text:
# Crossover from coherent to incoherent electronic excitations in the normal state of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ

## Abstract

Angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and resistivity measurements are used to explore the overdoped region of the high temperature superconductor Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ. We find evidence for a new crossover line in the phase diagram between a coherent metal phase for lower temperatures and higher doping, and an incoherent metal phase for higher temperatures and lower doping. The former is characterized by two well-defined spectral peaks in ARPES due to coherent bilayer splitting and superlinear behavior in the resistivity, whereas the latter is characterized by a single broad spectral feature in ARPES and a linear temperature dependence of the resistivity.

The normal state of optimal and underdoped high temperature superconductors (HTSCs) exhibits anomalous transport and spectroscopic properties which have long been recognized as one of the central mysteries of the field 1 ; 2 . The electronic excitations are unlike those of conventional metals, where one can think of dressed electrons - quasiparticles. Instead, the response in the normal state of the HTSCs is incoherent, with no identifiable single particle like excitations. The key question is how the strange metal evolves into the conventional one at high doping. Some models propose that the incoherent normal metal represents a new state of matter 3 , with a crossover to more conventional behavior 4 . Others suggest that the incoherent state is a result of underlying competing interactions, and therefore its behavior evolves continuously from the conventional one 5 .

Here, using photoemission and resistivity, we study the issue of the coherence of the electronic excitations. We find a new crossover line in the phase diagram of the HTSCs between the low temperature, overdoped side with coherent electronic excitations, and the high temperature, underdoped side, where this coherence is lost, and therefore conclude that indeed the two states are qualitatively different.

For our measurements, we have chosen Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (Bi2212), which has the advantage that it can be prepared over a wide range of doping, and is ideal for angle resolved photoemission (ARPES) given its quasi two dimensionality. Additionally, it possesses two $`CuO_2`$ layers (a bilayer), and thus the issue of coherence can be probed by not only examining its planar properties as a function of doping and temperature, but also by looking for the presence of bilayer splitting; if the motion of electrons within the bilayer is coherent, then we expect the formation of antibonding (A) and bonding (B) states. These are the antisymmetric and symmetric combinations of the layer wavefunctions with energies $`ϵ_{A(B)}(𝐤)=ϵ(𝐤)\pm t_{}(𝐤)`$ where $`ϵ(𝐤)`$ is the planar dispersion and $`t_{}(𝐤)`$ the interplanar coupling. As the $`CuO_2`$ planes in Bi2212 are separated by only 3.17Å, electronic structure calculations predict a sizable bilayer splitting of order 0.3 eV 6 . In the coherent regime, the primary effect of interactions would be to renormalize the splitting to a smaller value, without qualitatively affecting the spectrum. On the other hand, if the interactions are sufficiently strong, then we expect the coherent behaviour within each plane, as well as the coherent motion within the bilayer, to be destroyed 1 . The in-plane effect would be reflected in both the ARPES spectral lineshape and in the temperature dependence of the planar transport. The out-of-plane effect would be a loss of the coherent bilayer splitting.

The ARPES and resistivity data were obtained on high quality epitaxially grown thin films of Bi2212 7 . These films have the very useful feature of displaying small signals from the structural superlattice distortion ($`<`$ 3%), which otherwise would complicate 8  the interpretation of ARPES data in the vicinity of the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point of the Brillouin zone. This is particularly important for us, since bilayer splitting is maximal at $`(\pi ,0)`$ 9 ; 10 ; 11 ; 12 , as shown in panel a of Fig. 1.

ARPES measurements were carried out at the Synchrotron Radiation Center in Wisconsin with an energy resolution of 30 meV and a momentum resolution of 0.01Åusing our SES50 analyzer and undulator 4 meter NIM beamline. The ARPES intensity as a function of the planar momentum k and energy $`\omega `$ (measured with respect to the chemical potential) is given by 13  $`I(𝐤,\omega )=I_0(𝐤)f(\omega )A(𝐤,\omega )`$ (convolved with the resolution function). Here, $`I_0`$ is an intensity prefactor, $`f`$ the Fermi function, and $`A`$ the single particle spectral function, which measures the probability of removing or adding an electron from the system. The peak in $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ measures the energy of the electronic excitation, while its linewidth is inversely proportional to the lifetime. Since the ARPES lineshape is “chopped off” by the Fermi function, we choose in some cases to divide our data by a resolution broadened Fermi function, obtained by fitting the leading edge of a polycrystalline Au in contact with the sample. This procedure allows us to focus directly on $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ (albeit approximately because of the resolution convolution).

In panel (b) of Fig. 1 we plot raw ARPES data for an overdoped (OD) sample ($`T_C`$ = 52K) at T=100K, along a momentum cut centred at the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point of the Brillouin zone. In addition, in panel (c), we plot the same data divided by the Fermi function, which approximates the true spectral function. The data in panel (c) reveal two dispersing bands due to the bilayer splitting, with the A band close to, and the B band well below, the chemical potential. In panel (d), we show data like that in (c) (divided by the Fermi function) for another sample with the same $`T_C`$ as a function of temperature. The bilayer splitting can clearly be seen at 100K, however above 250K the two bands are no longer observed. To obtain more precise information, in panel (e) we show the temperature dependence of the spectral function at $`(\pi ,0)`$ as a function of energy (raw data divided by the Fermi function). The sample was temperature-cycled when taking the data to ensure that the observed effect is intrinsic and not due to the sample aging (the numbers in the legend indicate the order of measurement). At 100K, one sees clearly the presence of two peaks, a sharp A peak near the chemical potential, and a broader B peak at about 100 meV below. As the temperature is increased, the peaks broaden and lose intensity, until only a single broad peak remains at 250K. At the bottom of the panel (e), we plot the curves for all temperatures without an offset to show that lineshape changes occur only up to 250K. Based on this, we argue that above 250K the system no longer exhibits coherent excitations, both in regards to inverse lifetime (spectral peak widths) and bilayer splitting (appearance of two separate spectral peaks). That is, the data indicate that both in-plane and out-of-plane coherence are lost.

We now examine the issue of coherence as a function of doping. In panel (a) of Fig. 2, we show data like in Fig. 1(d), but for an overdoped ($`T_C`$ = 75K) sample. Again, note the presence of bilayer splitting at 100K which is not visible at 300K. We can contrast this behaviour with that of an optimally doped sample ($`T_C`$ = 89K) shown in panel (b), where the intensity plots do not indicate the presence of bilayer splitting, even at 100K. This is further illustrated in panel (c), where again the spectrum at $`(\pi ,0)`$ (divided by the Fermi function) is shown. At 100K, only a single broad peak is seen, with no presence of bilayer splitting, indicating incoherent behaviour. Instead, a pseudogap is seen, centred at the chemical potential, which fills in as the temperature is increased. An important check can be made by analyzing the photon energy dependence of the data. It has been recently observed that the spectral lineshape changes as a function of photon energy for overdoped samples due to the relative weighting of the A and B peaks 11 ; 12 . This is clearly seen in Fig. 2(d), where data at $`(\pi ,0)`$ for the overdoped sample of Fig. 1 is shown for two different photon energies. In contrast, for the optimal doped sample, only a very small change with photon energy is observed (panel d), indicating the absence of bilayer splitting.

It is also useful to plot the data as a function of momentum for fixed energy (momentum distribution curve, or MDC). In Fig. 3 we show such plots for a few values of the binding energy, at low and high temperatures, for two samples, an overdoped sample like that in Fig. 1, and another optimal doped sample ($`T_C`$ = 89K). At 100K and energies close to the chemical potential, the overdoped MDC has four peaks (panel a). The two peaks closest to the centre of the plot correspond to the A band, while the two peaks on the outside correspond to the B band. As the binding energy increases, the two A peaks approach each other and then merge into a single peak, which then disappears at still higher energies. This is the expected behaviour of MDCs close to the bottom of a band, and is also observed for the B peak at even higher binding energies. However, at high temperatures only two peaks are observed, regardless of binding energy (panel a). This can be contrasted with the optimally doped sample, where only two peaks are visible in the MDCs, whether at 100K or 300K (panel b).

