emission of photons. Such processes are generally nonlocal in time, and the parameter $`c_1`$ cannot be zero. Let us now solve the problem in this case. We will assume that the interaction of the atom with its surroundings is such that we can restrict ourselves to the zero order in powers of $`H_I^{(v)}`$. In this case the dynamical equation (10) can be exactly solved, and the corresponding solution is

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill l|T(z)|j=t_{22}(z)\delta _{l2}\delta _{j1},& & \\ \hfill 𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,2|T(z)|1=\psi (𝐤)t_{12}(z),& & \\ \hfill 2|T(z)|𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1=\psi ^{}(𝐤)t_{21}(z),& & \\ \hfill 𝐤_2,\epsilon _{\lambda _2},1|T(z)|𝐤_1,\epsilon _{\lambda _1},1=\psi (𝐤_2)\psi ^{}(𝐤_1)t_{11}(z),& & \end{array}$$
(20)
where

$$t_{22}(z)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+T_1(z)\right)(zE_2)}{zE_2\mathrm{\Lambda }T_1(z)},t_{11}(z)=\frac{T_1(z)(zE_2\mathrm{\Lambda })}{zE_2\mathrm{\Lambda }T_1(z)},$$
(21)
$$t_{21}(z)=t_{12}(z)=\frac{T_1(z)(zE_2)}{zE_2\mathrm{\Lambda }T_1(z)},$$
(22)
with

$$T_1(z)=\frac{\frac{1}{4\pi c_1^2}\frac{d^2+(zE_1)^2}{(zE_1)^2}}{\pi i+\mathrm{ln}(\frac{zE_1}{d_0})+\frac{d^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{d}{d_0}}{(zE_1)^2}\frac{\pi d}{2(zE_1)}\frac{b_2(d^2+(zE_1)^2)}{b_1(zE_1)^2}},$$

where $`d_0=1\text{eV}`$. By using this formula and Eq. (8) we can construct the operator $`U_{op}(t,t_0)`$. For example, we can obtain the matrix element $`𝐤,\epsilon _\lambda ,1|U(\mathrm{},0)|2`$, which, as it follows from (14), determines the broadening of the spectral line of the atom. By using (14) and the above expression for the T matrix, we then get

$$\frac{dW_{21}(\omega )}{d\omega }=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{Af(\omega )}{\left(\omega +E_1E_2\mathrm{\Delta }E(\omega )\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\omega )},$$
(23)
where

$$f(\omega )=\frac{d^2+\omega ^2}{4\pi c_1^2\omega ^4}\left(\pi ^2+\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega }{d_0}+\frac{d^2}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{d}{d_0}\frac{\pi d}{2\omega }\frac{b_2(d^2+\omega ^2)}{b_1\omega ^2}\right]^2\right)^1;$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(\omega )=Re\mathrm{\Lambda }f(\omega )\left(\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega }{d_0}+d^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{d}{d_0}\frac{\pi }{2}d\omega \frac{b_2}{b_1}\left[d^2+\omega ^2\right]\right);$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=2\left(Im\mathrm{\Lambda }+\pi \omega ^2f(\omega )\right).$$

This formula describes the spectral line profile of the atom in our model. In order to find out how the nonlocality in time of interaction of the atom with its surroundings can influence on the spectral line broadening, we have made the calculations of the profile (23) for various values of the parameters of the model. The results of the calculations are given in Fig.1.

For certain values of the parameters the nonlocality of interaction has very significant effects on the spectral line broadening. Fig.1(c,d), for example, shows that in some cases such a nonlocality of the interaction gives rise to the splitting of the spectral line of the atom.

To summarize and to conclude, we hade shown that the GQD can be used to describe, in a natural way, the evolution of an open quantum system whose interaction with its environment is nonlocal in time. We have defined the operator $`U_{op}(t_2,t_1)`$, in terms of which the dynamics of open quantum systems can be described in the same way as the dynamics of closed systems. In the case when the open system is an atom with its radiation field this operator determines the broadening of spectral-line profiles of atoms caused by a nonlocal-in-time interaction with its environment. By using an exactly solvable model, we found that the nonlocality in time of the interaction of the atom with its surroundings can have substantial effects on the spectral line broadening. As it follows from our calculations, for the most values of the parameters the broadening of the spectral line profile does not differ from the Lorentzian line, i.e., the effects of nonlocality in time of interaction on the broadening of the spectral line are negligible. However, there is a narrow interval of values of the parameters for which the broadening of the spectral line differs profoundly from the Lorentzian, and the spectral lines can even split. This means that some resonance condition of the bath can exists which has the effect that the spectral lines split. Our results can be considered as a prediction of the above effect.


format: text

text:
# Azimuthal Anisotropy of Charged and Identified High 𝑝_𝑇 Hadrons in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

## 1 INTRODUCTION

QCD calculations predict that high energy partons traversing nuclear matter lose energy through induced gluon radiation . Recent measurements of inclusive charged hadron distributions in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV show a suppression of hadron yields at high $`p_T`$ in central collisions relative to peripheral collisions and scaled nucleon-nucleon interactions , consistent with the picture of partonic energy loss in a dense system. The fragmentation products of high energy partons that have propagated through the azimuthally asymmetric system generated by non-central collisions may exhibit azimuthal anisotropy due to energy loss and the azimuthal dependence of the path length . Elliptic flow  at $`p_T<2`$ GeV/c measured at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=130 GeV reaches the values predicted by hydrodynamical models based on the assumption of complete local thermalization . At high $`p_T`$, azimuthal distributions of charged hadrons exhibit a structure suggestive of fragmentation of hard scattered partons as well as an anisotropy with respect to the reaction plane . The new STAR data on the azimuthal anisotropy parameter $`v_2`$ for Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV extend the measurements up to $`p_T=12`$ GeV/c and provide important constraints on the underlying mechanisms of high $`p_T`$ hadron production in nuclear collisions.

