text:
# High 𝑝_𝑇 Inclusive Charged Hadron Spectra from Au+Au Collisions at √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁} = 200 GeV

## 1 Introduction

The suppression of high $`p_T`$ hadron production at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV observed by both the PHENIX and STAR collaborations provided the first experimental signatures potentially related to partonic energy loss in the dense nuclear medium produced in RHIC collisions. Theoretical calculations of the $`p_T`$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor, $`R_{AA}`$, suggest that an interplay of nuclear gluon shadowing, Cronin enhancement and partonic energy loss in a dense medium will cause the suppression to saturate at a finite value. Above a certain $`p_T`$ threshold, $`R_{AA}`$ may increase slowly with $`p_T`$ toward the binary scaling limit predicted by perturbative QCD. The new STAR data on charged hadron spectra in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV, which extend to $`p_T`$ = 12 GeV/c, address these predictions and present an important constraint on theoretical descriptions of high $`p_T`$ phenomena in nuclear collisions.

## 2 Data Collection and Analysis

The data at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV were taken during the second RHIC run in 2001 using the STAR detector. The minimum bias dataset, corrected for vertex finding efficiency, contains 97 $`\pm `$ 3% of the total geometric cross-section for Au+Au collisions, assumed to be 7.2 barns. For this analysis, 2.7M minimum bias and 2.1M central triggered Au+Au events were used. Event centrality classes corresponding to percentiles of the total cross-section were determined using the charged particle multiplicity within $`|\eta |<`$ 0.5.

Charged particles are detected in the TPC and their momentum is measured through their curvature in the 0.5 Tesla magnetic field. The high $`p_T`$ analysis is restricted to long tracks ( $``$ 20 measured track points) with $`|\eta |<`$ 0.5 whose projected distance of closest approach to the primary event vertex falls within 1 cm of the measured vertex.

Tracking performance at high $`p_T`$ was assessed by embedding simulated tracks into real data events. For the 0-5% most central events, the efficiency and acceptance for tracks having $`p_T>`$ 3 GeV/c and $`|\eta |<`$ 0.5 are uniform as a function of $`p_T`$ at approximately 80%, with a small dependence on pseudorapidity of $`\pm `$ 3%. For the 40-80% most peripheral events, the efficiency is higher due to lower track density, and is 90% above $`p_T`$ = 3 GeV/c and independent of $`p_T`$ and $`\eta `$. Momentum resolution in the 200 GeV dataset is a factor of 3 better than that in the 130 GeV dataset.

The dominant backgrounds in the high $`p_T`$ spectra are from weak decays of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K_s^0`$ particles and apparent high $`p_T`$ tracks from $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{n}`$ annihilation in detector material. Background corrections are estimated using HIJING events in a GEANT simulation of the detector, with the parent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K_s^0`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ distributions from HIJING scaled to match STAR measured yields and slopes at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV, corrected for the $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ dependence of particle production. The backgrounds are estimated to be less than 10% for $`p_T>`$ 3 GeV/c. However, due to the uncertainty in the yields of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s and $`K_s^0`$s at high $`p_T`$, the background corrections above $`p_T`$ = 3 GeV/c are assigned 100% uncertainty.

The systematic uncertainties assigned to the spectra are determined by combining the uncertainties from the momentum resolution correction, the background subtraction and variations in the spectra for different sets of quality cuts and corrections.

## 3 Results

The charged hadron $`p_T`$ spectra for $`p_T<`$ 12 GeV/c are shown in Fig. 1, with the non-central bins scaled for clarity. The limits of the bins in $`p_T`$ are indicated at the top of the figure by the hash marks, with the highest $`p_T`$ bin having the range 10 $`<p_T<`$ 12 GeV/c.

To explore the pattern of hadron suppression to the highest $`p_T`$, Fig. 2 compares the binary-collision scaled STAR central 0-5% spectrum to the 40-60% (top panel) and the 60-80% (lower panel) spectra. The preliminary 200 GeV data are shown as black circles, while the STAR results at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV are shown as open diamonds. The vertical error bars represent statistical and systematic uncertainties in the central 0-5% spectra, while the caps show the quadrature sum of these uncertainties with the uncertainties associated with the peripheral reference spectrum. The dashed lines indicate the mean number of binary collisions, $`N_{binary}`$, and the mean number of participant nucleons, $`N_{part}`$, obtained from a Monte Carlo Glauber model of the nuclear overlap, with their uncertainties shown as the gray boxes. The suppression pattern is similar at the two beam energies, showing an increasing suppression as a function of $`p_T`$ for $`p_T`$ = 2 - 6 GeV/c. The 200 GeV data, which extend to $`p_T`$ = 12 GeV/c, show that the suppression for central collisions saturates and is approximately constant above $`p_T`$ = 6 GeV/c.

The nuclear modification factor $`R_{AA}=\frac{dN/dp_Td\eta (AA)}{T_{AA}d\sigma /dp_Td\eta (NN)}`$, where $`T_{AA}`$ is the nuclear overlap integral, depends on the knowledge of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) reference spectrum. A power law parameterization ($`d\sigma /dp_Td\eta =A(1+p_T/p_0)^n`$) of the UA1 measured charged particle spectrum from $`\overline{p}+p`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV is used to construct $`R_{AA}`$. The parameterization was corrected for the larger UA1 $`|\eta |`$ acceptance ($`|\eta |<`$ 2.5) as in. Since power law fits cannot be meaningfully extrapolated beyond the range constrained by data, we restrict $`R_{AA}`$ analysis to $`p_T<`$ 6 GeV/c.

Fig. 4 shows the centrality dependence of $`R_{AA}`$ at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV. The error bars are similar to those in Fig. 2. Plotting this ratio on a log scale separates the evolution of the shape of the measured suppression from the uncertainties in the geometric scaling and the reference spectrum. The shape of the suppression is seen to evolve smoothly as a function of centrality, with no evidence of a threshold for the onset of suppression. The magnitude and evolution of $`R_{AA}`$ at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV is consistent with that observed in $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 130 GeV Au+Au collisions .

The $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ dependence of charged particle production at midrapidity is shown in Fig. 4. The error bars represent the combination of statistical uncertainties in the numerator and the total uncertainty (statistical + systematic) in the denominator. There is an approximately 15-20% increase in the particle yield at low $`p_T`$ in the 200 GeV data compared to the 130 GeV data. The curves (the same in all panels) are pQCD calculations for p+p collisions (solid line) and central Au+Au collisions with (dotted line) and without (dashed line) quenching. The high $`p_T`$ behaviour is consistent with the pQCD expectation. The combination of these results with the $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ dependence of the high $`p_T`$ charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy and the high $`p_T`$ two-particle correlations observed by STAR, suggests a picture of strong absorption in the bulk and surface emission of hard scattering products.