We now connect our ARPES observations with transport data taken on the same films. The resistivity was determined using the standard four-probe method. In Fig. 4 we plot the resistivity as a function of temperature for the optimally doped (panel a) and overdoped (panel b) samples of Fig. 3, with the black line a linear fit to the high temperature data. Both samples at high temperatures exhibit a linear T resistivity, which has been linked to the absence of coherent quasiparticles 1 ; 2 . For the optimally doped sample, this behaviour continues to near $`T_C`$, with the rounding just above $`T_C`$ due to fluctuation effects. In contrast, the overdoped sample shows strong deviations from linearity, which set in at about 250K. These results can be understood more easily by plotting the derivative of the resistivity, which emphasizes the strength of the inelastic scattering contribution. One can see that while the optimally doped sample shows a constant derivative, the overdoped sample shows a change in derivative at 250 K. Below this temperature, the derivative monotonically decreases. The superlinear behaviour of the resistivity below 250K indicates the presence of coherent excitations. We note the strong correlation of these observations with ARPES. In the optimally doped sample, sharp spectral peaks only begin to appear at temperatures slightly above $`T_C`$. And in the overdoped sample (Fig. 1e), the sharp A peak disappears above 250K. As we show in the bottom right panel of Fig. 4, the ARPES intensity is inversely related to $`d\rho /dT`$. In particular, the intensity becomes constant when the resitivity becomes linear.

Based on our results, we show in Fig. 5 a proposed phase diagram for the HTSCs. The crossover between the pseudogap phase and the strange metal phase has been studied in the past, both by ARPES 14  and transport 7 . What we have shown here is the presence of a new crossover line, between a conventional metal phase on the overdoped side of the phase diagram and the strange metal phase, seen from both spectroscopic and transport measurements. The two crossover lines (pseudogap/strange metal and metal/strange metal) were determined by the departure from linear T resistivity. In all cases, the crossover lines were verified by ARPES, with the pseudogap line being determined by the closing of the leading edge gap at $`(\pi ,0)`$, and the metal line by the loss of the sharp (A) peak at $`(\pi ,0)`$.

The crossover line we have found from the loss of coherence has been long predicted on theoretical grounds. Slave boson studies of the t-J model 4 ; 15  predict a phase diagram very similar to Fig. 5, with the crossover line between the strange metal and metal phases marking the “condensation of holons” (i.e., for temperatures below this, the doped holes have phase coherence). However, a similar crossover to the one observed here may also be expected near a quantum critical point 16 , with the “ordered” region corresponding to the pseudogap, the disordered region the conventional metal, and the quantum critical regime the strange metal phase. Further studies are needed to distinguish these possibilities.

In conclusion, our data show the presence of a coherent normal metal in overdoped samples, and that this state crosses over into an incoherent metal at higher temperatures. We emphasize that the ARPES data indicate a loss of both in-plane and out-of-plane coherence. Furthermore, this crossover temperature increases with doping. Our studies indicate that the normal state of the HTSCs, with its various phases, is a much richer field of study than even its exotic superconducting state, and has strong implications for the many body theory of electrons in reduced spatial dimensions.

This work was supported by the NSF DMR 9974401 and the U.S. DOE, Office of Science, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. The Synchrotron Radiation Center is supported by NSF DMR 9212658. SR was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation, and MR by the Indian DST through the Swarnajayanti scheme. We acknowledge helpful discussions with P.D. Johnson.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Our decision for a common instrument control system at the FRM-II was based on the analysis of the required hardware we have to support. Modern electronic equipment at large scale user facilities can be devided into two categories: slow control and high speed data acquisition. A large part of the instrument for neutron scattering experiments belongs to the first category. These are all motor controls, switches, or sample environment equipments which change their state only slowly, that means in time scales of seconds or even longer.

## 2 Hardware

These slow controls are generally connected by field-busses, i.e. serial lines or Profibus DP in our case. The main advantage of using the industry standard Profibus is to connect a large variety of hardware by the same interface. Furthermore one has to deal with a complex protocol if the own hardware is to be developed. For this work we rely on a collaboration with the electronic department (ZEL) of the Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany (see contribution by H. Kleines ). For a large number of commercially available control electronics (vacuum systems, power supplies, high voltage supplies, …), the only available interface is the RS232 connection. If the number of devices gets too large we group systems together by a RS485 field-bus using a simple modbus protocol to address the single device.

For high speed data acquisition like position sensitive linear or area detectors or even single counting boards we use faster computer busses like PCI or VME, depending on the complexity of the electronics. For our own developments we prefer to use so called M-Modules (M-Module Mezzanine (ANSI/VISTA 12-1996)) boards which can be plugged in commercially available carrier boards for PCI, cCPI, or VME systems.

## 3 Software requirements

The instrument control has to fulfill two major tasks:

* communication with the electronic hardware
* interface to the user

As there are hardly any interferences between these tasks, we aimed at a modular system where different components of the instrument can be put together without restrictions on the number or location of the components.

### 3.1 TACO - an object oriented control system

Such a system has been realised at the ESRF for the beam line control and is now used as well for their instrument control. This so called TACO system  presents the electronic components as network transparent devices. The TACO system itself provides the organization and communication to these devices (see figure 1).

The TACO servers which export devices, on the one hand ensure the communication to the hardware (via field-busses, or PCI/VME communication) and on the other hand provide instrument parameters in physical units, e.g. sample temperature in Kelvin, motor movements in centimeters, or axis movements in degrees, and so on). This simplifies the access to the hardware for the user, without knowledge of the hardware internals beeing required.

One of the striking features of TACO is that the communication between the different modules is not restricted to a specific operating system on the computers as TACO uses the SunRPC communication implemented on the different UNIX flavors as well as on Windows systems. However, for simplicity we restricted the development at the FRM-II to Linux so far. This decision implies that for a large number of commercially available hardware, Linux drivers had to be developed by ourselves, which finally leads to a natural selection of the used hardware.

### 3.2 TACO extensions at the FRM-II

At the FRM-II TACO is not used in the form distributed by the ESRF, but in an extended way. The TACO communication between client and server is done by a generic protocol, which contains a unique command number, a pointer to the input data, an information about the type of the input parameter, and a pointer and type of the output parameter. However, programming this communication might lead to a large number of pitfalls, which then gives an unexpected behaviour of the control software. We decided to implement a safer way to communicate between client and server. The communication between them is hidden by so called client classes, which are created by the developer of the server (see figure 2). These classes are counterparts to the server exported devices. They support all commands provided by devices and give the user a safe communication way. Additionally it tests whether the client has connected to a corresponding device.

Another extension used at the FRM-II is the concept of high level or logical TACO servers. These servers have no direct connection to the hardware. They use the low level taco server as clients, create a logical unit and provide corresponding TACO devices. By this we get a lot of complex devices, such a axis (a motor which is mechanically connected to an encoder device), or sample environment servers which hide the internals from the user.

## 4 Instrument control at FRM-II

The instrument control is realised as an Ethernet-subnet at each instrument using standard UDP or TCP communications via SunRPC calls, as defined in the TACO system.

The communication to the different servers by a conventional network replaces in some way the extensive use of field-busses as in the industrial automation. Depending on the complexity of the instrument, electronics is connected to a range of different computers.

For electronical and mechanical stability we prefer the compact PCI standard as hardware platform. For special purposes like a high temperature furnace we group all the connections to a tiny single board computer with a flash disk (see figure 3), put it in a nice cave and call it according to the ESRF a TACO box. For this we developed a tiny linux distribution, based on a SuSE 7.2 distribution.

### 4.1 User interface

For the user interface we developed a front-end written in python , a common scripting language, called NICOS  (see contribution by T. Unruh ). It provides full remote control of the instrument in a client/server architecture.