## 2 EXPERIMENT AND ANALYSIS

The main tracking detector in STAR is the Time Projection Chamber (TPC) situated in a solenoidal magnetic field of 0.5 T. The TPC has wide pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<1.3`$ and complete azimuthal coverage, with excellent momentum resolution. Charged hadrons are identified by measuring specific energy loss $`dE/dx`$ for $`p_T<1`$ GeV/c. $`K_s^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are identified via their $`V^0`$-decay topology. A Ring Imaging Cherenkov Detector (STAR-RICH) , covering $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =20^{}`$ and $`|\eta |<0.3`$ and situated on the exterior of the TPC, extends charged hadron identification to high $`p_T`$.

2.7 M minimum-bias triggered Au+Au interactions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV were used for this analysis. The minimum-bias data correspond to $`94\pm 3`$% of the geometric cross section. All tracks used in this analysis passed within 1 cm of primary vertex and had at least 20 measured space points.

The azimuthal anisotropy of an event in momentum space is quantified by the coefficients of the Fourier decomposition of the azimuthal particle distributions, with the second harmonic coefficient $`v_2`$ referred to as elliptic flow . $`v_2`$ is inferred from the azimuthal particle distribution with respect to the estimated reaction plane orientation, corrected for the reaction plane resolution. The track selection and calculation of the reaction plane are described in . The reaction plane analysis integrates all possible sources of azimuthal correlations, including those unrelated to the orientation of the reaction plane. A four-particle cumulant method  for flow measurements reduces non-flow sources (resonance decays, (mini)jets, final state interactions, momentum conservation, etc.) to a negligible level .

## 3 AZIMUTHAL ANISOTROPY OF CHARGED HADRONS

Figure 1 shows the $`p_T`$-dependence of $`v_2`$ from the reaction plane method and

four-particle cumulant method. The new results from the four-particle cumulant method have much higher statistical precision than previously  for centralities 5-70%. Similar to the results at 130 GeV , $`v_2`$ rises linearly for $`p_T<1`$ GeV/c, but saturates for $`p_T>3`$ GeV/c for both methods. The $`v_2`$ values obtained from the four-particle cumulant method are 20% lower than those from the reaction plane analysis. This difference is attributed to the non-flow correlations in the reaction plane analysis, and we assign a one-sided 20% systematic uncertainty for the reaction plane $`v_2`$ values presented below.

Figure 3, upper panel, shows $`v_2(p_T)`$ of charged hadrons obtained with the reaction plane analysis for minimum-bias collisions at 130 and 200 GeV. The functional form of $`v_2(p_T)`$-dependence is similar at the two energies. Figure 3, lower panel, shows the ratio of $`v_2`$ from the 200 GeV and 130 GeV datasets. The elliptic flow is stronger at 200 GeV for $`p_T<1`$ GeV/c, suggesting a higher degree of thermalization.

In the saturation region at high $`p_T`$, the magnitude of the azimuthal anisotropy is the same to within 5%, in contrast to the growth of the inclusive cross section with increasing $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ . This is an indication of the geometrical origin of the large anisotropies observed in the hard scattering region.

Figure 3 shows the $`v_2(p_T)`$-dependence for different collision centralities for $`p_T<12`$ GeV/c. $`v_2`$ remains finite for non-central collisions, exhibiting a decrease from the saturation level at the highest measured $`p_T`$ for the more central events. It is expected that the azimuthal anisotropy will vanish in the limit of very high $`p_T`$. $`v_2`$ values measured at $`3<p_T<6`$ GeV/c for a restricted centrality range, corrected for contribution from non-flow effects, are consistent with the maximum expected $`v_2`$ from surface emission .

## 4 ELLIPTIC FLOW OF MESONS AND BARYONS

A proposed explanation of the saturation of $`v_2`$ at transverse momenta $`2<p_T<5`$ GeV/c is the dominance of baryons in this $`p_T`$ region described by non-perturbative mechanisms such as baryon junctions or hydro, while pion production is dominated by the quenched pQCD spectra . A qualitatively different $`v_2(p_T)`$ behavior is therefore predicted for baryons and mesons. Figure 5 compares $`v_2`$ of identified charged particles with pure hydrodynamical calculations  for $`p_T<3.5`$ GeV/c. In Figure 5, a similar comparison is presented for $`K_s^0`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. At $`p_T<1`$ GeV/c, the hydro calculations describe the mass dependence of the elliptic flow well. At $`p_T>2`$ GeV/c, $`v_2`$ of baryons may slightly exceed that of mesons .

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

STAR has measured azimuthal anisotropies as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$=200 GeV of charged hadrons for $`p_T<12`$ GeV/c and identified hadrons for $`p_T<4`$ GeV/c. The experimental observation of large azimuthal anisotropies at high transverse momenta is the focus of ongoing theoretical investigation. Many different approaches have been attempted to describe the data, such as combining hydrodynamical elliptic flow with perturbative QCD including jet quenching , parton cascade , minijets , and surface emission . A simultaneous quantitative description of all the experimental data on high $`p_T`$ production at RHIC, including inclusive spectra suppression, saturation of $`v_2`$, and disappearance of back-to-back jets in central collisions , is needed. However, the data clearly point in the direction of qualitatively new physics phenomena in high $`p_T`$ particle production in nuclear collisions at RHIC energies.


text:
# Compact QED under scrutiny: it’s first order

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The nature of the phase transition in compact QED has been under debate for long time. We have addressed this problem in high statistics runs to reach a final conclusion in that matter. An important ingredient of our approach is the finite size scaling (FSS) theory à la Borgs-Kotecky (BK) first established a long time ago in the context of strong first order phase transitions . According to BK the finite volume partition function at temperature $`\beta `$ in finite volumes with periodic boundary conditions (neglecting interfacial contributions) has the remarkably simple form $`Z=e^{Vf(\beta )}=e^{Vf_1(\beta )}+e^{Vf_2(\beta )+\mathrm{ln}(X)}`$. The functions $`f_1(\beta )`$ and $`f_2(\beta )`$ denote bulk free energy densities in the two coexisting phases 1 and 2. $`X`$ stands for the asymmetry parameter which is nothing but the relative phase weight in the probability distribution $`P(E)`$.