## 4 Conclusions

STAR has measured charged particle production within 0.2 $`<p_T<`$ 12 GeV/c as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV. The suppression observed at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV is similar to that observed at 130 GeV. With the extension of the spectra to much higher $`p_T`$, the binary-scaled central/peripheral ratios show that the charged hadron suppression is approximately constant above $`p_T`$ = 6 GeV/c. The ratios of the spectra at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV to those at 130 GeV show that high $`p_T`$ particle production grows with $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ for all centralities in Au+Au collisions similarly to pQCD expectations. In order to disentangle the interplay between nuclear gluon shadowing, Cronin enhancement and possible partonic energy loss in a high density quark gluon plasma, which may all contribute to the observed suppression pattern, d+A collisions at RHIC are eagerly anticipated.


format: text

text:
# Annealing, lattice disorder and non-Fermi liquid behavior in UCu4Pd

(PRB Rapid Comm. in press, verion 4.3, )

## Abstract

The magnetic and electronic properties of non-Fermi liquid UCu4Pd depend on annealing conditions. Local structural changes due to this annealing are reported from U $`L_{\text{III}}`$\- and Pd $`K`$-edge x-ray absorption fine-structure measurements. In particular, annealing decreases the fraction of Pd atoms on nominally Cu 16$`e`$ sites and the U-Cu pair-distance distribution width. This study provides quantitative information on the amount of disorder in UCu4Pd and allows an assessment of its possible importance to the observed non-Fermi liquid behavior.

preprint: LBNL-51188

The UCu5-xPdx system displays many of the canonical behaviors of other non-Fermi liquid (NFL) systems.Andraka and Stewart (1993) For instance, at low Pd concentrations, $`x`$, it is an antiferromagnet (AF), with the Néel temperature, $`T_\text{N}`$, decreasing with increasing $`x`$. Near $`x1`$, $`T_\text{N}`$ is reduced toward zero Körner et al. (2000) and the magnetic and electronic properties become that of a NFL: the low-temperature linear coefficient of the specific heat and the magnetic susceptibility diverge logarithmically ($`\gamma =C/T\chi (T)\mathrm{log}(T)`$) or as a weak power law over a more limited temperature range.de Andrade et al. (1998) Unannealed samples also exhibit NFL-behavior in the resistivity with $`\rho (T)\rho _rT`$.

These observations suggest a possible quantum critical point (QCP) Andraka and Stewart (1993); Millis (1993); Continentino (1996) as the cause of the NFL behavior. Subsequent research found that the aforementioned behavior can also be explained with a Kondo disorder model (KDM), consisting of a broad distribution $`P(T_\text{K})`$ of Kondo temperatures, $`T_K`$, which extends down to very low temperatures.Bernal et al. (1995); Miranda et al. (1997) Inhomogeneous broadening of the copper nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) line was taken as evidence for such a distribution,Bernal et al. (1995) and lattice disorder was identified as its possible microscopic origin:Booth et al. (1998) Pd and Cu atoms were found to interchange positions within the $`C15b`$ ($`F\overline{4}3m`$) lattice, even for UCu4Pd, which previously was thought to possess a well-ordered structure.

In spite of the arguments supporting the KDM, there is strong evidence that this simple model does not contain all the necessary elements to explain the experimental data. Inconsistencies include the anomalously fast muon spin-lattice relaxation rates measured by muon spin resonance ($`\mu `$SR) in a longitudinal field,MacLaughlin et al. (2000) and the measurements of the spin-lattice relaxation rate at moderately high fields ($`>`$51 kOe)Büttgen et al. (2000) from NMR down to 400 mK in UCu3.5Pd1.5. In addition, using lattice disorder as the microscopic origin for the breadth of $`P(T_\text{K})`$ within a tight-binding description for the hybridization strength and a constant electronic density of states has been shown to require a continuous, non-thermal distribution in the near-neighbor uranium pair distances,Booth et al. (1998) which has not been observed.Bauer et al. (2001) Other theories that combine critical points with disorder phenomenaCastro Neto et al. (1998) may eventually explain all the different data, and recent work considering a Kondo/quantum spin glass critical point is also promising.Grempel and Rozenberg (1999)

Despite the evidence against the KDM as a “minimal model” describing NFL behavior in this material, the evidence still indicates that disorder plays an important role. This role is perhaps best exemplified by the series of experimentsWeber et al. (2001) on annealed samples of UCu4Pd. For instance, specific heat measurements on annealed UCu4Pd samples show that an AF-like transition below 200 mK is suppressed toward zero temperature with increasing annealing time, thereby extending the range of NFL-behavior to lower temperatures. In addition, the slope of the logarithmic divergence of $`\gamma `$ is slightly decreased by annealing. Direct experimental evidence is still required to show whether the main effect of annealing is to change the degree of Pd/Cu site interchange, and if disorder in the U-Cu pair distance distribution is affected. This latter point is very important to quantitatively assess the observed changes in, for instance, the specific heat data.Booth et al. (1998); Bauer et al. (2001)

In order to further quantify the role of disorder, we report x-ray absorption fine-structure (XAFS) experiments on samples of UCu4Pd at the Pd $`K`$ and the U $`L_{\text{III}}`$ edges as a function of temperature and annealing time. We find that annealing affects the site interchange (defined as the fraction, $`s`$, of the total number of Pd atoms to those sitting on 16$`e`$ sites) and causes a slight ordering of the U-Cu pairs, demonstrating that these pairs do exhibit some static bond-length disorder, albeit very little. We consider these results in terms of various possible models.

The UCu4Pd samples are the same as those reported in Ref. Weber et al., 2001 with the addition of one sample that was only annealed for one day. We will not discuss the splat-cooled sample. In particular, $`C/T`$ becomes constant below 180 mK in unannealed samples due to a possible AF transition,Körner et al. (2000) and the Sommerfeld coefficient diverges logarithmically ($`\gamma \mathrm{log}(T)`$) above this temperature. Annealing in an evacuated quartz tube at 750C lowers the transition temperature and the slope of the logarithmic divergence as a function of annealing time. The transition is not observed above 35 mK after 14 days of annealing. Please see Ref. Weber et al., 2001 for further details.

The UCu4Pd samples were prepared for the x-ray absorption measurements as described in Ref. Bauer et al., 2001. Samples were loaded into a LHe-flow cryostat, and absorption measurements were collected in transmission mode on the wiggler BL 11-2 experimental station at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), using a LN2-cooled, half-tuned double crystal monochromator. The vertical collimating slits were set to 0.7 mm for the U-edge data and 0.3 mm for the Pd-edge data. Pd-edge data were collected at $`T=`$ 20 K and 300 K, although the 300 K data was only used to verify the low temperature results. U-edge data were collected at 20, 100, 200 and 300 K. Two scans were collected at each temperature.