### 4.2 Data displaying

A powerful instrument control should also provide an online data visualization. For this we started to develop a new frame work with a modular architecture, to adopt it in a simple way to the different needs of the instruments. We called it openDaVE (open Data Visualization Environment)  (see contribution openDaVE by J .Krüger ).

### 4.3 Data format

Throughout the instruments we want to establish a common data format, i.e. NeXus, which is the major data format for openDaVE(see contribution by J. Beckmann ).


text:
# Transport through a quantum wire with a side quantum-dot array

## I Introduction

Recent progress in nanofabrication of quantum devices enables to study electron transport through quantum dots (QDs) in a very controllable way.qd1 ; qd2  QDs are very promising systems due to their physical properties as well as their potential application in electronic devices. These structures are small semiconductor or metal structures in which electrons are confined in all spatial dimensions. As a consequence, discreteness of energy and charge arise. For this reason QDs are often referred as *artificial atoms*. In contrast to real atoms, different regimes can be studied by continuously changing the applied external potential.

If the single QDs is referred as *artificial atoms* a QD array can be considered as *artificial molecule* or *artificial crystal*.dqd1 ; dqd2 ; qdaN  Latest advances in nanotechnology make it possible to fabricate QD arrays. In linear QD arrays leads are attached to their ends and the current through them is measured while external parameters such a gated voltage, magnetic field, and temperature are varied. In resonant tunneling regime, the electronic transport through QD array becomes sensitive to precise matching of the electron levels in the dots that can be controlled experimentally. For other hand, a linear QD array can be seen as an one dimensional chain of sites. This type of chain coupled to the continuum states shows an even-odd parity effect in the conductance when the Fermi energy is localized in the center of the energy band.oguri ; zeng  The conductance is $`2e^2/h`$ for odd samples and is smaller for even parity.oguri ; zeng

The aim of this work is to study theoretically the transport properties of an alternative configuration of a side-coupled QD array attached to a perfect quantum wire (QW). In this case the QD array acts as scattering center for transmission through the QW. This configuration can be regarded as a quantum wave guide with side-stub structures, similar to those reported in Refs. stub1, ; stub2, ; stub3, . In contrast to the embedded QD array, the transmission through the side-coupled QD array consists of the interference between the ballistic channel and the resonant channels from the QD array. For a uniform side QD array, we found that the system develops an oscillating band with resonances ( perfect transmission) and antiresonances (perfect reflection). In addition, we found an odd-even parity of the number of QDs in the array, namely perfect transmission takes place if this number is even ($`G=2e^2/h`$) but perfect reflection arises for an odd number ($`G=0`$). This result is opposed to that found in embedded QD arrays. oguri ; zeng  We established an explicit relation between this odd-even parity, and the positions of the resonances and antiresonances of the conductivity with the spectrum of the isolated QD array.

## II Model

Let us consider a QW with a side-coupled QD array. The array consists of $`N`$ QDs connected in a series by tunnel coupling, as shown in Fig. 1. The system is modeled by using a noninteracting Anderson tunneling HamiltonianqdaN  that can be written as

$$H=H_{\text{QW}}+H_{\text{QD}}^N+H_{\text{QD-QW}},$$
(1)
with

$`H_{\text{QW}}=v{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}c_i^{}c_j,`$
$`H_{\text{QD}}^N={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\epsilon _ld_l^{}d_l+{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(V_{l,l+1}d_l^{}d_{l+1}+\text{h.c.}),`$
$`H_{\text{QD-QW}}=V_0(d_1^{}c_0+c_0^{}d_1).`$ (2)
The operator $`c_i^{}`$ creates an electron at site $`i`$, $`v`$ is the hopping in the QW, $`\epsilon _l`$ is the energy level of the dot $`l`$ and $`V_{l,l+1}`$ is the tunneling coupling between $`l`$th and $`(l+1)`$th QD. Here $`H_{\text{QW}}`$ corresponds to the free-particle Hamiltonian on a lattice with spacing $`d`$ and whose eigenfunctions are expressed as Bloch solutions

$$|k=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{ikdj}|j,$$
(3)
where $`|k`$ is the momentum eigenstate and $`|j`$ is a Wannier state localized at site $`j`$. The dispersion relation associated with these Bloch states reads

$$\epsilon =2v\mathrm{cos}(kd).$$
(4)
Consequently, the Hamiltonian supports an energy band from $`2v`$ to $`+2v`$ and the first Brillouin zone expands the interval $`[\pi /d,\pi /d]`$.

The stationary states of the entire Hamiltonian $`H`$ can be written as

$$|\psi _k=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_j^k|j+\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}b_l^k|l,$$
(5)
where the coefficient $`a_j^k`$ ($`b_l^k`$) is the probability amplitude to find the electron in the site $`j`$ of the QW ($`l`$ of the array) in the state $`k`$, namely

$$a_j^k=j|\psi _k,b_l^k=l|\psi _k.$$
(6)
The amplitudes $`a_j^k`$ obey the following linear difference equations

$`\epsilon a_j^k`$ $`=`$ $`v(a_{j1}^k+a_{j+1}^k)+V_0b_1^k\delta _{j0},`$
$`\epsilon b_1^k`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _1b_1^k+V_{1,2}b_2^k+V_0a_0^k,`$
$`\epsilon b_l^k`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _lb_l^k+V_{l,l1}b_{l1}^k+V_{l,l+1}b_{l+1}^k,l1,N,`$
$`\epsilon b_N^k`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _Nb_N^k+V_{N,N1}b_{N1}^k.`$ (7)
Iterating backwards the equation for $`b_N^k`$ we can express the amplitude $`b_1^k`$ in terms of $`a_0^k`$ as a continued fraction

$$b_1^k=\frac{V_0a_0^k}{\epsilon \epsilon _1{\displaystyle \frac{V_{1,2}^2}{\epsilon \epsilon _2_{\mathrm{}\text{ }_{\epsilon \epsilon _{N1}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{N1,N}^2}{\epsilon \epsilon _N}}}}}}}.$$
(8)
Therefore the equation for $`a_0^k`$ can be cast in the form

$$\epsilon a_0^k=v(a_1^k+a_1^k)+V_0^2/Q_Na_0^k,$$
(9)
where $`Q_N`$ is the continued fraction

$$Q_N=\epsilon \epsilon _1\frac{V_{1,2}^2}{\epsilon \epsilon _2_{\mathrm{}\text{ }_{\epsilon \epsilon _{N1}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{N1,N}^2}{\epsilon \epsilon _N}}}}}.$$
(10)
In order to study the solutions of the equations (7) we assume that the electrons are described by a plane wave incident from the far left with unity amplitude and a reflection amplitude $`r`$ and at the far right by a transmission amplitude $`t`$. Taking this to be the solution we can write,

$`a_j^k`$ $`=e^{ikdj}+re^{ikdj},`$ $`j<0,`$ (11)
$`a_j^k`$ $`=te^{ikdj},`$ $`j>1.`$ (12)
The solution of the equations for the $`a_j^k`$s the can be then obtained iteratively from right to left. For a given transmission amplitude, the associated incident and reflection amplitudes may be determined by matching the iterated function to the proper plane wave at the far left. The transmission probability is given by $`T=\left|t\right|^2`$ and is obtained from the iterative procedure described above. In equilibrium we solve the equation for $`t`$ and $`r`$ and we get the following expressions

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2iv\mathrm{sin}(kd)}{2iv\mathrm{sin}(kd)V_0^2/Q_N}}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_N}{Q_N+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$ (13a)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_0^2/Q_N}{2iv\mathrm{sin}(kd)V_0^2/Q_N}}={\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{Q_N+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}},`$ (13b)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )V_0^2/2v\mathrm{sin}(kd)`$ can be regarded as the level broadening. Notice that the level broadening can be fairly well approximated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }V_0^2/2v`$ close to the center of the band.