A heuristic extension of the BK ansatz to weak first order transition was demonstrated for the 3d 3-state Potts model . The conclusion of our work is based on a validation of BK by perturbative analysis as well as independent ab initio determinations of the gap characteristics.

## 2 SIMULATION DETAILS

We consider 4d pure U(1) gauge theory with Wilson action $`S=\beta _{n,\nu >\mu }\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mu \nu }(n))`$, where $`\beta `$ represents the Wilson coupling and $`\theta _{\mu \nu }(n)`$ the plaquette angle. We use a lattice of volume $`V=L^4`$ with periodic boundary conditions.

We have implemented three different algorithms for generating the U(1) gauge field configurations: (a) a local Metropolis (Metro), updating each link separately, (b) a global hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm (HMC) and (c) a combination of the multicanonical and the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm (MHMC). For details we refer to Refs. . The cumulative number of generated configurations at each lattice size $`L`$ is $`>5\times 10^6`$. We measure the number of tunneling events (flips) as control parameter for the mobility of the algorithms and the integrated plaquette autocorrelation time $`\tau _{int}`$ which controls the statistical quality of each single Markov chain. Runs differing by coupling, algorithm, HMC parameters or by weight function are considered as independent. Our simulation parameters are listed in Table 1.

## 3 CUMULANTS

Based on the plaquette operator

$$E=\frac{1}{6V}\underset{n,\nu >\mu }{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mu \nu }(n)),$$
(1)
we consider the following cumulants:

$`C_v(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`6V\left(E^2E^2\right),`$
$`U_2(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{E^2}},`$
$`U_4(\beta ,L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{E^4}{E^2^2}}\right).`$
In addition to their derivatives with respect to $`\beta `$ we measure higher derivatives of the free energy density $`(1)^{n+1}\kappa _n(\beta ,L)=\frac{^nf(\beta ,L)}{\beta ^n}`$. Introducing the central moments $`\mu _n=V^{n1}\left(EE\right)^n`$ we can write them as

$`\kappa _3`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _3,`$
$`\kappa _4`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _43V\mu _2^2,`$
$`\kappa _5`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _510V\mu _2\mu _3,`$
$`\kappa _6`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _615V\mu _2\mu _410V\mu _3^2+30V^2\mu _2^3.`$
For each of the ten cumulants the location $`(\beta _\kappa ,\kappa )`$ of its rightmost extremum is determined by reweighting the measured probability distribution $`P(E)`$ to different couplings $`\beta `$. To calculate the estimates of our cumulants at each lattice size $`L`$ we proceed in two steps: i) we determine the error of each individual run performing a jackknife error analysis by subdivision of the run into ten blocks; ii) we calculate the final result by $`\chi ^2`$-fitting these individual results to a constant.

## 4 FINITE SIZE SCALING

Let us consider the expansion of the pseudocritical coupling for $`C_v`$; in the BK representation it is given by

$$\beta _{Cv}(V)=\beta _{Cv}(\mathrm{})+\underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}B_kV^k.$$
(2)
In order to expose systematic effects in the fit parameter $`\beta _{Cv}(\mathrm{})`$, we vary both, the fit range within $`L_{min}L18`$ and the truncation parameter $`k_{max}`$. Table 2 displays a remarkable stability pattern both for $`\beta _{Cv}`$ and $`B_1`$ supporting the validity of the $`V^1`$-expansion. Averaging the best fit couplings to a constant we obtain $`\beta _{Cv}(\mathrm{})=1.0111310(62)`$. Performing the same analysis for all ten cumulants yields an average infinite volume transition coupling

$$\beta _T=1.0111331(21).$$
(3)
Analogously the expected scaling of the maxima of the specific heat yields a prediction for the infinite volume gap $`G`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_{v,max}(V)}{6V}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G^2+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_kV^k`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`0.026721(59).`$ (4)
Scaling of the Binder cumulant yields

$`U_{4,min}`$ $`=`$ $`U+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_kV^k`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`5.816(27)10^4.`$ (5)
From $`B_1=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(X)}{6G}`$ we can derive an asymmetry $`\mathrm{ln}(X)=3.21(10).`$

## 5 CONSISTENCY CHECKS

An independent leading order perturbative lattice calculation confirms the value of $`\mathrm{ln}(X)`$ without relying on the validity of the BK ansatz . In the Coulomb phase the partition function can approximately be written as

$$Z\left(\frac{2\pi }{e_R^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}(V1)}V^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{p}{}^{}\left[\underset{\mu }{}2(1\mathrm{cos}p_\mu )\right]^1,$$

leading to the free energy $`F_2=\mathrm{ln}Z=\frac{3}{2}(V1)\mathrm{ln}(\frac{2\pi }{e_R^2})+2\mathrm{ln}L_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{ln}_\mu 2(1\mathrm{cos}p_\mu )`$. The summation over all momenta $`p_\mu `$ can be done for asymptotically large $`L`$ as $`_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{ln}_\mu 2(1\mathrm{cos}p_\mu )=aV+2\mathrm{ln}Lb+𝒪(L^2)`$ with parameters $`a=1.999708`$ and $`b=1.701216`$ that can be numerically computed to arbitrary precision. With $`F_2(\beta ,L)=Vf_2(\beta )+\mathrm{\Delta }F_2(\beta ,L)`$ we obtain for the Coulomb phase finite size correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2=b+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\pi /e_R^2)=3.15(8).`$ $`e_R`$ is taken from a very accurate measurement of the renormalized fine structure constant at the phase transition $`\alpha _T=e_R^2/4\pi =0.19(1)`$ . Note that the logarithmic correction cancels out for the 4d symmetric system with periodic boundary conditions.