The XAFS data were reduced and fit in $`r`$-space as described in Ref. Bauer et al., 2001. In particular, the XAFS oscillations are defined as $`\chi (k)=\mu (k)/\mu _0(k)1`$, where $`k`$ is the photoelectron wave vector given by $`\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m_e=EE_0`$, $`E`$ is the incident photon energy, $`E_0`$ is the photoelectron threshold energy as determined by the edge position, $`m_e`$ is the bare electron mass, $`\mu (k)`$ is the $`k`$-dependent absorption coefficient, and $`\mu _0`$ is a slowly varying background that passes through the XAFS oscillations. We determine $`\mu _0`$ by fitting a 5-knot cubic spline (for the Pd data) or a 6th-order Chebychev polynomial (for the U data) through the XAFS above the absorption edge. The uncertainties in the present data are similar to the higher quality data in Ref. Bauer et al., 2001.

Fourier transforms of $`\chi (k)`$ produce peaks that, apart from a calculable phase shift, correspond to distances between the absorbing atomic species and its near neighbors. Fits provide these pair distances, $`r_i`$, as well as the pair-distance distribution widths, $`\sigma _i`$, for a given shell of atoms, $`i`$. Errors on the fit parameters are estimated from the differences between scans, a Monte Carlo method Lawrence et al. (2001), and by comparisons to reference materials.Li et al. (1995) These fits assume a site-interchange modelBauer et al. (2001) whereby $`s`$ and the amplitude reduction factor $`S_0^2`$ (an overall XAFS scale factor) determine the amplitudes of all the scattering shells. Disorder apart from site interchange is accounted for only in the measurements of the various $`\sigma `$’s. The possible presence of such disorder is tested by fitting the U-Cu $`\sigma `$’s to a correlated-Debye model,Crozier et al. (1988) where any observed offset $`\sigma _{\text{static}}^2`$ necessary between the model and the data is interpreted as static disorder. No such disorder was previously observed in the UCu5-xPdx system within 0.0004 Å2.Bauer et al. (2001) In order to extract the U-Cu pair $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _{\text{static}}`$ for each sample, $`s`$ needs to be determined and held fixed for all the temperature data. Since determining $`s`$ from the Pd-edge fits is less dependent on the fitting model (new peaks appear in the XAFS spectrum), we use the fits to the Pd data to fix $`s`$ in the U fits. Values for $`s`$ are only allowed to vary in the U fits as a consistency check.

Fourier transform amplitudes of $`k^3\chi (k)`$ for data collected at 20 K for each sample are shown in Fig. 1. The largest effects occur in the Pd data. Here, the overall amplitude increases after the first day of annealing, except in the region near 2.2 Å in the transform. This region has the contribution from the Pd-Cu pairs with $`r2.5`$ Å, where “Pd” denotes a Pd on the nominally Cu 16$`e`$ site. The next peak is mostly due to the nominal Pd-Cu pairs with $`r2.9`$ Å. In fact, most of the rest of the spectrum is due to scattering that occurs in the nominal structure. Without performing any fits, these data are explained with the following argument: After annealing, some of the site-interchanged Pd atoms move onto the $`4c`$ sites. This rearrangement removes weight in the 2.2 Å region of the spectrum due to the relative decrease in the number of Pd-Cu pairs, while increasing the relative number of pairs involving Pd atoms on 4$`c`$ sites, thereby increasing the amplitude of the rest of the spectrum. It is important to note that no measurable changes in the spectra occur beyond the first day of annealing.

The U-edge data tell a similar story. Here, the main difference between the spectra occurs in the main XAFS peak, primarily due to U-Cu/Pd scattering at $``$2.9 Å. Within this same site-interchange picture, these differences are due to U-Pd pairs converting to U-Cu pairs on annealing. The peaks beyond the main peak don’t change much because for each U-Cu/Pd pair at a given distance, there is a U-Pd pair at a very similar distance. A very important difference when comparing to the Pd edge data is that changes are observed beyond the first day of annealing, which, given the Pd edge data, cannot be easily attributed to changes in $`s`$.

Fits were performed as described above. In particular, an $`S_0^2`$ of 0.79(3) was determined for the Pd-edge fits, and 0.91(3) for the U-edge fits. These values are somewhat different than those in Ref. Bauer et al., 2001, probably due to differences in the experimental conditions. In any case, apart from the derived site interchange values reported below and pair-width parameters of some further peaks, the fit results agree very well with those reported previously, and so we refer the reader to Tables II and IV in Ref. Bauer et al., 2001.

An important source of systematic error in determining $`s`$ from the Pd-edge data is the correlation between the nominal Pd-Cu pairs’ distribution width $`\sigma `$ and the measured $`s`$. This correlation contributes to an estimated absolute error on $`s`$ of about 20%. However, by holding this width fixed for all the samples, we obtain a much smaller error for comparing the differences between the data sets of $`2\%`$. We therefore measure $`s=0.27(4)`$ for the unannealed sample and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.082(7)`$ after and beyond one day of annealing.

Temperature dependent fits to the U-edge data were analyzed using the correlated-Debye model. All fits can be described with a correlated-Debye temperature of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\text{cD}}=314(4)`$ K and $`\sigma _{\text{static}}^2=0.0002(3)`$ Å2, indicating little if any static disorder. Although this model describes the data well, a systematic decrease in the U-Cu pair width with annealing time is observed which can only be due to changes in a finite $`\sigma _{\text{static}}^2`$. Using the data collected at 20 K, and defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _X^2=\sigma _{\text{U-Cu}}^2(\text{X})\sigma _{\text{U-Cu}}^2(\text{14-day})`$, we measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\text{7-day}}^2=0.00014(5)`$ Å2, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\text{1-day}}^2=0.00029(3)`$ Å2, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{\text{0-day}}^2=0.00044(4)`$ Å2. These results are, therefore, lower limits on the static disorder in these samples. Note that a changing $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\text{cD}}`$ cannot explain this ordering, since $`\sigma ^21/\mathrm{\Theta }_{\text{cD}}`$ and the 4 K estimated error on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\text{cD}}`$ implies a change of only about 0.00003 Å2.

Two important results of the above analysis are that annealing the UCu4Pd samples reduces the site interchange by about 30%, and that even in the sample that was annealed for 14 days, a significant amount of site interchange still occurs ($`s0.19`$). This latter result can be inferred from the behavior of $`s`$ with changing $`x`$ in UCu5-xPdxBauer et al. (2001). Here we follow Weber et al.Weber et al. (2001), who noted that as $`x`$ increases at low $`x`$, $`a_0`$ changes linearly until $`x0.85`$, at which time the slope increases. The difference between the extrapolated line from low $`x`$ and the measured $`a`$ at $`x=1`$ is about 0.006 Å. After annealing the sample, $`a_0`$ essentially agrees with the extrapolation. Bauer et al.Bauer et al. (2001) noted that the fraction of 4$`c`$ sites occupied by Pd atoms, $`f_{4c}^{\text{Pd}}=x(1s)`$, shows very similar behavior as the lattice parameter. To further these comparisons, we show a similar extrapolation (Fig. 2) using the data from Bauer et al.,Bauer et al. (2001) together with the data collected for the present study. As in the case of the lattice parameter, the $`f_{4c}^{\text{Pd}}`$ of the annealed sample agrees well with the extrapolation for $`x<0.8`$.