The experimentally accessible quantity is the linear conductance $`G`$ which is related to the transmission coefficient $`T`$ at the Fermi energy by the one-channel Landauer formula at zero temperature

$`G={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}T={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_N^2}{Q_N^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}.`$ (14)
It is worth mentioning that the energy levels (zeroes of $`Q_N`$) depend only on the hopping in the QD array ($`V_{n1,n}`$) while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is only function of $`V_0^2/v`$. Consequently, both magnitudes can be controlled independently in an actual experiment. This is one of the main advantages of the present setup.

## III Results

### III.1 Short QD array

Closed expressions for the transmission and reflection coefficients can be readily obtained when the number of QDs in the array is small. For $`N=1`$, $`Q_1=\epsilon \epsilon _1`$ and then we arrive at

$`T(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon \epsilon _1)^2}{(\epsilon \epsilon _1)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$
$`R(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{(\epsilon \epsilon _1)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}.`$ (15)
The system has an antiresonance at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1`$. The transmission and the reflection probability are zero and one, respectively. For $`N=2,`$ the transmission and reflection coefficients are given by

$`T(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)V_c^2]^2}{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)V_c^2]^2+(\epsilon \epsilon _2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$
$`R(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\epsilon \epsilon _2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)V_c^2]^2+(\epsilon \epsilon _2)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$ (16)
where $`V_{1,2}V_c`$. Therefore, the system presents one resonance in $`\epsilon \epsilon _2`$ and bonding and antibonding antiresonances at energies

$$\epsilon =\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon _{1\text{ }}+\epsilon _{2\text{ }})\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(\epsilon _{1\text{ }}\epsilon _{2\text{ }})^2+4V_c^2}.$$

The system with $`N=3`$ side-coupled QDs shows particularly simple solution for the case $`V_{1,2}=V_{2,3}V_c`$,

$`T(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2((\epsilon \epsilon _1)+(\epsilon \epsilon _3))]^2}{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2((\epsilon \epsilon _1)+(\epsilon \epsilon _3))]^2+[(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}},`$
$`R(\epsilon )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{[(\epsilon \epsilon _1)(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2((\epsilon \epsilon _1)+(\epsilon \epsilon _3))]^2+[(\epsilon \epsilon _2)(\epsilon \epsilon _3)V_c^2]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}.`$ (17)
Clearly for the case with $`\epsilon _{1\text{ }}=\epsilon _{2\text{ }}=\epsilon _3,`$ the system shows three antiresonances at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1\pm \sqrt{2}V_c`$ and two resonances at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1\pm V_c`$.

Figure 2 shows the conductance as a function of the Fermi energy of the incident electron for $`\epsilon _i=0`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and $`V_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There exists only one narrow antiresonance in the case of $`N=1`$ QD, and bonding and antibonding antiresonances and one resonance in zero are clearly revealed for $`N=2`$. In addition, bonding and antibonding resonances and zero, bonding and antibonding antiresonances arise when $`N=3`$.

### III.2 Long QD array

When the number $`N`$ of attached QDs is large, we must rely on numerical calculations. For sake of simplicity we consider a uniform quantum dot array $`V_{l1,l}V_c`$ and $`\epsilon _l=\epsilon _0`$. The continued fraction $`Q_N`$ in Eq. (10) is written as $`Q_N=(\epsilon \epsilon _0)x_N`$ , where $`x_N`$ satisfies the following recursive equation,

$$x_N=1\frac{\alpha }{x_{N1}},N=1,2,3,\mathrm{}$$
(18)
with $`x_1=1`$ and $`\alpha V_c^2/(\epsilon \epsilon _0)^2`$ for $`\epsilon \epsilon _0`$.

For $`N`$ large the antiresonance appearing in Fig. 2 for $`N=1`$ evolves as a fast oscillation band. As the number of QDs $`N`$ increases, this narrow antiresonance splits into $`N`$ antiresonances and $`N1`$ resonances, as seen in the upper panel of Fig. 3 for $`V_c=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\epsilon _0=0`$. On further increasing $`N`$, the antiresonances never merge into a single stop-band, as one would naively expect. In fact, it is not difficult to demonstrate that $`Q_N=D_N/D_{N1},`$ where $`D_N=det(H_{QD}^N\epsilon I).`$ The transmission coefficient can be written as

$$T=\frac{D_N^2}{D_N^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2D_{N1}^2}.$$
(19)
Thus, transmission vanishes in the spectrum of $`H_{QD}^N`$ and becomes unity in the spectrum of the $`H_{QD}^{N1}`$. Therefore the conductance show $`N`$ antiresonances and $`N1`$ resonances, as we see in Figs. 1 and 2. This statement is further confirmed by plotting the full width at half minimum of the antiresonances, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as a function of energy, as shown in Fig. 4 for different values of $`N`$.

### III.3 Odd-Even Parity

Here we consider the case when the Fermi energy is pinned at the value of the energy level of the quantum dot. From equation (7) is straightforward to prove the existence of an odd-even parity when $`\epsilon _l=\epsilon _0,`$

$`G=0,`$ $`N\text{ odd},`$
$`G={\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}},`$ $`N\text{ even},`$ (20)
as it can be readily checked in Figs. 1 and 2. This result also holds for QD arrays with off-diagonal disorder. This odd-even parity is opposed to the case of an embedded quantum array, where perfect transmission takes place for odd parity.oguri ; zeng  This property arises from the fact that energy level of the of the QDs $`\epsilon _0`$ is always in the electronic spectrum of the isolated QD array, provided the number of the QDs is odd. It is straightforward to demonstrate this statement from the fact $`D_N`$ satisfies the following recursive equation,

$$D_N=(\epsilon \epsilon _0)D_{N1}V_{N1,N}^2D_{N2},N=3,4,5\mathrm{}$$
(21)
with $`D_1=\epsilon \epsilon _0`$ and $`D_2`$ $`=(\epsilon \epsilon _0)^2V_{1,2}^2`$. It is clear from Eq. (21) that $`D_N`$ is zero at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0`$ if $`N`$ is odd. Therefore $`\epsilon _0`$ is eigenvalue of $`H_{QD}^N`$ and then from equation (19) we obtain that at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0`$, $`T=0`$ (perfect reflection) if $`N`$ is odd and $`T=1`$ (perfect transmission) for even $`N`$.

### III.4 Infinite QD array

To understand the origin of the fast oscillations of the conductance as a function of the Fermi energy (Fig. 3), we now consider the limiting case $`N\mathrm{}`$. Thus, we are faced to a one-dimensional map (18). This map has two fixed points at wall

$$x_\pm ^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm \sqrt{14\alpha }\right),$$
(22)
when $`\alpha <1/4`$, namely $`|\epsilon \epsilon _0|>2V_c`$. The conductance for $`N\mathrm{}`$ is,

$$G_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{2e^2}{h}\frac{(\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|+\sqrt{(\epsilon \epsilon _0)^24V_c^2})^2}{(\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|+\sqrt{(\epsilon \epsilon _0)^24V_c^2})^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2},$$
(23)
for $`|\epsilon |>2V_c`$. This result explains the smooth tails seen in Fig. 3 when $`|\epsilon \epsilon _0|/\mathrm{\Gamma }>2`$.

The conductance undergoes a bifurcation at $`\alpha =1/4`$ ($`\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|=2V_c`$), and there are not fixed points when $`\alpha >1/4`$, namely $`|\epsilon \epsilon _0|<2V_c`$. Consequently, minute variations of the Fermi energy result in a dramatic change in the conductance of the QW, as it can be concluded from the lower panel of Fig. 3.

## IV Summary

In this work, we studied the conductance at zero temperature of a side QD array attached to a QW. For a uniform QD array we found that the system develops an oscillating band with $`N`$ antiresonances and $`N1`$ resonances arising from the hybridization of the quasibound levels of the QDs and the coupling to the QW. The positions of the antiresonances correspond exactly to the electronic spectrum of the isolated QD array. This property could be used to measure the energy spectrum of the $`N`$ QD array. It should be stressed that the particular setup we suggested allows us to control the energy and the width of the antiresonances in an independent fashion. When the number of attached QDs is large, a rich phenomenology appears for different values of the Fermi energy. When the Fermi energy lies far from the center of the QW band ($`\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|>2V_c`$), the conductance presents regular and smooth behavior. However, the conductance strongly fluctuates close to the center of the QW band ($`\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|<2V_c`$). These results pose a question about the relevance of the bifurcation at $`\left|\epsilon \epsilon _0\right|=2V_c`$ in actual experiments. Finally, we found an odd-even parity behavior of the conductance when the Fermi energy lies in center of the band. If the number of QDs in the array is even, perfect transmission takes place ($`G=2e^2/h`$). On the contrary, perfect reflection occurs when this number is odd ($`G=0`$). This property arises from the intrinsic electronic properties of the QD array.