One can argue that the leading finite size effects in the confined phase due to $`0^{++}`$ gaugeballs and string states are at least 3 respectively 6 orders of magnitude smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_2`$ on a lattice as small as $`L=16`$ . Thus we neglect these contributions and obtain, in perfect agreement, an asymmetry parameter $`\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{X})=\mathrm{\Delta }F_2=3.15(8)`$.

Furthermore our very accurate value of $`\beta _T`$ (Eq (3)) admits a direct measurement of latent heat and Binder cumulant, performing metastable simulations at $`\beta _T`$ on lattice sizes up to $`32^4`$ . Denoting the energy peaks of the probability distribution in the confined and Coulomb phases by $`E_1(L)`$ and $`E_2(L)`$ we fit their continuum limit values $`E_i=E_i(\mathrm{})`$ and find

$`\widehat{G}`$ $`=`$ $`E_2E_1=0.026685(54),`$ (6)
$`\widehat{U}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(E_2^2E_1^2)^2}{12E_2^2E_1^2}}=5.777(16)10^4.`$ (7)
Both values are in perfect agreement with the BK results from Eqs (4,5).

## 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

All cumulants investigated in our high statistics analysis at L=6,8,10,12,14,16,18 can be described by BK first-order FSS. Ab initio measurements confirm the FSS results for the infinite volume gap $`G`$, the Binder cumulant $`U`$ and the asymmetry $`\mathrm{ln}(X)`$. The non vanishing values for $`G`$ and $`U`$ lead to the conclusion that the phase transition in compact 4d $`U(1)`$ theory with Wilson action is first-order.


text:
# Coulombic Phase Transitions in Dense Plasmas*footnote **footnote *Dedicated to the 70th birthday of Michael Fisher.

## I First order van der Waals and Coulomb transitions

The theory of gases developed in the dissertation of van der Waals in 1873 may be considered as the starting point of the modern theory of phase transitions. Van der Waals approach is based on a simple physical model of interactions between particles which takes into account short range repulsive as well as long range attractive forces. The van der Waals model predicts below the critical temperature the possibility of coexistence of two phases which differ from each other by the density of molecules. In connection with the development of more strict theories it became clear that van der Waals approach is restricted to relatively weak attractive forces which either decay faster than $`1/r^3`$ or fulfil the Kac conditions. Therefore the applicability to Coulomb forces remained open.

In 1943 Landau and Zeldovich discussed new possibilities of phase transitions connected with metal-insulator transitions in metal fluids in the vicinity of critical points . We have to mention in this connection also the work of Mott on metal-insulator transitions in Coulomb systems. A first systematic study of Coulombic transitions in plasmas was given by Norman and Starostin in 1968 . The first order transition predicted by these authors was named plasma phase transition (PPT). The PPT was predicted as a possible result from the competition between effective Coulomb attraction and quantum repulsion in the partially ionized dense plasma . The qualitative picture was similar to the van der Waals model where the phase transition is a result from the long-range attraction between neutral molecules and their short-range repulsion. We remember that the two phases in the van der Waals model differ from each other by the density of molecules. The two phases in PPT have different number densities of charged particles and different degrees of ionization. Atoms, which are present in both coexistent phases, were treated originally as an ideal gas .

To get the first estimate of the critical temperature Norman and Starostin  used the thermodynamic functions available at that time, namely Debye-Hückel expressions for the chemical potential of the charges with quantum corrections . The expressions described an effective Coulomb attraction and an effective quantum repulsion due to the uncertainty principle. In the linear approximation in the density a critical temperature $`T_{cr}=2660`$ and with the more realistic nonlinear Debye-Hückel expression the value $`T_{cr}=10640`$ was obtained. We mention that both expressions are valid only in the limit of small quantum repulsion $`(\lambda /r_D)<<1`$ (here $`\lambda `$ is the electron thermal wavelength and $`r_D`$ is the Debye radius), and small non-ideality parameter $`\gamma =e^2n_i^{1/3}/kT<<1`$, where $`n_i`$ is the ion number density, $`T`$ is the temperature. Later estimates of the PPT in hydrogen plasmas lead to higher values of the critical temperature \[5-14\]

The hypothetical phase transitions in multiple ionized plasmas were treated first in . A detailed study of He-plasmas was given in . Here we will consider only single-charged ions in gaseous plasmas.

Since up to now the PPT in plasmas is not yet clearly identified experimentally we plan to make as clear as possible the definition, the properties and the conditions for a PPT. For this reason we develop a simple model (a combination of the Debye-Hückel with the Van der Waals theory) which shows a separate Coulombic transition - which is a PPT. Other related phenomena in plasma systems are discussed only in brief.

Plasma-like phase transitions in the optically excited electron-hole system in semiconductors were studied with similar methods . The experimental observations seem to point out that these instabilities of the theory correspond to a real phase transition in semiconductors, this topic will not be considered here in detail.

In more detail we will discuss comparison of the PPT to the known transitions in classical Coulombic systems. The first results on phase transitions in ionic systems go back to the late sixties. In 1970 Voronzov et al.  found a coexistence line and a critical point in the course of Monte Carlo studies of charged hard spheres imbedded into a dielectric medium. An analytical estimate of the critical point and the coexistence line for electrolytes based on the Debye-Hückel theory was given in a short note by one of the authors . However a systematic theory of classical Coulombic phase transitions including a comparison with numerical and experimental data was given only in the pioneering work of Michael Fisher and his coworkers . These authors have also made an extensive investigation of the state of art in this field . Summarizing these results for classical systems we may say that theory and experiment (Monte Carlo data as well as measurements on electrolytes) are in quite good agreement. There is no doubt any more that a Coulombic phase transition in classical systems exists. We will not repeat here all the arguments but refer to the careful investigations of Fisher et al. .