We will now try to interpret the above results within the framework of a modified KDM and then within a generic QCP scenario. Let us first look at the KDM. The specific heat measurements (Fig. 3) show that the slope of the logarithmic divergence decreases with annealing time.Weber et al. (2001) Qualitatively, this reduction is expected from a KDM, since the reduced lattice disorder should sharpen $`P(T_\text{K})`$, producing fewer low-$`T_\text{K}`$ moments and therefore a slower divergence. This effect can be calculated using the same tight-binding approach as in Refs. Booth et al., 1998; Bauer et al., 2001. However, we reiterate that this model only fits the susceptibility and specific heat data if one allows a wide, static distribution of U-Cu pair distances, which is not observed in these materials.Bauer et al. (2001) Therefore, we are forced to assume that a large contribution to the width of $`P(T_\text{K})`$ is due to some other unknown source. To describe this situation, consider a width $`W_V`$ to the $`f`$/conduction electron hybridization energy distribution $`P(V_{fc})`$ (which generates $`P(T_\text{K})`$) as arising from two uncorrelated contributions:

$$W_V^2=W_0^2+W_{\text{KDM}}^2,$$

where $`W_0`$ has an unidentified origin and $`W_{\text{KDM}}`$ is given by a tight-binding model with the U-Cu static bond length distribution width $`\sigma _{\text{KDM}}^2`$ and no adjustable parameters (see Ref. Bauer et al., 2001 for details). Using this distribution in a KDM, one can fit the specific heat data allowing the Fermi energy, $`E_F`$, the ratio of the density of states at the Fermi level to the bare $`f`$-level energy, $`\rho /ϵ_f`$, and $`W_V`$ to vary while holding $`s`$ at the measured value, as shown in Fig. 3. Fits to the data from each of the samples allow a single set of most of these variables to be used: $`E_F=1.11`$ eV, $`\rho /ϵ_f=0.132`$ eV-2, and $`W_0=0.1448`$ eV, where $`W_0`$ is obtained by defining $`\sigma _{\text{KDM}}^2`$(14–day)=0. These fits then give $`\sigma _{\text{KDM}}^2`$(7–day)=0.00009(3) Å2 and $`\sigma _{\text{KDM}}^2`$(0–day)=0.00033(3) Å2, in reasonable agreement with the XAFS results. We therefore conclude that the KDM requires a significant unidentified disorder component that is not understood purely in terms of the crystal structure, but that the model can be used to describe the changes in the specific heat very well in terms of the measured structural changes. A possible origin of $`W_0`$ is fluctuations in the local density of states,Miranda and Dobrosavljević (2001) which are not included in the present model. In any case, please note that we do not regard $`W_0`$ as necessarily describing a real width in $`P(V_{fc})`$, but rather that this model describes a real contribution ($`W_{\text{KDM}}`$) to the distribution width in addition to some other mechanism. The other mechanism may only be phenomenologically described in terms of a finite $`W_0`$.

Another theoretical framework for understanding the NFL-behavior is a quantum critical scenario. Here one interprets the specific heat data in Fig. 3 as a suppression of an AF transition $`T_\mathrm{N}0`$ due to annealing indicated by the shift in the leveling off of the curves. The logarithmic behavior in $`C/T`$ is then a consequence of quantum critical fluctuations. However, this interpretation suffers from the current lack of an established theoretical understanding how AF quantum critical fluctuations can lead to logarithmic behavior in $`C/T`$ in a three-dimensional compound, though various theories have been put forward.Stockert et al. (1998); Si et al. (2001) Finally, we would like to note in passing that the total entropy quenched by the logarithmic slope in UCu4Pd is consistent with the data in conventional AF transitions.Killer et al. (2002)

To conclude, we report measurements of the local lattice disorder as a function of annealing time in UCu4Pd. The XAFS measurements show that the main effect of annealing is to decrease the fraction of Pd atoms on the nominally Cu 16$`e`$ sites, in agreement with the change in lattice parameter.Weber et al. (2001) Although the local U-Cu environment is well ordered, even in the unannealed samples, we observe a small but statistically significant narrowing of its pair-distance distribution on annealing. This leads to the conclusion that disorder must be included in any complete microscopic theory of NFL properties in the UCu5-xPdx system. Still, in order to quantitatively understand the NFL behavior within a Kondo disorder model, one is forced to assume a significant amount of hidden disorder. Alternatively, quantum critical fluctuations may play a dominant role for the observed NFL behavior. Alternate models that combine both the QCP and disorder ideas,Castro Neto et al. (1998); Grempel and Rozenberg (1999) might be able to fill this gap. Clearly, more work is required to arrive at a satisfactory theoretical description of the UCu5-xPdx system.

We thank W. W. Lukens, D. A. Shaughnessy and R. A. Wilson for assistance in collecting the XAFS data. We also thank E. D. Bauer, N. Büttgen, A. H. Castro Neto, D. E. MacLaughlin, E. Miranda, R. Movshovich, and G. R. Stewart for many useful discussions. This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (OBES), Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. AC03-76SF00098, and by SFB 484 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Data were collected at the SSRL, which is operated by the DOE/OBES.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Decoherence theory  now allows us, in an appropriate sense, to derive classical concepts in terms of universal quantum theory. These classical concepts include clicks of a detector or spots on a plate, phenomena which represent outcomes of measurements, and which seem to indicate the presence of particles. Particle concepts are therefore usually presumed in a “quantization” procedure (which leads to the $`N`$-particle wave functions of quantum mechanics), and for an interpretation in terms of probabilities for the “occurrence of values” for particle properties (regarded as “observables”).

Relativistic theories, on the other hand, require quantum field theory, where single particle wave functions, together with classical fields, are used as arguments of field functionals, that now represent the general (pure) quantum states. The “occupation number” representation, resulting for free fields (coupled oscillators), then explains boson numbers by the numbers of nodes in the wave functions for the amplitudes of all field modes. This definition of “particle” number may be extended beyond the harmonic approximation. Particle permutations are thereby reduced to identity operations – a consequence that is much deeper than a mere indistinguishability. In particular, it would explain the “new statistics” required for presumed quantum particles.

These arguments suggest to abondon a primordial particle concept entirely, and to replace it with fields only. While this is indeed what has always been done in the formalism of quantum field theory, particle concepts are still used in a fundamental way for its interpretation, for example when applied to scattering events. In a universal quantum field theory, spatial fields (rather than particle positions) do not only form the fundamental “configuration” space on which the wave function(al) is defined as a general superposition. Time-dependent quantum states may also describe apparently discontinuous “events” by means of a smooth but rapid process of decoherence.

So I agree with a consequence recently drawn by Ulfbeck and Bohr  that “no event takes place in the source itself as a precursor to the click in the counter”, while I disagree with their interpretation that the wave function “loses its significance” as soon as an event occurs “completely beyond law” in the counter. On the contrary, this event can be dynamically described in terms of a unitarily evolving (hence strongly entangled) universal wave function.

This conclusion must also affect the interpretation of the Wigner function, which is presently in vogue in non-relativistic quantum mechanics because of its (misleading) formal analogy to a classical phase space distribution.

