text:
# Explaining the Gamma-Ray Burst 𝐸_{𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑘} Distribution

## 1 Introduction

Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are indeed ’gamma-ray’ bursts since their spectrum is dominated by gamma radiation. $`E_{peak}`$ is the characteristic photon energy measured from a burst spectrum by fitting a smoothly broken power law (Band et al. 1993). Mallozzi et al. (1995) have measured $`E_{peak}`$ values for 399 BATSE bursts. They find that a histogram of $`E_{peak}`$ is roughly log-normal in shape, with average values of $`200keV`$. They also find that the width of this distribution is surprisingly narrow, with a dispersion corresponding to a factor of $`2`$ about the average. Brainard et al. (1998) have proven that the narrowness of this distribution is not an artifact of BATSE detector properties or of the analysis procedures, and in particular that the sharp falloff in frequency down to at least 50 keV is certain. Further, deep searches with the Solar Maximum Mission Gamma Ray Spectrometer have proven that the population of high-$`E_{peak}`$ bursts is nearly zero (Harris & Share, 1998).

This is not to say that ’GeV bursts’ and ’keV bursts’ do not exist. For example, GRB950425 is certainly a GeV burst (Schaefer et al., 1998). Also, Kippen et al. (2001) and Heise et al. (2001) report x-ray transients that have similar light curves and durations as classical GRBs. The existence of these x-ray transients might be interpreted as implying that the $`E_{peak}`$ distribution has a broad tail to low energies, despite the iron-clad data from BATSE. The resolution lies in the realization that the x-ray transients all have peak fluxes (in the 50-300 keV band) that are far below the normal BATSE trigger threshold. The result from Mallozzi et al. (1995) is that the $`E_{peak}`$ distribution is narrow for bursts in a small range of peak flux. Bursts with peak fluxes far below the BATSE threshold do not (and should not) enter into the histograms constructed from BATSE triggers. If an $`E_{peak}`$ distribution is constructed for very low peak flux events (including the x-ray transients), then a simple extrapolation of the average $`E_{peak}`$ versus peak flux relation of Mallozzi suggests that such events will appear as ordinary bursts except with $`E_{peak}70`$ keV, just as observed.

So apparently there is something about GRBs (the $`E_{peak}`$ value) that is fairly constant over all bursts. This poses a double challenge to theory, since there must be some physical mechanism which acts as a thermostat and there must be some mechanism for balancing the kinematic blue shifts (due to the jet’s velocity towards Earth) and red shifts (due to the cosmological expansion). Based on the factor of $`1000`$ variation in burst luminosity, the Lorentz factor of the jet likely varies by a large factor, while the cosmological red shift varies by over a factor of 3; so we might expect the kinematic effects to produce a broad $`E_{peak}`$ distribution even if all bursts had the same rest frame temperature.

Mallozzi et al. (1995) also found that the average $`E_{peak}`$ value varied systematically with the apparent brightness of the burst. The peak flux used here, $`P_{256}`$, is measured over a 256 ms time scale within a limited energy band from 50-300 keV (Fishman et al., 1994). The bright BATSE bursts have $`E_{peak}`$ around 339 keV while the faintest BATSE bursts have $`E_{peak}`$ around 175 keV. The trivial explanation of this effect as arising only from cosmological red shifts is unreasonable since burst peak fluxes vary more due to the wide spread in luminosity than due to distances. So a second mystery is why $`E_{peak}`$ varies with $`P_{256}`$ as observed.

## 2 The Narrow $`E_{peak}`$ Distribution

Two kinematic effects will change the characteristic photon energy of the emitting region in its own rest frame, $`E_{rest}`$, into the characteristic photon energy as seen by Earth, $`E_{peak}`$. The first is the blue shift caused by the bulk velocity of the emitting region towards Earth. This will increase the detected characteristic energy by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The second is the red shift caused by the usual cosmological expansion of the Universe. This will decrease the detected characteristic energy by a factor of $`(1+z)^1`$, where $`z`$ is the red shift. So,

$$E_{peak}=E_{rest}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+z)^1.$$
(1)
Here, the $`E_{peak}`$ distribution will be a convolution of the $`E_{rest}`$ distribution and the kinematic smearing effects from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+z)^1`$ factor.