The classical Coulombic transition is due to a balance between a hard-core repulsion and a Coulombic attraction. We will show here that the PPT is a balance between quantum repulsion between point charges and Coulombic attractions. In this respect PPT is a kind of quantum variant of the classical Coulombic transition. If on one hand the existence of a Coulombic transition in ionic systems is now well confirmed, there is on the other hand no proof yet for the existence of a PPT in plasmas. At present the problem of the existence of a PPT is still open. From the point of view of the theory this is connected with the difficulties to derive an accurate equation of state for nonideal quantum plasmas. From the experimental point of view the difficulties are connected with the very high pressures where the PPT could occur. However as we will point out here there are now several experimental and numerical data which point to the existence of a PPT in real plasmas.

## II Debye Hückel approximation for classical and quantum systems

In order to describe Coulombic phase transitions one needs good approximations for the thermodynamic functions in the regions where - according to the first estimates - the phase transition is to be expected. As we have learned from the theory of phase transitions in neutral gases, already simple expressions as the van der Waals equation might give qualitatively correct results. We will show here that the Debye-Hückel expressions for the thermodynamic functions together with the mass action law provide an approximation which might serve a a zeroth approximation for the description of Coulombic phase transitions. In their first work Norman and Starostin  proposed for a first estimate of the critical temperature, to use Debye-Hückel-type expressions $`(1c\lambda /r_D)`$ for the chemical potential. Here $`\lambda `$ is electron thermal wavelength, $`r_D`$ is a Debye radius, $`c0.1`$ is a numerical coefficient. The Debye-Hückel term describes an effective Coulomb attraction, the $`(\lambda /r_D)`$-term represents in this approach an effective quantum repulsion due to the uncertainty principle. Norman and Starostin  used also the original expression of Debye- Hückel for the chemical potential $`(1+c\lambda /r_D)^1`$ which has the same accuracy if $`(\lambda /r_D)`$ tends to zero.

We will give now a systematic discussion of the Debye-Hückel approximation for the classical and quantum cases. We consider a binary Coulomb system with $`n_+`$ positive ions (cations) and $`n_{}`$ negative charges (anions or electrons) per cubic centimeter $`n_+=n_{}`$. The density of neutrals is $`n_0`$. The total density is $`n=n_++n_0=n_{}+n_0`$. In the following we will use the plasma notations, i.e. we call the negative charges ”electrons” and the positive charges simply ”ions”. In the Debye-Hückel theory for charged hard spheres with the diameter $`a`$ the excess chemical potential of the charges of species $`i`$ is given by the simple expression

$$\mu _i^{ex}=\frac{e_i^2}{D_0kT(r_D+a)}$$
(1)
The densities of free and bound particles are connected by the mass action law (Saha equation)

$$\frac{n_0}{n_in_e}=K(T)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu _{ex}}{k_BT}\right)$$
(2)
where $`K(T)`$ is the mass action constant which is given by Bjerrum’s formula or certain modifications  in the classical case. The osmotic pressure is given by the formula

$$P/kT=n_i+n_e+n_0\frac{1}{24\pi }\kappa ^3\varphi (\kappa a)$$
(3)
Here the Debye-Hückel function $`\varphi (x)`$ is defined by

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{3}{x^3}\left[1+x\frac{1}{1+x}2\mathrm{log}(1+x)\right]$$
(4)
The easiest way to transfer the Debye-Hückel approximation to quantum plasmas is the replacement of the hard sphere diameter by an effective quantum diameter of charges. According to the Heisenberg principle a point particle with the thermal momentum

$$\widehat{p}=\sqrt{\frac{8mkT}{\pi }}$$
(5)
corresponds to a wave packet of size

$$\delta x=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\widehat{p}}=\frac{\pi \mathrm{}}{4\sqrt{2\pi mkT}}.$$
(6)
Identifying this with the effective diameter of the charges we get

$$aa(T)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}=\frac{h}{8\sqrt{2\pi m_ekT}}$$
(7)
In this so-called Lambda approximation  quantum effects are expressed by just one characteristic length, the thermal de Broglie wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in combination with Debye-Hückel type approximations. The Lambda approximation agrees very good with the exact quantum-statistical results for small densities for $`T<10^5K`$ . This approximation requires that the plasma is nondegenerate i.e. $`n^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^3<<1`$ (where $`n^{}`$ denotes the density of free particles). Furthermore only a small fraction of the atoms should be bound in molecules $`\beta _2<<0.5`$. The standard choice of the mass action constant for quantum plasmas is the Brillouin-Planck-Larkin expression

$$K(T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\sigma (T)$$
(8)
where

$$\sigma (T)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}s^2\left(\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_s)1+\beta E_s\right)$$
(9)
In this way the classical and the quantum case might be treated in the present rough approximation by the same procedure. The easiest way to check for stability of the system is the investigation of the sign of the derivative of the pressure. The region where

$$\frac{\beta P}{n}<0$$
(10)
corresponds to thermodynamic instability. Equivalent is the condition

$$\left(\frac{n_i}{n}\right)_T<0$$
(11)
which is valid only if atoms are treated as ideal gas. Instability is restricted to temperatures below the critical one which is defined by

$$TT_{cr}=16\frac{e^2}{D_0k_Ba}$$
(12)
In the case of classical ionic solutions the parameter $`a`$ is to be identified with the diameter of ions. In the case of dense quantum plasmas we have to introduce the quantum effective diameter $`a(T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$. This way we have shown that the PPT is the analogue of the known classical Coulombic transition in ionic solutions. At least in the simplified theory given above the classical transition in ionic solutions and the quantum PPT in dense plasmas are in full analogy. In both cases the spinodal curve is given by