## 2 General quantum systems

In order to set the stage for this comment, let me first define what I mean by a general (abstract) quantum system. This is the conceptual framework that remains when all specific aspects, such as those resulting from “quantizing” a certain classical system, are eliminated.

The kinematics of an abstract quantum system is defined by means of a “basis” of linearly independent states $`|i`$, with $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},D`$, subject to the superposition principle, which allows every state of the system to be written in the form

$$|\alpha =c_i|i.$$
(1)
This kinematical principle requires furthermore that any such (normalizable) superposition represents a possible physical state. For a certain system, the dimension $`D`$ may be finite, infinite, or the states $`|i`$ may even form a non-countable set. Although one can never strictly decide empirically whether $`D`$ is infinite or just very large, this difference is essential for the mathematical formulation of explicit models.

The dynamics of a quantum system by itself is assumed to be described by a Schrödinger equation,

$$i\frac{}{t}|\alpha =H|\alpha ,$$
(2)
characterized by a hermitean matrix $`h_{mn}`$ in the basis (1). In quantum theories which contain gravity, the dynamics may degenerate to a static Wheeler-DeWitt equation, $`H|\alpha =0`$.

On the one hand, this is very little, since there is no interpretation of these abstract states yet. On the other one, it is quite a bit, since the superposition principle is known to be very powerful, while the Hamiltonian may describe an enormous dynamical structure (dynamical locality, for example).

Fortunately, in general we have more.

## 3 Interpretation through measurements

Measurements are interactions of the system with an appropriate device. We know that there are specific system states $`|x`$, say, which cause the “pointer” of a certain device to move into a position that depends on the state $`|x`$. For general states $`|\alpha `$, this happens with Born probalility $`|x|\alpha |^2`$. For this purpose, an inner product has to be added to the kinematics defined in Sect. 2. Since different pointer positions exclude each other, we have to require $`x|x^{}=0`$ for $`xx^{}`$.

There are various ways to describe such measurements.

(a) Traditional (Bohr): The pointer is described in classical terms. Its “position” may be the actual position of a spot on the photographic plate, or, for a different device, the impulse on a macroscopic (Brownian) particle that we can observe under the microcsope. In the first case, we usually presume (more or less tacitly) that the measurement interaction is local, such that the “quantum object” must have been at this position, too. Similarly, in the second case, we presume momentum conservation in order to conclude that the quantum object must have changed its momentum correspondingly, or must have lost it in the case of absorption. (Bohr emphasized that conservation laws are essential for the Copenhagen interpretation.) So one concludes that the “quantum object” exhibits properties of a particle (position or momentum) when being measured, even though we are forced to conclude that it cannot possess both properties at the same time or when not being observed. However, position and momentum may be used to define two different bases for the corresponding quantum states, with coefficients $`c_i`$ becoming wave functions $`\psi (𝐫)`$ in the position representation, where (1) assumes the form $`|\alpha =d^3r\psi (𝐫)|𝐫`$.

The particle concept had proven useful earlier – though not with perfect results – in statistical mechanics (for molecules) and in Bohr-Sommerfeld quantum mechanics (for atomic electrons). By means of formal considerations (based on the Hamiltonian form of mechanics) this historical root led to a general “quantization” procedure, applicable to classical dynamical systems. These quantization rules and their consequences form the subject of this comment. For a dynamical system that can be brought into Hamiltonian form, any configuration space defines a basis for all quantum states, while canonical momenta form another one (usually related to the former by a Fourier transform – only at this point an operator algebra based on classical Poisson brackets becomes relevant). In this way one obtains wave functions on configuration space, and, in particular, the well established non-local many-particle wave functions $`\psi (𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_N,t)`$. Note, however, that the concepts of spin and permutation symmetry were added for empirically reasons.

(b) Quantum pointers (von Neumann ): Because of the generality of quantization rules, it appeared natural to describe the pointer position “x” by a quantum state, $`|P_x`$, too. If understood as a narrow wave packet of a massive pointer, it may approximately define both position and momentum (in accordance with the uncertainty relations or Fourier theorem). For the specific states $`|x`$, a measurement can then be written as a unitary evolution in the tensor product space,

$$|x|P_0|x|P_x.$$
(3)
Apparently, Bohr was never ready to accept this extension of the application of quantum theory to macroscopic objects, even though he applied the uncertainty relations to them. Equation (3) defines an effective interaction Hamiltonian between system and pointer (neglecting all details), but inevitably leads into the well-known measurement problem, which seems to require either the existence of macroscopic superpositions (Schrödinger cats) or a “second dynamics” (the collapse of the wave function).

(c) Universal quantum theory (Everett ): In the next “natural step”, quantum theory was not only applied to the system and its measurement device, but also to their environment (the rest of the universe). Quantitative dynamical considerations then require that all systems in the universe are strongly entangled . Subsystems can possess quantum states by themselves only “relative” to states of the rest, in particular relative to states of measurement devices or observers. The relation to observers is not merely formal: it implies a radically novel definition of “separate observers” in terms of the wave function – required as a consequence of entanglement. These relative states are factor states in dynamically autonomous “branches” of the global wave function. Restricting consideration to subsystems of the universe (as is realistic for local interactions affecting local observers) leads to the concept of decoherence and the formation of effective ensembles of subsystem states . Phase relations defining (macroscopic) Schrödinger cats are almost immediately dislocalized, and thus become irrelevant to local observers. Since the universe is closed, there are no external measurement devices to be used for an operational interpretation of global (Everett) quantum states, and all observable properties must now in principle be derived from the invariant structure of the universal Hamiltonian.

## 4 Quantization

The “canonical quantization rules” require that classical configuration variables $`q`$ define a basis of quantum states, $`|q`$, for the “corresponding” Hilbert space. Similarly, the quantum Hamiltonian is obtained from the classical Hamiltonian $`H(p,q)`$ by replacing the canonical variables $`p`$ and $`q`$ with operators $`P=𝑑p|ppp|`$ and $`Q=𝑑q|qqq|`$, respectively, (a procedure that cannot be unique because of the factor ordering problem). We will here essentially be concerned with the construction of the basis only, which is then often used for a fundamental probability interpretation, while the operators are defined to act on the quantum states spanned by the basis in the form (1).

We now understand in principle how classical properties emerge from the quantum system by means of decoherence (for example as narrow Gauss packets in the canonical basis $`|q`$): their superpositions would immediately decohere. However, since decoherence depends on the environment, the question arises whether the basis obtained by quantizing a classical theory is always a fundamental one for the quantum system of interest. If effective classical variables, $`q(t)`$, are known for a certain system, we have to conclude according to the superposition principle that all their superpositions $`𝑑q\psi (q,t)|q`$ must in principle exist as physical states, but this formal “quantization” procedure, based on classical concepts, does often not lead to a fundamental basis (understood in a hierarchical sense if required). Let me give three examples:

(1) The rigid rotator is classically described by means of the Euler angles $`\varphi ,\theta ,\chi `$, say. Their symplectic structure defines the geometry of this configuration space. Canonical quantization then leads to wave functions $`D(\varphi ,\theta ,\chi )`$. They represent an effective approximation for certain states of a many-body system (forming a rotational band), which have more fundamentally to be described by a wave function $`\psi (𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_N)`$. The stability of a rigid body, required for this approximation, is itself based on quantum properties of the many-body system. In general, no eigenstates for the Euler angles exist in terms of the many-body states that form the rotational band , since the approximation of a rigid body breaks down at high values of angular momentum.