The $`E_{rest}`$ value can vary from pulse-to-pulse and burst-to-burst. In general, $`E_{rest}`$ might have a power law dependence on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. So

$$E_{rest}=E_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^M,$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is the power law index. The exponent $`M`$ might be zero if there is some process which limits the temperature in the emitting region, or $`M`$ might be unity if the kinetic energy of the jet is entirely converted to thermal energy and then into gamma radiation.

Within generic internal shock scenarios, the burst isotropic luminosity, $`L`$, varies as some power of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. One power of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ comes from the available energy in the shell. Two more powers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ come from the blue shifting of photons in the usual $`E^2`$ burst spectrum. (The 50-300 keV power law index varies over a typical range of about unity in width from burst-to-burst, with an average of close to -2 as shown in Fig. 4 of Schaefer et al. (1998) and Fig. 46 of Schaefer et al. (1994).) The bunching of photons by the forward motion of the shell will not increase the luminosity since the overall timing of sub-pulses (and thus the distribution of photons within the peak) is determined by the central engine which has no $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ dependence. (Alternatively, if a single sub-pulse with observed duration longer than 256 ms dominates the peak flux, then an additional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ dependence is due to the bunching of photons.) Hence, the luminosity should vary as something like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^3`$. However, variations on this basic scenario are possible; for example the peak luminosity might well be dominated by a relatively small emission area (to account for the fact that most bursts have millisecond variations (Walker, Schaefer, & Fenimore, 2000)) and the resulting relativistic beaming could provide another factor of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. Emission efficiencies could well have some dependency on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To allow for any reasonable scenario, let me adopt a general expression of

$$L=L_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^N,$$
(3)
where $`N`$ is the power law index that is expected to be $`3`$ or perhaps $`5`$ and to vary somewhat from burst-to-burst.

Equations 1-3 can be combined as

$$E_{peak}=E_0(L/L_0)^{(M+1)/N}(1+z)^1.$$
(4)
The kinematic part can be isolated as

$$E_{peak}L^{(M+1)/N}(1+z)^1.$$
(5)
This representation is convenient since $`L`$ and $`z`$ can be measured for many bursts, either by direct measures of their optical red shifts or based on the lag and variability distance indicators (Schaefer, Deng, & Band, 2001). This is also convenient since lines of constant $`P_{256}`$ are also functions of $`L`$ and $`z`$, and the narrow $`E_{peak}`$ distributions of Mallozzi et al. (1995) were constructed for bursts in narrow bins of $`P_{256}`$. Figure 1 displays curves of constant $`E_{peak}`$ (for the case of $`(M+1)/N=0.36`$) and lines of constant $`P_{256}`$. The two $`P_{256}`$ lines are for values ($`10.0`$ and $`1.0phs^1cm^2`$) which are the medians of Mallozzi’s brightest and dimmest bins (for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,H_{}=65kms^1Mpc^1`$). The two curves of constant $`E_{peak}`$ values (339 and 175 keV) were chosen to correspond to the measured values for Mallozzi’s brightest and dimmest bins (for $`L_0`$ and $`E_0`$ normalized so that the lower curve is close to the faintest $`P_{256}`$ line).

Over the range for which GRBs are seen (typically $`0.4<z<4`$), the $`E_{peak}`$ curves are fairly close to the $`P_{256}`$ lines. This is to say that for a collection of bursts within a narrow $`P_{256}`$ bin, the kinematic shifts do not vary much. Over a wide range of $`L`$ or $`z`$, the overall shifting of $`E_{rest}`$ is roughly constant. This constancy is an essential compensation between the red and blue shifts, in that bursts with low blue shifts (and hence low luminosities) must necessarily be close to Earth and have offsetting low red shifts; while the high blue shift jets (with high $`L`$) are distant with an offsetting high red shift. So the combined kinematic smearing varies little, thus allowing GRBs to have a narrow $`E_{peak}`$ distribution despite having a wide range of red shifts and luminosities.

A narrow $`E_{peak}`$ distribution requires both that the kinematic smearing be small and that the $`E_{rest}`$ distribution be at least as narrow. The explanation just given answers only part of the requirements. A physical mechanism to explain why the $`E_{rest}`$ distribution is so narrow is still needed (such as in Kazanas, Georganopoulos, & Mastichiadis 2002).