$$\mu _{1,2}=\left(\frac{b^2}{8}b\right)\pm \left[\left(\frac{b^2}{8}b\right)^2b^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(13)
where $`b=e^2/k_BTa(T)`$ and $`\mu =e^2\kappa /k_BT`$. In the quantum case we find the corresponding estimate for the critical temperature

$$T_{cr}12570K$$
(14)
In the case of electrolytic solutions or semiconductors the critical temperature is much lower due to the appearance of the dielectric constant in the denominator. Another effect which decreases $`T_{cr}`$ is the finite size of ions. In order to describe the size of the ion cores in alkali or noble gas plasmas we introduce an effective ion radius $`R`$, e.g. we have $`R1.69A`$ for $`Cs`$ ions. Further we replace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/8`$ by

$$a(T)=\mathrm{\Lambda }/8+R$$
(15)
Assuming that $`R`$ is temperature-independent we find now from Eq.(15)

$$T_{cr}=12570K\frac{2}{1+\left(1+(6R/\pi a_B)\right)^{1/2}}$$
(16)
where $`a_B=\mathrm{}/e^2m_e`$ is the Bohr radius. We see that a finite ion size may lead to an essential decrease of the critical temperature to values far below $`10000K`$. For $`Cs`$ plasmas this estimate gives e.g. $`T_{cr}6000K`$. Since this value is still far above the observed critical point $`T_{cr}2000K`$ we have to search now for additional effects, which might reduce the critical temperature.

## III Combination of van der Waals and Debye-Hückel approximation

In the Debye-Hückel type approximation derived in the previous section the interaction of charges with neutrals and the neutral-neutral interaction was not taken into account. This model might fail if the interactions with neutrals have an essential influence. In the following we consider for concreteness a plasma system. We treated the neutrals as ideal particles in the simple approach given above which is analytically solvable. The system of mass action laws might become rather difficult if one includes the interactions with neutrals or/and chemical equilibria between neutrals as e.g. between atoms and molecules. A better starting point for such more complicated cases is as a rule the expression for the free energy, including a minimization procedure.

Combining the Debye-Hückel model with a van der Waals expression and a contribution which takes into account the polarization of neutrals we get for the free energy

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`n_0k_BT\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}{\sigma (T)}}\right)1\right]+n_ik_BT\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^3}{g_i}}\right)1\right]`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`n_ek_BT\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_e^3}{g_e}}\right)1\right]k_BTV{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^3}{12\pi }}\tau \left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{8}}\right)`$ (18)
$``$ $`k_BTn_0\mathrm{ln}(1n_0B)An_0^2Wnn_0`$ (19)
Here the last three terms denote the contributions from the short range van der Waals interactions and the contributions from polarization terms. The polarization terms are of particular importance for the description of alkali and mercury plasmas .

Three free constants characterize now our model
\- the repulsion of atoms : $`B`$
\- the attraction of atoms : $`A`$
\- the strength of atomic polarizability : $`W`$

In order to reduce the number of free parameters we assume in the following $`W=0`$. We note that the free energy in this form defines a model plasma with properties intermediate between van der Waals gas and a Debye-Hückel plasma. The equilibrium composition is given by the nonideal Saha equation

$$\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha ^2}=n\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\sigma (T)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I(\alpha )}{k_BT}\right)$$
(20)
Here

$`\mathrm{\Delta }I(\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\kappa \sqrt{\alpha }}{k_BT(1+\kappa a(T)\sqrt{\alpha })}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\alpha )nB}{1(1\alpha )nB}}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{log}(1(1\alpha )nB)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`(1\alpha )nAWn(2\alpha 1)`$ (23)
is the lowering of the ionization energy.

As well known, real gases with attractive interactions show a first-order phase transition described in the $`pT`$ plane by a critical point $`C_1`$ and a coexistence line ending in $`C_1`$. Assuming that the Coulombic terms are omitted in our expressions for the free energy a simple van der Waals type expression is obtained with the critical point

$$T_{vdW}=\frac{8a}{27k_Bb},n_{vdW}=\frac{1}{3b}$$
(24)
The critical temperature is about $`10^1<T_{cr}<10^3`$ for realistic values of the parameters. For example $`T_{cr}33K`$ for hydrogen. The degree of ionization is practically zero in this region, i.e. there is no interference with the PPT. On the other hand, at least for hydrogen, the PPT occurs in a region where the number density of neutrals is rather low. We may assume therefore that the assumption $`a=0,b=0`$ is justified in this case. Then, as shown above, the PPT may be treated in an analytical way. In the Lambda-approximation we got in the previous section an analytical expressions for the critical point of the PPT . By introducing the Bohr radius $`a_B`$ we may transform the expression for the critical temperature to the form

$$T_{ppt}=\frac{e^2}{8k_Ba_B}$$
(25)
Further the critical density of the free electrons may be written as

$$n_{ppt}=a_B^3$$
(26)
What happens in a system where both types of interactions are present? Evidently now besides the classical first-order phase transition typical for neutral gases a second first-order phase transitions due to Coulomb forces may appear. The second one which might occur only at rather high temperatures $`T>10^4K`$ is the PPT. In Fig. 1 we give the pressure isotherm of hydrogen plasmas at $`T=10000K`$.   FIG. 1.: The isotherm $`T=10000K`$ for hydrogen plasmas showing the PPT instability.

In the unstable region of the isotherm the plasma is separated into two phases. The dense phase is highly ionized and the Coulomb interaction dominates over the van der Waals forces. The less dense phase is only weakly ionized and van der Waals interactions dominate. A more realistic calculation of the coexistence line for hydrogen plasmas was given recently . A coexistence pressure of $`p115GPa`$ was found in the cited work for $`T=10000K`$; the corresponding mass densities of the coexisting phases are $`\rho _10.62g/cm^3`$ and $`\rho _20.82g/cm^3`$.