(2) N-particle systems would upon quantization lead to wave functions depending on $`3N`$ position variables not restricted by permutation symmetries. However, states of zero-mass bosons, for example, can also be derived by quantizing a lattice or a continuum of coupled oscillators (a “field”). Its quantization leads to equidistant energy levels (oscillator quanta), which can be interpreted as boson numbers. It is for this reason that field amplitudes appear as boson creation and annihilation operators. Since photon number eigenstates are not robust against decoherence,111 There is a popular misundstanding of decoherence, found particularly in the context of welcher Weg experiments. It assumes that decoherence is defined by the disappearance of spatial interference fringes, observable only in the statistics of events. However, entanglement with an inaccessible environment destroys phase relations between coefficients $`c_i`$ in (local) individual quantum states (1). These superpositions define spatial waves only in the special (though important) cases of (effective) quantized single mass points or single oscillator quanta on a spatial lattice. Apparent events, such as those appearing in measurements and giving rise to statistical aspects, “occur” according to the Schrödinger equation in another (later) process of decoherence. The latter affects superpositions of different measurement outcomes, such as spots on a plate. In other situations, depending on the relevant environment, other (individual) quasi-classical states may be produced by decoherence, for example precisely those coherent states of coupled oscillators that define “field” modes . These two extremes of decoherence, caused by one or the other measurement device, are conventionally interpreted as a “wave particle dualism”. their observed classical states are indeed fields, which upon canonical quantization give rise to field functionals rather than particle wave functions. For massive and, in particular, charged boson fields (where “mass” is defined by a specific term in the field equations), occupation numbers and quasi-local states for each oscillator quantum are robust and may therefore appear classical in many cases – though not in the non-environment-entangled state of their Bose-Einstein condensate (cf. ). Permutation of bosons thus becomes a redundancy, since this concept of bosons does not depend on a primordial particle concept any more. For example, the permutation symmetry of many-particle wave functions does not represent any physical entanglement: it disappears in terms of wave modes (cf. ).

(3) The most important example (though not the subject of this Letter) is the dressing of elementary fields. It may simply lead to a “renormalization” of parameters characterizing effective fields, or even require quite new fields – hopefully in the form of a unification. While not restricted to quantum field theory (mass renormalization was known in classical electron theory, for example), the results of dressing must be expected to depend essentially on quantum theory.

Fermions (but also massive bosons) are usually regarded as particles on a fundamental level. This is particularly evident in Bohm’s theory , where unobservable trajectories in classical configuration space are postulated for particles and for electromagnetic and other fields. (Variants of Bohm’s theory with photon trajectories instead of time-dependent Maxwell fields have recently been claimed to be in conflict with quantum theory and experiments . While the analysis of these experiments appears doubtful, this modified Bohm theory – in contrast to the original one – seems to have never been proven equivalent to quantum theory.)

In the Heisenberg picture, “observables” corresponding to classical particle variables are often assumed to “exist” but not to “possess values”. However, since many-particle quantum states are represented by wave functions (on a space of $`3N`$ dimensions), while particle aspects, such as spots on a plate or clicks in a counter, emerge by means of decoherence in accordance with a universal Schrödinger equation, I concluded ten years ago  that “there are no particles” in quantum mechanics any more. Their rôle in the quantization procedure (for defining the corresponding configuration space as a stage for the wave function) is nonetheless widely used as an argument for a probability interpretation in terms of particles.

In canonical quantum electrodynamics, wave functionals $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\psi (𝐫),𝐀(𝐫),t]`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\psi (𝐫),\psi ^{}(𝐫),𝐀(𝐫),t]`$ describe general quantum states. They represent entangled superpositions of different values of all field amplitudes, thus leading to field operators and their canonical momenta for $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ and $`\psi (𝐫)`$. Since $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ was itself obtained from particle quantization, this procedure is often called a “second” quantization. This interpretation is obviously wrong, since a true second quantization would lead to wave functionals defined on many-particle wave functions. The “one-particle wave function” $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$ is a perfectly local field, that would not allow one to describe EPR type non-locality, for example. While a quantized spinor field was historically a second step, we must now simply conclude that spinor fields (rather than particle positions) define a correct basis for electron and other fermion quantum states, even though they hardly ever appear as quasi-classical objects. Position $`𝐫`$ never represents a dynamical variable; it occurs as an index of the true variables ($`\psi `$ and other dynamical fields).

In other words: there are not even particles “before” quantization, that is, characterizing in any way the “configuration” space on which a fundamental wave function(al) is defined. According to the present state of the art, the “second” quantization in terms of fields is the first and only one, while particles represent a derived and effective concept. Their appearance is no more than the result of decoherence by means of local interactions: it leads to robust (quasi-classical) local effects in the cloud chamber or detector, representing droplets or clicks, respectively. The occupation number (rather than particle) basis for electron states has recently been experimentally confirmed by anti-bunching , while the non-invariance of neutrons under $`2\pi `$-rotations was directly observed long ago . This double-valuedness of spinor fields under full spatial rotations may explain the restriction of their occupation numbers to 0 and 1.

If a modified Bohm theory with photon trajectories is indeed in conflict with quantum theory, I would expect this to apply to Bohm’s original theory in the relativistic case, too. One may instead need Bohm trajectories for fields only  in order to remain consistent with relativistic quantum theory and with experiments (while even these “consistent” Bohm trajectories remain unobservable and in this sense meaningless ).

The conclusion that there is only a quantum theory of fields does not, of course, contain any novel consequences for the formalism of conventional quantum field theory. However, it undermines the usual interpretation of quantum states as probability amplitudes for (conceptually primordial) particles. This consequence may affect also other aspects of the Heisenberg picture. One may even argue whether a functional of fields will survive in a future quantum theory. Its form as a functional of many effective “particle” fields is certainly the most successful theory yet, but unified quantum field theories (supersymmetry or M-theory, for example) are no more than promising proposals for a more fundamental one. Quantum field theories have the important advantage, however, to allow the formulation of local dynamics by means of a Hamiltonian density, defined as a function of field operators and their derivatives.