###### Acknowledgements.

P. A. O. would like to thank financial support from Milenio ICM P99-135-F and FONDECYT under grant 1020269. Work in Madrid was supported by DGIMCyT (MAT2000-0734) and CAM (07N/0075/2001).


text:
# 1 The simplest Mueller diagram for the high 𝑝_𝑡 jet inclusive production.

BNL-NT-02/22

October 23, 2002

Parton saturation and $`𝐍_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭}}`$ scaling
of semi–hard processes in QCD
Dmitri Kharzeeva), Eugene Levinb),c) and Larry McLerrana)

a) Nuclear Theory Group,
Physics Department,
Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY 11973 - 5000, USA
b ) HEP Department, School of Physics,
Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Science,
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
c) DESY Theory Group
22603, Hamburg, Germany

## Abstract

We argue that the suppression of high $`p_t`$ hadrons discovered recently in heavy ion collisions at RHIC may be a consequence of saturation in the Color Glass Condensate. We qualitatively and semi-quantitatively describe the data, in particular, the dependence upon the number of nucleon participants. We show that if parton saturation sets in at sufficiently small energy, then in nucleus–nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC energies the cross sections of semi–hard processes should scale approximately with the number of participants, $`N_{part}`$. Our results provide a possible explanation of both the absence of apparent jet quenching at SPS energies and its presence at RHIC. Under the same assumption we predict that in semi–central and central $`pA`$ ($`dA`$) collisions at collider energies the dependence of semi–hard processes on the number of participating nucleons of the nucleus will change to $`(N_{part}^A)^{1/2}`$. The forthcoming data on $`dA`$ collisions will provide a crucial test of this description.

The recent results from RHIC  suggest that relativistic heavy ion collisions at high energies probe QCD in the non–linear regime of high parton density and strong color fields . Parton dynamics in this new regime is quite different from what is expected in perturbative QCD, and is best described by parton saturation  resulting in a formation of a new type of high density matter, the Colour Glass Condensate (CGC) .

In this high density regime, the transition amplitudes are dominated not by quantum fluctuations, but by the configurations of classical field containing large, $`1/\alpha _s`$, numbers of gluons. Even though the coupling $`\alpha _s`$ becomes small due to the high density of partons, the fields interact strongly due to the classical coherence. One thus uncovers new non-linear features of QCD, which cannot be investigated in a more traditional perturbative approach.

This new dynamics appears to be consistent  with the RHIC data on the multiplicity distributions of produced hadrons as a function of centrality, rapidity, and collision energy. In the Color Glass Condensate picture, the approximate scaling of hadron multiplicity with the number of participants $`N_{part}`$, and the logarithmic deviation from it, $`\mathrm{ln}N_{part}`$ stemming from the running of the QCD coupling as a function of parton density, has been interpreted as a consequence of parton saturation . In this letter we will show that QCD saturation gives a very substantial contribution to the suppression of the single particle inclusive distributions even at quite large transverse momenta, and can be responsible for (at least a part of) the observed approximate $`N_{part}`$ scaling of processes at high $`p_t`$.

The experiments on high $`p_t`$ hadron production show  that the inclusive cross section is strongly suppressed with respect to the scaling with the number of binary nucleon–nucleon collisions $`N_{coll}`$ expected on the basis of the factorization theorem  for hard processes in perturbative QCD (pQCD). An illuminating way to study this effect is to look at the dependence of hadron yields in a given $`p_t`$ bin as a function of centrality. The data seem to be closer to the approximate scaling with the number of participants, previously established for small $`p_t`$ particles dominating the total multiplicity. It is indeed a surprise that this behavior characteristic of soft processes persists up to the transverse momenta ($`p_t5÷10`$ GeV), where we expect the fragmentation of the incoherently produced jets to dominate.

The approximate $`N_{part}`$ scaling is of course a restatement of the observed earlier suppression of the high $`p_t`$ single particle inclusive distributions. One possible explanation of the observed suppression is the predicted quenching of the produced jets in hot quark–gluon matter . The observation of approximate $`N_{part}`$ scaling in the entire range of hadron momenta up to $`6`$ GeV is however problematic for the scenario in which the jet energy loss is the only reason behind the suppression. Indeed, let us assume, following the pQCD approach, that most of the hadrons produced at RHIC originate from mini-jet fragmentation. If mini-jet production is a hard incoherent process, one expects the initial number of mini-jets to scale with the number of binary collisions $`N_{coll}`$. The energy loss in QCD is dominated by the induced gluon radiation and therefore as the produced mini-jets lose energy they will emit additional softer gluons. These emitted gluons in turn will fragment into hadrons, increasing further the total multiplicity of hadrons produced in the event. If the initial number of mini-jets were proportional to $`N_{coll}`$, the measured total multiplicity would then grow even faster with centrality, in a marked contradiction to the experimentally observed behavior. This contradiction can be avoided only if we assume that the initial production of moderate $`p_t`$ mini-jets, the fragmentation of which gives the dominant contribution to the measured multiplicity, is suppressed with respect to $`N_{coll}`$ scaling. (The jets with really high $`p_t`$ because of the small production cross section do not contribute to the total hadron multiplicity in any significant way, and their production according to $`N_{coll}`$ scaling, and subsequent energy loss, would not lead to any conflict with the observed scaling of the total multiplicity).

The main goal of our letter is to show that the approximate $`N_{part}`$ scaling of mini-jet production at moderately high $`p_t`$ (up to $`p_t6÷8`$ GeV at RHIC energies) has a natural explanation in terms of parton saturation and the Color Glass Condensate. We also demonstrate that the $`N_{part}`$ scaling exhibits very non–trivial properties of dense partonic systems not only at momentum transfers around the saturation scale $`Q_s`$, but also at much higher momenta, naively as large as $`Q_s^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. For heavy nuclei, this new momentum scale is $`𝒪(510\mathrm{GeV})`$ at RHIC energies, and even larger at the energies of the LHC, $`𝒪(2550\mathrm{GeV})`$. We will in fact find that the correct scale for nuclei is somewhat reduced relative to this estimate, but is still large compared to $`Q_{sat}`$. We find this scale to be about $`4`$GeV at RHIC and of order $`10`$ GeV at the LHC.

Our arguments are based on the following foundations. First, in the Color Glass Condensate, the saturated parton density provides a new dimensionful scale; as a consequence, the structure functions at momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ depend on a single variable $`\tau Q_s^2/Q^2`$ (“geometrical scaling”). This has been proven  for $`Q<Q_s`$. Moreover, it has been observed that the deep inelastic scattering data at small $`x0.01`$ exhibit geometrical scaling in the entire kinematical region of $`Q^2`$ accessible at HERA, and it has been shown  that the scaling indeed holds in a wide range of $`Q_s^2Q^2Q_s^4/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$. Second, the properties of QCD evolution are modified in the domain of high parton density, where geometrical scaling holds. As we will discuss below, the anomalous dimension of the gluon density in this region is approximately equal to $`1/2`$, as was computed in . Third, in the range of $`Q_s^2Q^2Q_s^4/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$ the saturation scale for nuclear targets scales according to $`Q_s^2A^{1/3}`$, a behavior which was argued to be responsible for the centrality dependence of hadron multiplicity at RHIC .