In order to investigate the qualitative influence of the van der Waals forces we studied a model plasma with increasing values of the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$. Fig. 2 shows the isotherm $`T=0.07`$ a.u. and $`a=b=30`$ a.u..   FIG. 2.: The isotherm $`T=0.07`$ a.u. for an alkali-like model plasma with one transition of mixed PPT-van der Waals type (van der Waals parametersof the model: $`a=30`$ a.u., $`b=30`$ a.u.).

In spite of the fact that these values are rather large we cannot detect a separate van der Waals wiggle. Both attracting forces support each other and lead to one phase transition approximately in the same density region as the PPT. This is the situation we observe in nature for alkali plasmas. At further increase of the values of the van der Waals parameters to $`a=b=100`$ a.u. we observe two separate van der Waals loops as shown in Fig. 3. This is the situation we observe for real noble gas plasmas. We are to emphasize, that Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 have just illustrative character; in reality we do not see two wiggles in one isotherm due to the drastic difference between the critical temperatures.

Summarizing these findings we may state that in dependence on the values of the van der Waals parameters we may obtain either a phase diagram with two first order transitions (hydrogen and noble gas plasmas) or a phase diagram where both transitions fuse to just one (alkali plasmas). The existence of a phase diagram including a van der Waals type transition and a separate metal-insulator phase transition was discussed for the first time in 1944 by Landau and Zeldovich . We repeat that the existence of two separate phase transitions requires the validity of the inequalities

$$T_{vdW}<<T_{ppt};\rho _{vdW}<<\rho _{ppt}$$
(27)
This is fulfilled for hydrogen and for noble gas plasmas. In the case of alkali plasmas the van der Waals and the PPT transition have about the same critical density and temperature. Therefore both transitions fuse just to one with very specific properties .   FIG. 3.: The isotherm $`T=0.07`$ a.u. for a noble gas-like model plasma with a PPT and a separate van der Waals transition (van der Waals parameters of the model: $`a=100`$ a.u., $`b=100`$ a.u.).

## IV Discussion of Plasma Phase Transitions

Considerable efforts were applied to obtain better plasma thermodynamic functions for larger range of the nonideality parameter. We will not go into the details of the theory here which are explained elsewhere . The critical temperatures derived from more refined versions of the theory lay in the region $`T_{cr}=1400019000K`$ . There is a scatter in the values of $`T_{cr}`$, $`p_{cr}`$ and $`n_{cr}`$, since the procedure of getting the thermodynamic functions for large nonideality is not a unique one. Instead of going into details on the several theoretical approaches we concentrate here on the physics and the relation to experiments, to numerical simulations and to related phenomena.

Let us start with the experimental aspects. The existence of a PPT in dense plasmas is still less clear than in classical Coulombic systems. This is mainly due to the fact that pressures predicted for the coexistence line are above $`1Mbar`$ what is still hardly reachable in experimental situations. However in the last time more and more experiments were performed which cover the region of interest . Experiments with shock-compressed hydrogen and deuterium plasmas have verified that around $`140GPa`$ and $`3000K`$ a transition to a highly conducting state occurs . This is approximately the pressure region where the coexistence line of the PPT is expected . A corresponding behavior of conductivity data has been reported . Pressure dissociation and ionization, which almost do not depend on the temperature, become a dominant factor at $`10^4K`$ and below in hydrogen and deuterium fluid studied experimentally at high pressures .

In order to compare theory and experiment in a more quantitative way refined treatments of the phase transition induced by pressure dissociation and ionization were given . Most of the possible species and various interactions were taken into account to calculate the equations of state. There is a certain discussion whether the model equations of state reproduce reasonably well the recent experiments. However the theory predicts in all variants a phase transition. with $`T_{cr}=1400019000K`$. Excited states do not contribute significantly to the hydrogen partition function in the intermediate range of temperatures.

Path integral Monte Carlo calculations and wave packet dynamics also give some hints to the existence of the plasma phase transition . For example the validity of the thermodynamic expressions used was tested by comparison with molecular simulation and experimental data for nonideal plasmas and limiting expansions for weakly nonideal plasmas . The problem continues to attract remarkable attention, for example at the recent (June 2-7, 2002) “International Conference on Warm Dense Matter and FEL Experiments” in Hamburg, Filinov et al  claim that they “present results of direct path integral Monte Carlo simulations which, for the first time, provide first-principle support of such a phase transition in dense hydrogen”. It should be noted, however, that these particular PIMC simulations yield rather low energy values for the “droplets” that appear in the simulations. Kohanoff and Scandolo  discussed on this workshop the same problem in a softer manner and presented their results of ab initio molecular dynamics simulations. We mention these works as part of the ongoing effort to simulate the PPT.

Let us discuss now in brief the phase transitions observed in alkali-plasmas. As pointed out in previous sections the theory predicts for this case that the PPT and the van der Waals transition fuse just to one transition. Near to the critical point the degree of ionization is low but different from zero. Coulombic interactions are present and influence the critical behavior, in spite of the fact that they do not play the dominant role. The area of parameters close to the critical point of cesium was carefully investigated . It was shown that near to the critical point the ionization landscape changes quickly and has a quite complicated structure. The theoretical predictions which take into account the charge-atom interaction (polarization effects) are in rather good agreement with the data .

The existing experiments for argon plasmas based on shock wave data are also in satisfactory agreement with the theory .