## 5 Constraints

Gauge theories are using constraints, which may be understood as a means to eliminate “unphysical” degrees of freedom, or redundancies (“gauges”), in order to define the proper stage for the wave function. For example, the permutated positions of two “identical particles”, or two magnetic potentials which lead to the same magnetic field and loop integrals $`𝐀(𝐫)𝑑𝐬`$, have to be physically identified. While this should be done before quantization, that is, when defining the Hilbert space basis in (1), it is often more convenient, or the only feasible way, to apply “quantum constraints” in the form

$$C|\alpha =0$$
(4)
to an unphysical (too large) Hilbert space based on unconstrained variables. The latter is thus restricted to states being symmetric (invariant) under the group of all unphysical transformations, such as $`\mathrm{exp}(iC\varphi )`$ (see  and Giulini’s Sect. 6.3 of  for a relation to superselection rules). These two procedures are expected to be equivalent, while the enlarged Hilbert space remains irrelevant for any physical interpretation.

In quantum gravity, for example, “momentum constraints” $`P_i|\alpha =0`$, applied to the Hilbert space spanned by all spatial metrics $`h_{kl}(𝐫)`$, with $`i,k,l=1,2,3`$, are known to symmetrize the physical states under all transformations which connect different spatial metrics that represent the same abstract spatial geometry (such as those related by a mere coordinate transformation). A coordinate-free description of three-geometry is not explicitly known, in general.

There is a catch, however. Invariance under the gauge proper (the local choice of a basis of gauge group generators) is related to the existence of a physical “gauge field” (see the note added in proof in ). The parallel transport of these generators (a connection on the corresponding fibre bundle), which is required for the meaningful definition of relative gauge transformations at different points, must itself represent gauge-independent (abstract) geometry, and may thus give rise to active (physical) oscillations (“bosons” after their quantization). It is for this physical reason that the gauge field “should be varied in the Lagrangean” . Invariance then holds trivially under local basis transformations, but (if defined) also under active global ones (Mach’s principle understood as a redundancy).

This picture supports the view, entertained in this comment, that even fermions have to be fundamentally described by quantum fields rather than quantum particles. These fields may carry properties (“charges”) that are affected by transformations under the gauge group – for example a “classical” phase characterizing a complex spinor field. This phase does not describe a quantum superposition (as it would for quantized charged particles). In Weyl’s classical gauge theories, their later application (in 1929) to the “quantum” phase (see ) appears as a deus ex machina, while it would be entirely natural for complex pre-quantum (“classical”) spinor fields.

In the same sense as the observation of a radiation reaction in the absence of any absorbers  has been regarded, in classical context, as evidence for the reality of fields (in contrast to time-symmetric action at a distance), decoherence of the source by its own radiation in the absence of any events in absorbers would demonstrate the reality of the corresponding wave functional (which here describes entanglement between the radiation and its source).

Acknowledgement: I wish to thank the participants of the FESt seminar on decoherence (in particular Domenico Giulini and Claus Kiefer), Shelly Goldstein and Peter Holland for helpful discussions or comments.


text:
# Number Fluctuation and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic

## Abstract

We consider $`N`$ bosons occupying a discrete set of single-particle quantum states in an isolated trap. Usually, for a given excitation energy, there are many combinations of exciting different number of particles from the ground state, resulting in a fluctuation of the ground state population. As a counter example, we take the quantum spectrum to be logarithms of the prime number sequence, and using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, find that the ground state fluctuation vanishes exactly for all excitations. The use of the standard canonical or grand canonical ensembles, on the other hand, gives substantial number fluctuation for the ground state. This difference between the microcanonical and canonical results cannot be accounted for within the framework of equilibrium statistical mechanics.

After the experimental discovery of BEC in a trapped dilute gas at ultra-low temperatures, much attention has been paid to the problem of number fluctuation in the ground state of the ideal system grossman1 ; politzer ; grossman2 ; weiss ; gazda ; herzog ; navez ; holthouse ; holthaus , as well as a weakly interacting bose gas buffet ; stringari ; illuminati ; idziaszek ; xiong1 ; xiong2 ; xiong3 ; bhaduri . There are also a few papers on ground state fluctuations in a trapped fermi gas tran . There are several reasons for this interest. In standard statistical mechanics, number fluctuation is related to density-density correlation, and to the compressibility of the system in the grand canonical ensemble (GCE) bhaduri . Light scattering cross section off the medium, in principle, may be related to the ground state fluctuation in the system light . The so called grand canonical catastrophe in an ideal bose gas, where the fluctuation diverges at low temperatures, was already known fierz . Therefore a more accurate treatment of the problem was needed for trapped gases. In the microcanonical treatment of number fluctuation from the ground state in a harmonic trap, the problem is closely related to the combinatorics of partitioning an integer, and thus there was an interesting link to number theory grossman1 . It turned out that the result for the ground state number fluctuation was very sensitive to the kind of asymptotic approximations that are made. Another aspect that drew much attention in the literature was the difference in the calculated results for fluctuation using the canonical and the microcanonical formulations navez ; holthouse . It was pointed out by Navez et al. navez  that for a trapped bose gas below the critical temperature, the microcanonical result for fluctuation could be obtained solely using the canonically calculated quantities, which in turn may be obtained from the so called Maxwell Demon ensemble martin , to be explained later.

In this paper, we give an example of a quantum spectrum that has no number fluctuation in the ground state for any excitation energy in the microcanonical ensemble, as a direct corollary of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. The canonical ensemble, on the other hand, yields a dramatically different ground state number fluctuation. The method of Navez et al. fails to account for the difference between the microcanonical and canonical results in this example. This failure of the canonical (grand canonical) ensembles is due to the peculiar nature of the single-particle spectrum in our example. Generally, when a large excitation energy is supplied to a system, there are a very large number of distinct microscopic configurations that are accessible to it. All these different microstates describe the same macro-state of a given excitation energy. The classic example is that of bosons in a harmonic trap, where the number of partitions of an integer number, corresponding to the number of microstates, increases exponentially. We use, on the other hand, another example from number theory, to propose a system where the excitation energy, no matter how large, is locked in one microstate. Consequently, although it is possible to explicitly calculate the canonical or grand canonical partition functions and therefore the thermodynamic entropy for this example, it does not approach or equal the information theoretical entropy that can be exactly calculated using number theory planes . So far as we know, this constitutes a novel and new example that links number theory and thermodynamics, and gives radically different results for the microcanonical and canonical ensembles.