Let us begin by considering an external probe with virtuality $`Q^2`$ interacting with a target of longitudinal size $`L`$ and an average (3-dimensional) parton density $`n`$. The probability of interaction in the target is determined by the ratio $`\kappa L/\lambda `$ of the target size to the mean free path of the probe $`\lambda =(\sigma n)^1`$, where $`\sigma \alpha _s(Q^2)/Q^2`$ is the cross section of the probe scattering off a parton. At small Bjorken $`x`$, when the coherence length $`1/(mx)`$ ($`m`$ is the nucleon mass) exceeds the target size, the probe can interact coherently with partons located at different longitudinal coordinates, and the only relevant parameter characterizing the target becomes the density of partons in the transverse plane, $`\rho =nL`$; for a nuclear target, this implies $`\rho A^{1/3}`$. The interaction probability is then determined by a dimensionless “parton packing factor” $`\kappa \rho (x)\alpha _s(Q^2)/Q^2`$. The boundary of the saturation region, and the corresponding value of “saturation scale” $`Q_s^2(x)`$, are given by the line in the $`(x,Q^2)`$ plane along which the interaction probability is of order one, $`\kappa (x,Q^2)1`$.

We will now write the packing factor in the form  suited for nucleus–nucleus collisions, where a centrality cut can be used to select events with different transverse densities $`\rho _{part}`$ of nucleons participating in the collision (“participants”):

$$\kappa =\frac{8\pi ^2N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{Q^2}xG(x,Q^2)\frac{\rho _{part}}{2}$$
(1)
where $`xG(x,Q_s^2)`$ is the gluon structure function; we assume that $`x`$ is sufficiently small for gluons to dominate the parton densities. Consider the kinematical regime of small $`x`$ and high $`Q^2`$ in which both $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ and $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ are large; in this domain both logarithms have to be resummed, and the solution to DGLAP evolution equations  for $`xG`$ can be written in the “double log approximation” (DLA), which allows us to re-write Eq. (1) in the following naive form, neglecting the influence of saturation effects on the QCD evolution:

$$\kappa =\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{4\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)\xi }\xi +\xi _{part}\right];$$
(2)
we have assumed that at the initial point $`x_0`$ of the evolution in $`x`$ the transverse momentum squared of partons is $`Q_0^2`$, and have introduced the following notations: $`y`$ is rapidity, with $`yy_0=\mathrm{ln}(x_0/x)`$, $`\xi =\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_0^2)`$, $`\xi _{part}=\mathrm{ln}(\rho _{part}/\rho _0)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}A`$, $`A`$ is the atomic number, $`\rho _0`$ is parton density in a nucleon, and $`\overline{\alpha }_S=(N_c/\pi )\alpha _S`$ in the large $`N_c`$ approximation.

We now investigate the effect of saturation on the function $`\kappa `$. Our treatment so far assumed, in the spirit of pQCD, that evolution starts at some initial fixed scale $`Q_0^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$ separating perturbative and non–perturbative domains, and that $`Q^2Q_0^2`$. Traditionally, one assumes that the dynamics at the scale $`Q_0^2`$ and below is driven by non–perturbative phenomena and should be described by a priori unspecified initial conditions for the structure functions, which are then constrained by experimental data. The parton saturation approach is different in that it provides theoretical tools to compute the parton distributions once their density becomes large enough. If saturation occurs in the nuclear wave function at some $`x_0`$ and at the corresponding scale $`Q_s^2(x_0)`$, in performing QCD evolution of parton densities to smaller values of $`x`$ and larger values of $`Q^2`$ we should therefore provide the saturated Color Glass Condensate distribution as the initial condition.

It is convenient to recall the well–known property of DGLAP equation  (see Ref. for example) which allows to write its solutions in a form expressing their Green’s function–like properties:

$$\kappa (y,\xi )=^\xi 𝑑\xi ^{}\kappa (yy_0,\xi \xi ^{})\kappa (y_0,\xi ^{})$$
(3)
Using the DLA form of the solution we see that the integral in (3) has a saddle point at $`\xi ^{}=\xi (y_0/y)`$. If we consider $`yy_0`$ ($`xx_0`$), then the dominant contribution to the integral comes thus from $`\xi ^{}0`$, corresponding to the initial condition at $`Q_0^2Q^2`$. If, however, $`x_0`$ is sufficiently small for the saturation to set in, the initial condition will be provided by McLerran-Venugopalan model  at the scale $`\xi ^{}=\xi _{sat}(y_0)=\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(y_0)/Q_0^2)`$. The integral over $`\xi ^{}`$ will then be dominated by $`\xi ^{}\xi _{sat}(y_0)`$. This results in a different solution, which instead of Eq. (2) is now given by

$$\kappa =\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{4\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)(\xi \xi _{sat}(y_0))}\xi +\xi _{sat}(y_0)\right]$$
(4)
The saturation boundary can be found from the condition $`\kappa =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. This leads to the following equation for the saturation scale at rapidity $`y`$:

$$4\overline{\alpha }_S(\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0))(yy_0)=(\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0))^2.$$
(5)
This equation has a simple solution

$$\xi _{sat}(y)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)+\xi _{sat}(y_0).$$
(6)
Since $`Q_s^2(x_0)`$ is proportional to $`A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ at relatively low energies, when $`yy_0`$ (see Eq. (5) or the McLerran – Venugopalan formula )), one can still conclude that $`Q_s^2(y)A^{\frac{1}{3}}`$. For nuclear collisions, this means that the product of the nuclear overlap area $`S_A`$ and the saturation scale is proportional to the number of participants, $`S_AQ_s^2N_{part}`$ .

Let us establish the leading behavior of the solution (4) at high $`Q^2`$. At very high $`\xi 2\xi _{sat}(y)`$, the solution tends to

$$\kappa \frac{Q_0^2}{Q^2},$$
(7)
modified by the double logarithmic factor of $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{4\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)\xi }\right)`$. This result does not exhibit geometrical scaling, and is the same as the naive perturbative result. Consider, however, the region where

$$\xi \xi _s(y)\xi _s(y)\xi _s(y_0),$$
(8)
which corresponds to a vast kinematical domain of

$$Q^2\frac{Q_s^4(y)}{Q_s^2(y_0)};$$
(9)
note that this is precisely the condition for the observed geometrical scaling to hold in deep–inelastic scattering . In this domain, we should expand the exponent of Eq.(4) in powers of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi /(\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0))1`$, where we have introduced the notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi =\xi \xi _{sat}(y)=\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_s^2)`$. The expansion to first order yields

$$\sqrt{4\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)(\xi \xi _{sat}(y_0))}\xi +\xi _{sat}(y_0)=$$

$$=\left(\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0)\right)\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\xi }{\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0)}}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi (\xi _{sat}(y)\xi _{sat}(y_0))\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi ,$$
(10)
where we have used Eq.(6). This result translates into the following $`Q^2`$ dependence of the packing factor:

$$\kappa =\left(\frac{Q_{sat}^2(y)}{Q^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(11)
The appearance of the square root clearly shows that the properties of QCD evolution are dramatically affected by the saturation phenomena in the entire region (9), much more broad than the originally anticipated $`Q^2Q_s^2(y)`$. The comparison of (7) and (11) reveals that in the presence of Color Glass Condensate the gluon density acquires the anomalous dimension equal to $`1/2`$.