We will discuss now the problem of critical behavior and the critical indices. For the classical case much attention has been devoted to this problem . For the PPT where quantum effects influence the critical point, the problem of critical indices is still open. So far no experiments are available which give reliable information about the critical properties of hydrogen and noble gas plasmas. Experimental studies of classical electrolyte solutions revealed that Coulomb liquids characteristics differ from those of simple liquids. Even if crossover was observed from classical scaling laws to Ising scaling, it takes place much closer to the critical point. The Ginzburg parameter, which characterizes the size of the Ising region, turns out to be of 1-2 and more orders of magnitude less than for simple liquids. So there is a remarkable difference in crossover range between simple and Coulomb liquids . Experimental study of crossover phenomena in real plasmas and in particular in cesium plasmas might help to find out if the critical point is of the plasma or gas-liquid kind. Additional factors, which do not exist in electrolytes, namely, quantum effects and charge-atom interaction can influence the crossover phenomena in PPT.

Michael Fisher  formulated clearly the challenge to the critical phenomena theory: ”Critical behavior is thoroughly understood in Ising models alias lattice gases: But how far does that help our insight into the critical region of continuum models and real fluids? In particular, what causes some ionic solutions to exhibit van der Waals or ”classical” critical exponents, while other, so-called ”solvophobic” systems are of Ising - type?”. It is evident that the difference between properties of various liquids under similar external conditions can be attributed principally only to the interaction potentials between the particles. However the Kadanoff-Wilson theory of critical phenomena, which is based on the universality hypothesis, neglects interaction potential peculiarities and appeals only to large-scale properties, such as system dimension and Hamiltonian symmetry. So other approaches are needed.

First of all Fisher points to the integral equation approach. But most of the standard approaches to the theory of critical phenomena based on integral equation method fail . Though both the Kadanoff-Wilson theory and the integral equation approach are on equal rights, the first is based on global treatment whereas the latter is related to the local Ornstein-Zernike equation. For this reason Fisher puts the integral equation approach on the first place in his hope to solve the problem of Coulomb criticality. However there is a specific difficulty in the local approach which is connected with the choice of closing relation in the integral equation approach. This difficulty was attacked recently by Martynov . He suggested an integral equation which depends on the interaction potential and permits in principle to define the critical indices and their dependence on the interaction potential. Martynov  applied his local approach to the system of charged particles. The critical indices obtained differ almost as much as twice from van der Waals and Kadanoff-Wilson predictions. However the results cannot be applied directly to electrolyte solutions since they do not take into account solvent molecule influence, neither it can be applied directly to dense plasma, since quantum effects are not taken into account.

Let us finally discuss several special problems connected with Coulombic phase transitions. At first we mention the magnetic field influence. It was shown recently that strong magnetic fields increase the critical temperature . Another important effect is connected with nonequilibrium phenomena. It was noted  that nonideal plasmas are usually generated in non-equilibrium state with respect to plasma wave excitation. This might complicate the theory  and the analysis of experiments.

At third we would like to discuss a new class of phenomena observed in Cs-plasmas . Though the standard cesium phase diagram is well known , Recently a new phase state of Cs was observed by Holmlid et al . In experiments with thermoionic converters clusters were observed first at $`1300K`$. These cluster were cooled and associated in microdroplets. The microdroplets formed were fixed and measured at $`70K`$. The number density obtained was about $`1018`$ $`atoms/cm^3`$. Holmlid  considered his results as an observation of the Rydberg matter predicted by Manykin et al . Generally speaking Rydberg matter exists only at $`0K`$ temperature. At higher temperatures Manykin’s approach can and should be combined with our non-ideal plasma treatment. In fact both approaches enhance each other. The phenomenon might be connected with the idea of isolated segment of metastable nonideal plasmas which was introduced into the plasma thermodynamics long ago . Supercooled nonideal plasma states were a direct consequence of the PPT . Manykin’s Rydberg matter , Holmlid’s microdroplets  and plasma phase transitions  are various facets of Coulombic phenomena. The existence of isolated regions of metastable nonideal plasmas is not an exceptional feature of cesium. Several authors  suggested that this might be a more general feature. In fact Holmlid  observed his clusters in many other substances as well. The isolated region of metastable nonideal plasmas is possibly an inherent part of the phase diagram. This part complements the standard diagram and is superimposed on it.

## V Conclusions

This work is devoted to plasma phase transitions (PPT) which are determined by attractive Coulombic interactions and quantum repulsion. The PPT occurs in the region of high pressures and temperatures, where matter is at least partially ionized. At least in principal the PPT is an analogue of the known Coulombic transition in classical ionic solutions. In both cases the mechanisms are the same, the transition is due to the interference between a Coulombic attraction of the charges and repulsive forces. The classical repulsion of ions at small distances is in the quantum case replaced by Heisenberg and Pauli repulsion effects. We have shown above for dense gaseous plasmas that in dependence on the values of the van der Waals parameters of the neutral component we may obtain either a phase diagram wi two first order transitions (hydrogen and noble gas plasmas) or a phase diagram where both transitions fuse to just one (alkali plasmas). In spite of considerable efforts there is no final proof yet that the PPT really exists, however new theoretical and experimental results seem to confirm this hypothesis. One strong theoretical argument in favor of the PPT is the analogy to the Coulombic phase transition in classical systems. For ionic solutions theory and experiment (Monte Carlo data as well as measurements on electrolytes) show a corresponding Coulomb transition. Therefore there is no doubt any more that a Coulombic phase transition in classical systems exists . For quantum systems as e.g. hydrogen plasmas the problem of the existence of a PPT is still open. The main reason for still unsolved problems are

* the theory of the PPT requires an accurate theory of dense quantum plasmas, and
* the pressures where the PPT occurs are in the Mbar region what leads to very difficult experimental problems.

We discussed here several results of theory and experiment which point to the existence of a PPT in real plasmas and discussed the conditions and parameter regions where the PPT is expected.

## Acknowledgements

We thank V.E. Fortov, A.S. Kaklyugin, E.A.Manykin and two referees for valuable discussions. The work is supported by RFBS, grant 00-02-16310a.