We consider bosons in a hypothetical trap with a single-particle spectrum (not including the ground state, which is at zero energy)

$$ϵ_p=\mathrm{ln}p,$$
(1)
where $`p`$ runs over the prime numbers $`2,3,5,..`$. Of course, such a spectrum is not realizable experimentally, and it is merely a means of performing a thought experiment. We shall use, in what follows, both a truncated sequence of primes, as well as the infinite sequence when we perform the canonical calculations for fluctuation. First, however, we perform the exact calculation for number fluctuation from the ground state. Suppose that there are $`N`$ bosons in the ground state at zero energy, and an excitation energy $`E_x`$ is given to the system. In how many ways can this energy be shared amongst the bosons by this spectrum ? Before giving the answer, we remind the reader of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, which states that every positive integer $`n`$ can be written in only one way as a product of prime numbers edwards  :

$$n=p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\mathrm{}p_r^{n_r}\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`p_r`$’s are distinct prime numbers, and $`n_r`$’s are positive integers including zero, and need not be distinct. It immediately follows from Eq. (2) that if the excitation energy $`E_x=\mathrm{ln}n`$, where the integer $`n2`$, there is only one unique way of exciting the particles from the ground state. If $`E_x\mathrm{ln}n`$, the energy is not absorbed by the quantum system. Since the number of bosons excited from the ground state, for a given $`E_x`$, is unique for this system, the number fluctuation in the ground state is identically zero ! Moreover, this conclusion is valid whether we take in Eq. (1) an upper cut-off in the prime number, or the infinite sequence of all the primes. The information-theoretic entropy at an excitation energy $`E_x`$ is

$$𝒮(E_x)=\underset{i}{}P_i\mathrm{ln}P_i,$$
(3)
where $`P_i`$ is the probability of excitation of the microstate $`i`$. Since only one microstate contributes with unit probability, and all others have $`P_i=0`$ (when $`E_x=\mathrm{ln}n`$), the entropy $`𝒮=0`$. It is also straight forward to calculate the ground state population $`N_0`$ as a function of the excitation energy $`E_x`$. For this purpose, we truncate the spectrum given by Eq. (1) to the first million primes, with a cutoff denoted by $`p^{}`$, and take $`N=100`$. We shall display the numerical results after describing the canonical calculations.

Our next task is to calculate these quantities in the canonical ensemble, and see if the differences in the microcanonical and canonical results may be accounted for (as $`N\mathrm{}`$) using the method of Navez et al. navez . We first do the calculation for the truncated spectrum. The one-body canonical partition function is then given by $`Z_1(\beta )=1+_{p=2}^p^{}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{ln}p)`$. The N-body bosonic canonical partition function is obtained by using the recursion relation borrmann

$$Z_N(\beta )=\frac{1}{N}\underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}Z_1(s\beta )Z_{Ns}(\beta ).$$
(4)
Once $`Z_N`$ is found, the ground state occupation $`N_0=n_0_N`$ and the ground state number fluctuation for the canonical ensemble can be readily be computed tran ; parvan . We define $`\delta N_0^2=(n_0^2_Nn_0_N^2)`$, where the RHS is calculated using Eqs. (24) and (25) of Ref.(tran ). In Fig. 1a) and b), we display the results of the canonical calculations for the ground state occupancy fraction $`N_0/N`$ and the ground state fluctuation $`(\delta N_0^2)^{1/2}/N`$ for $`N=100`$ as a function of temperature $`T`$ with the truncated spectrum of the first million primes. For comparison, we also show the results of the corresponding grand canonical calculation. The grand canonical catastrophe for the number fluctuation is clearly evident. It is also easy to calculate the canonical (equilibrium) entropy $`S=\mathrm{ln}Z_N(\beta )+\beta E_x`$. The comparison with the combinatorial (or microcanonical) results requires that we convert the canonical temperature to excitation energy $`E_x`$. This is done by using the standard relation $`E_x=\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_N(\beta )}{\beta }`$. In Fig. 2, the canonical fractional occupancy of the bosons in the excited states, $`N_e/N`$, for $`N=100`$, is compared with the (exact) combinatorial (or microcanonical) calculation as a function of the excitation energy $`E_x`$. Although the canonical and the grandcanonical $`N_e/N`$ are nearly identical, the corresponding microcanonical quantity is radically different. This anomaly persists even as $`N\mathrm{}`$, showing the breakdown of the equivalence between the microcanonical and the other ensembles. In Fig. 3, we display the behaviour of the canonical entropy as a function of $`T`$ and $`E_x`$. The microcanonical entropy $`𝒮(E_x)`$, of course, is zero, and so is the number fluctuation $`\delta N_0^2`$. Thus we find that the canonical results have no resemblance with the exact microcanonical ones. All these calculations were performed for a truncated spectrum (first million primes) of $`\mathrm{ln}p`$, as specified earlier, and for $`N=100`$.

We shall now use the procedure of Navez et al. navez  to check if the microcanonical results may be obtained from a canonical calculation as $`N\mathrm{}`$. These authors constructed the so called Maxwell’s Demon ensemble in which the ground state (for $`T<T_c`$) was taken to be the reservoir of bosons that could exchange particles with the rest of the subsystem (of the excited spectrum) without exchanging energy. Denoting the grand canonical partition function of the excited subsystem by $`\mathrm{\Xi }_e(\alpha ,\beta )`$, with $`\alpha =\beta \mu `$, it was shown that the canonical occupancy of the excited states, $`N_e`$, and the number fluctuation $`(\delta ^2N_e)`$ could be obtained from the first and the second derivative of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_e`$ with respect to $`\alpha `$, and then putting $`\alpha =0`$. It was further noted that the microcanonical number fluctuation for the excited particles was related to the canonical quantities by the relation

$$\delta ^2N_e_{MC}^{\mathrm{}}=\delta ^2N_e_{CN}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{[\delta N_e\delta E_{CN}^{\mathrm{}}]^2}{\delta ^2E_{CN}^{\mathrm{}}},$$
(5)
where the superscript $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes $`N\mathrm{}`$. This worked beautifully for harmonic traps in various dimensions. These calculations, for our system, are also easily done for $`\beta >1`$. We now consider the spectrum (1) to be the infinite sequence of the primes, and evaluate the RHS of Eq. (6). We readily obtain the convergent expression (for $`\beta >1`$)

$$\delta ^2N_e_{MC}^{\mathrm{}}=\underset{p}{}\frac{p^\beta }{(p^\beta 1)^2}\frac{\left[\underset{p}{}\frac{(\mathrm{ln}p)p^\beta }{(p^\beta 1)^2}\right]^2}{_p\frac{(\mathrm{ln}p)^2p^\beta }{(p^\beta 1)^2}}.$$
(6)
The RHS of Eq. (6) is nonzero, and therefore does not agree with the microcanonical result. The failure of the above formalism of Navez et al. navez  is because of the very special nature of the single-particle spectrum (1). Consider constructing the N-particle canonical partition function $`Z_N(\beta )`$ from this spectrum, as we had done. As $`N\mathrm{}`$, a little thought will show that $`Z_N\zeta (\beta )`$, where $`\zeta (\beta )=_n\frac{1}{n^\beta }`$ is the Riemann zeta function. This is because we are allowed to span over all $`E`$ in calculating $`Z_N(\beta )`$. Similarly, the grand partition function $`\mathrm{\Xi }_e(\alpha ,\beta )`$ with $`\alpha =0`$ is none other than the Euler product representation of the Riemann zeta function edwards . This has a density of states growing exponentially with $`E`$, and has been studied in connection with the limiting hadronic temperature julia . By contrast, the number of accessible states with a fixed $`N`$ and $`E`$ in the isolated microcanonical set-up does not increase at all. Since the energy remains locked in one microstate, the isolated system cannot be described through the usual concepts of statistical mechanics.

This research is supported by NERSC (Canada). The authors would like to thank David M. Cooke and Jamal Sakhr for helpful discussions.