Let us now turn to the discussion of semi–hard processes in hadron and nuclear collisions. Due to the AGK cancellation , the inclusive cross section for large $`p_t`$ jet production is described by the Mueller diagram shown in Fig. 1. It can be written as (see Refs. )

$$E\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}=\frac{4\pi N_c}{N_c^21}\frac{1}{p_t^2}𝑑k_t^2\alpha _S\phi _{A_2}(Yy,k_t^2)\phi _{A_1}(y,(pk)_t^2),$$
(12)
where $`\phi `$’s are the unintegrated parton distributions related to the packing factor $`\kappa `$ discussed above by simple relation $`\phi S_A\kappa _A/\alpha _s`$, and $`Y`$ is the rapidity of the measured jet. Using the formula Eq.(11) for $`\phi S_A\kappa _A/\alpha _s`$ in the domain (9), and noting that in this case $`Q^2=p_t^2`$, we see that Eq. (12) leads to

$$\frac{dN}{dyd^2p_t}=\frac{1}{S_A}E\frac{d\sigma }{d^3p}S_AQ_s^2/p_t^2N_{part}/p_t^2$$
(13)
where we have used that $`N_{part}Q_s^2S_A`$. Note that the number of produced hard particles scales with the number of participants. The $`N_{part}`$ scaling given by Eq. (13) can be formulated in the following way:

$$\frac{1}{N_{part}}\frac{dN}{dyd^2p_t}\text{is almost independent of centrality cut for }\frac{Q_s^2(y)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}p_tQ_s(y),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Q_s(y_0)`$ is the saturation scale at some $`y_0<y`$ marking the onset of saturation. This is the central result of our paper.

Of course, “genuine” hard processes still scale with the number of collisions. Indeed, consider $`p_t>Q_s^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; then according to Eq. (7), $`\phi Q_s^2/p_t^2`$ and the formula Eq. (12) yields the number of hard particles proportional to $`S_AQ_s^4/p_t^4N_{coll}/p_t^4`$ in accord with the pQCD factorization theorem.

We have demonstrated that at high energies corresponding to $`yy_0`$ the effects of the Color Glass Condensate persist up to very large values of $`p_t`$; how far do these effects extend at RHIC and LHC energies? The answer depends on the energy at which the saturation effects set in. It seems reasonable to assume, on the basis of the analysis of centrality and energy dependence of hadron multiplicities , that the minimal value of saturation scale is about $`Q_s^2(y_0)0.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. In central $`AuAu`$ collisions at RHIC energy, where $`Q_s^2(y)2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, the boundary of the kinematical domain fully dominated by saturation extends thus up to $`p_t\sqrt{2}Q_s^2(y)/Q_s(y_0)4`$ GeV. At LHC, where $`Q_s^2(y)4.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ , this boundary extends up to $`p_t9`$ GeV. It is also important to note that in peripheral collisions, as $`Q_s^2(y)`$ becomes small and approaches the value of $`Q_s^2(y_0)`$, we return to the familiar situation in which the boundary of hard processes sets in at a rather small value of $`p_t1`$ GeV, and the number of produced mini-jets, and hadrons, thus scales proportionally to the number of binary collisions. However, as the centrality increases, and $`Q_s^2(y)`$ grows, the number of the produced semi-hard particles begins to deviate from the binary collision scaling; the transition to the $`N_{part}`$ scaling occurs.

While these arguments are well defined and grounded theoretically, reliable computations will require further improvement of the quantitative understanding of saturated parton distributions. Nevertheless, we will present a calculation of the semi-hard particle production using a simple input distribution stemming from Eq. (4):

$$\phi _A(y,p_t^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{4\overline{\alpha }_S(yy_0)\xi (p_t^2)}\right]\phi _A^0(y_0,p_t^2);$$
(14)
where $`\xi (p_t^2)=\mathrm{ln}(p_t^2/Q_s^2(y_0))`$. To bring this formula in line with the standard description of the deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) data, we have to modify it by slightly changing the anomalous dimension. Indeed, it has been demonstrated  that the following simple form of the anomalous dimension in the Mellin moment variable $`\omega `$ (in the leading order in $`\alpha _s`$):

$$\gamma (\omega )=\alpha _S\left(\frac{1}{\omega }1\right)$$
(15)
describes the DIS data well. This “phenomenological” anomalous dimension leads to a multiplicative factor of $`(Q_s^2/Q^2)^{\alpha _S}`$ in our formula in the $`x`$-$`p_t`$ representation. The resulting anomalous dimension is consistent with the result found from analysis of the BFKL equation and saturation in leading and next to leading order . We use the running coupling in (15), freezing its value at small virtualities at $`\alpha _s^{max}=0.45`$; therefore, at very high energies, when $`\alpha _s<\alpha _s^{max}`$ in the entire region (9), the additional multiplicative factor turns into a constant, and we return to the anomalous dimension of $`1/2`$.

For the function $`\phi _A^0(y_0,p_t^2)`$, describing parton distributions in the Color Glass Condensate at the onset of saturation, we will use the formula

$$\phi _A^0(x,p_t^2)=\frac{S_A}{\alpha _S}d(\tau =\frac{p_t^2}{Q_s^2(x)});$$

$$d(\tau )=\frac{(2\tau +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})}{\sqrt{4\tau +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{4\tau +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}{\sqrt{4\tau +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(16)
where $`S_A`$ is the nuclear overlap area. At large $`p_t`$, this distribution falls off as $`1/p_t^2`$, corresponding to the classical bremsstrahlung, and at small $`p_t`$ it has the behavior $`\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2/p_t^2)`$, established previously for the Color Glass Condensate . It agrees well with the numerical solution of non–linear evolution equations ; the derivation of Eq. (16) and detailed discussion of its properties will be presented elsewhere . The value of the initial rapidity $`y_0`$ should be chosen to correspond to the onset of coherent partonic phenomena; we choose $`y_0=y_b\mathrm{ln}(1/x_0)`$ ($`y_b`$ is the beam momentum) corresponding to the value of Bjorken $`x_00.1`$; this marks the beginning of the regime in which the coherence length $`1/(mx_0)`$ starts to exceed the typical inter-nucleon distance.

The cross section of hadron production can then be obtained by convoluting the result of calculation according to Eqs.(12,14) with the jet fragmentation function $`D_{frag}(z,p_t)`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma ^{hadron}}{dydp_t^2}=𝑑z\frac{d\sigma ^{jet}}{dydq_t^2}\delta (p_t^2z^2q_t^2)D_{frag}(z,p_t);$$
(17)
we also introduce in the distribution functions the common $`(1x)^4`$ factors enforcing the behavior at $`x1`$ prescribed by the quark counting rules.

The result for the charged hadron spectrum in central $`AuAu`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV is compared in Fig.2 to the experimental data from PHENIX Collaboration. While the agreement is not perfect, the calculated cross section does agree with the data within error bars (only statistical error bars are shown), which is remarkable in spite of the crude approximations we made and our use of the standard fragmentation functions  fitted for the use with pQCD calculations. In Fig. 3, we show also the dependence of particle yields in different $`p_t`$ bins on centrality. While the result admittedly depends on the approximations we made and is not very robust, it does show that up to quite large values of $`p_t`$ the yield of particles deviates strongly from the scaling with binary collisions, shown by the upper curve on Fig.3.

Further work is clearly needed before a reliable calculation of high $`p_t`$ cross sections in the Color Glass Condensate approach can be performed. Nevertheless, it is already clear that high density QCD effects have to be taken into account in the interpretation of the discovered at RHIC suppression of high $`p_t`$ particles.

The mechanism proposed here may also explain the old puzzle : the absence of apparent jet quenching in the SPS data ,  on high $`p_t`$ neutral pion production. Indeed, at relatively small energy of the SPS ($`\sqrt{s}17`$ GeV) the transverse momentum spectra of the produced particles are rather steep, and even a small jet energy loss would induce large deviations from the perturbative scaling with the number of collisions. These deviations were not observed: the data appear consistent with the perturbative QCD calculations . At the same time, many of the “soft” properties of the collisions, as well as the suppression of charmonium, point to the presence of strong collective effects (see, e.g., ).

Basing on the fact that the prediction of KLN model  for centrality dependence of hadron multiplicities in the $`\sqrt{s}=20`$ GeV run at RHIC appeared to be successful , it may be possible to assume that saturation sets in around SPS energy***We do not believe that extrapolation to still lower energies would make sense since the coherence length becomes much smaller than nuclear size in that case.. Since saturation provides favorable initial conditions for thermalization ,, the emergence of collective effects in “soft” observables and charmonium suppression would thus be likely. However, since for $`yy_0`$ the domain (9) $`Q_s^2(y)<Q^2<Q_s^4(y)/Q_s^2(y_0)`$ shrinks to zero, the hard processes above the saturation scale exhibit the usual perturbative behavior, and no apparent jet quenching should appear.

The effects of our suppression mechanism begin to fail around $`6`$ GeV for the $`130`$ GeV data and somewhat higher for the $`200`$ GeV data. We might have been able to work harder and find some marginally acceptable parameterization of the gluon structure functions which would extend the agreement to larger $`p_T`$, but this would not be very natural. Part of the problem is at these large $`p_T`$ values, we become sensitive to the gluon structure function within the nuclear fragmentation region $`x>0.1`$, and this is a region which is more complicated than that for which our naive saturation model can accommodate. It is also true that there must be some effects of jet energy loss in the media produced in heavy ion collisions, and the degree to which our saturation mechanism is dominant or subdominant relative to this mechanism is impossible for us to assess a priori.

The $`dA`$ data at RHIC will allow to disentangle the effects of jet energy loss from gluon saturation. Saturation is a property of the nuclear wavefunction, and in so far as it modifies jet production in $`AA`$ collisions, there will be a corresponding effect in $`dA`$ collisions. Let us discuss this in more detail. In $`dA`$ collisions at RHIC energy, with the exception of peripheral interactions where the density of participants, and thus the saturation scale, is too small, the gluon distribution in the nucleus $`A`$ is saturated and in the domain $`Q_s<Q<Q_s^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is thus given by

$$\phi _A\frac{S_A\kappa _A}{\alpha _s}\frac{S_A}{\alpha _s}\left(\frac{Q_{s,A}^2}{Q^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(18)
The deuteron distribution is given by $`\phi _dS_d\kappa _d/\alpha _s`$; our conclusion on the scaling with the number of participants from the nucleus $`A`$ will be independent on the explicit assumption about $`\phi _d`$. The dependence of semi–hard processes in the saturation region on the number of participants from the nucleus $`A`$ $`N_{part}^A`$ will now be given by

$$\frac{dN^{dA}}{dyd^2p_t}=\frac{1}{S_A}E\frac{d\sigma ^{dA}}{d^3p}(Q_{s,A}^2)^{1/2}\left(N_{part}^A\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
where we have used that in $`dA`$ collisions $`Q_{s,A}^2N_{part}^A`$. We predict the behavior (19) for semi–hard processes to hold in $`dA`$ collisions at RHIC with the exception of peripheral collisions, where the saturation scale $`Q_{s,A}^2`$ is too small. The yield of particles per participant from the nucleus $`A`$ in these collisions is thus predicted to decrease as $`(N_{part}^A)^{1/2}`$, deviating from the scaling with the number of collisions expected in perturbative QCD. We expect the saturation effects to set in around $`N_{part}^{Au}6`$, corresponding to the impact parameter of $`dAu`$ collision $`b=5÷6`$ fm . We thus predict that around $`N_{part}^{Au}6`$ the yields of high $`p_t`$ particles would begin to deviate from the scaling with the number of collisions $`N_{coll}N_{part}^{Au}`$; the yield per participant will start to decrease as $`(N_{part}^{Au})^{1/2}`$. In $`15\%`$ most central $`dAu`$ events, where $`N_{part}^{Au}12`$ , we therefore expect to see the normalized yield of $`(6/12)^{1/2}0.7`$, corresponding to $`30\%`$ suppression of high $`p_t`$ particlesNumerical calculations according to the formulae given above give somewhat smaller, but close, $`25\%`$ suppression effect.. The scaling of semi–hard processes in $`dAu`$ collisions with centrality at RHIC energy can thus expected to be drastically different from that observed previously at fixed target energies, where at high $`p_t`$ the yields of particles were proportional to the number of collisions.

On the other hand, jet energy loss is expected to be a minor effect for $`dA`$ collisions since the jets are produced in a region far from the fragments of the nucleus ; for recent predictions, see .

In addition, the $`dA`$ collisions provide the opportunity of studying jet production in the fragmentation region of the deuteron, and this probes much smaller values of $`x`$ of the nucleus than is the case for centrally produced jets. One expects the saturation scale to grow as  $`Q_{s,A}^2(y)=Q_{s,A}^2(0)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda y)`$, with $`\lambda 0.25`$. At 3 units of rapidity away from the central rapidity region toward the deuteron fragmentation region in $`dA`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV, the saturation scale thus grows to about $`Q_{s,A}^2(y=3)4.5\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The approximations we are forced to make for centrally produced jets in $`AA`$ collisions should be under much better control for jets arising in the fragmentation region of the deuteron; recently, this problem was addressed in , , , , , .


text:
# Response to Horton and Dewdney

## Abstract

There are some points in the reply of Horton et al.  to my comment  on their paper  which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of how much I proved about the set of points where their law of motion is ill-defined.

In a recent article in J. Phys. A , Horton et al. present what they claim is a Bohm-type law of motion for point particles, based on a Klein–Gordon wave function and implying (unlike a similar law proposed by de Broglie) timelike world lines. Concerning this claim I pointed out in a comment  that the prescription they give is ill-defined in some situations, and underpinned this by a concrete example. In addition, I gave arguments to the effect that the set of “bad” space-time points, where the law of motion is ill-defined, is a set of positive measure for many wave functions. To this Horton et al. have responded , ignoring my arguments, that although bad points may exist, they form a set of lesser dimension and therefore can be dealt with by a limiting procedure. I wish here to point out that the response of Horton et al. is entirely without merit. Here is why:

In my comment I pointed out that those space-time points are bad where both vectors $`W_\mu ^+`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}`$ that appear in the law of Horton et al. are spacelike, or, equivalently, where $`W_\mu ^+W^{+\mu }<0`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}W^\mu <0`$. Given that the vector fields $`P_\mu `$ and $`S_\mu `$ (on which the construction of $`W_\mu ^+`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}`$ relies) are continuous, the functions $`W_\mu ^+W^{+\mu }`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}W^\mu `$ are continuous, too, and thus their values remain negative in an *entire neighborhood* of any bad space-time point.

Therefore, the bad points form an open set, quite contrary to the picture of “nodal lines” or even “isolated points” that Horton et al. suggest in their reply . This is also true of my specific example wave function of positive energy (having continuous $`P_\mu `$ and $`S_\mu `$), in spite of their claim to the contrary. Thus, my example is as well a counter example to the claim that the bad points form a set of lesser dimension. As a consequence, the limiting process they suggest cannot be carried out.

Horton et al. are mistaken when they write, “Tumulka, however, goes on to conjecture, but not prove that … the set of pairs $`P_\mu ,S_\mu `$ where both $`W_\mu ^+`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}`$ are spacelike is open in the 8-dimensional space of the pairs” $`P_\mu ,S_\mu `$. I did give a proof for that—in the very sentence of my comment that Horton et al. quote.

Horton et al. write, “Tumulka provides neither proof nor grounds for his expectation” that “the space-time points with spacelike $`W_\mu ^+`$ and $`W_\mu ^{}`$ form a set of positive measure.” Since every nonempty open set has positive measure, my claim follows directly from the very reasonable expectation that $`P_\mu `$ and $`S_\mu `$ are continuous.

Horton et al. write, “A straightforward computation shows that the points where $`S_0=0`$ form nodal lines as do the points where $`P_0=0`$.” I emphasize that the relevant points are not merely those where $`S_0=0`$ and $`P_0=0`$, but many more, namely all those where $`S_\mu `$ and $`P_\mu `$ span a spacelike 2-plane. The latter condition is indeed equivalent to $`S_0^{}=0`$ and $`P_0^{}=0`$ with respect to *some* Lorentz frame, but this is a condition very different from $`S_0=0`$ and $`P_0=0`$ in one *fixed* frame. Conflating these two, Horton et al. present a computation that fails to take into account that $`v_k`$, the parameter of the Lorentz boost that will make $`S_0^{}(x^\mu )`$ and $`P_0^{}(x^\mu )`$ zero, may well depend on $`x^\mu `$. Thus, the computation they do is completely irrelevant.