The size of the kinematic smearing depends on the exponent of $`L`$ in Eq. 5. There will be additional smearing due to the finite width of the $`P_{256}`$ bins. With the model from Eq. 5, I have calculated the total smearing across the bin for the faintest bursts ($`0.95<P_{256}<1.3`$) over the normal range of red shifts ($`0.4<z<4`$). For an acceptable value of $`(M+1)/N`$, the smearing across this bin should be smaller than the observed spread of $`E_{peak}`$. The FWHM of the $`E_{peak}`$ distribution for the faintest bursts stretches from roughly 150 keV to 600 keV, a factor of 4 (Mallozzi et al., 1995). The kinematic smearing is less than a factor of 4 for all values of $`(M+1)/N`$ less than 0.45. The least smearing (at 19%) occurs for $`(M+1)/N=0.21`$.

## 3 How $`E_{peak}`$ Varies With $`P_{256}`$

Nemiroff et al. (1994) discovered that bright bursts are harder than faint bursts, while Mallozzi et al. (1995) showed specifically how $`E_{peak}`$ varies with $`P_{256}`$ (see Fig. 2). The general formalism from the previous section can yield a prediction for how $`E_{peak}`$ varies with $`P_{256}`$. The reason for this variation is a consequence of Eq. 5. From Fig. 1, we see that there is nearly a one-to-one correspondence between $`E_{peak}`$ and $`P_{256}`$. But the exact predicted function will depend on the distribution of bursts within a $`P_{256}`$ bin. If the median burst is roughly at a constant red shift (specifically, at the strong inflection in the burst number density at $`z1`$ (Schaefer, Deng, & Band, 2001)), then Eq. 5 becomes

$$E_{peak}P_{256}^{(M+1)/N},$$
(6)
since $`LP_{256}`$. Alternatively, if the median burst is roughly at a constant luminosity (specifically, at the break in the GRB luminosity function around $`2\times 10^{52}ergs^1cm^2`$ (Schaefer, Deng, & Band, 2001)), then Eq. 5 takes on a substantially more complex functional form that is similar to Eq. 6. The likely case is midway between these two extreme alternatives, with the median burst in each $`P_{256}`$ bin along a line roughly perpendicular to the line of constant $`P_{256}`$. Here, there is no simple expression although the $`E_{peak}`$ distribution is close to a power law in $`P_{256}`$.

The $`E_{peak}`$ data from Mallozzi et al. (1995) is displayed in Figure 2. What value of $`(M+1)/N`$ best fits the data based on Eq. 6? The chi-square is minimized for $`(M+1)/N`$ equal to $`0.40\pm 0.14`$. Here, the median burst in each $`P_{256}`$ bin is taken to lie on a line perpendicular to the line of constant $`P_{256}`$ in the $`L`$ versus $`z`$ plot. In the next section, I will show that $`(M+1)/N`$ is equal to $`0.36\pm 0.03`$, and this is still an acceptable fit (see Fig. 2).

The point of this section is that Eq. 5 provides a simple and general explanation for the observed variation of $`E_{peak}`$ with $`P_{256}`$ (Eq. 6). In words, the brighter bursts will have some combination of higher luminosities (with a higher $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and be closer (with a smaller $`1+z`$) than fainter bursts, so that the jet’s blue shift and cosmological red shift will work together to give a higher $`E_{peak}`$ for the brighter bursts.

## 4 The Values of $`M`$ and $`N`$

The values of $`M`$ and $`N`$ can tell us about the physics of gamma ray bursts. Observations can place reliable constraints on both $`M`$ and $`N`$. Sections 2 and 3 have already provided limits, and two more observational constraints will now be presented.

For the 112 BATSE bursts with known $`L`$ and $`z`$ (based on the measured lag and variability) reported in Schaefer, Deng, & Band (2001), the $`E_{peak}`$ value at the time of peak flux is known for 84 events. (The reason for why the 28 events do not have a measured $`E_{peak}`$ is not known due to the untimely death of R. Mallozzi.) Eq. 5 shows that $`E_{peak}(1+z)`$ should vary with $`L`$ as a power law with index $`(M+1)/N`$. As shown in Figure 3, the logarithms of $`E_{peak}(1+z)`$ and $`L`$ are indeed accurately related linearly. A chi-square fit gives $`(M+1)/N=0.36\pm 0.03`$.

This same method can be applied to 20 bursts which have the luminosities based on optically measured red shifts. Figure 3 shows these bursts, with the data taken from the literature (primarily Schaefer (2002) and Amati et al. (2002)). This sample also shows a power law dependence, with a highly significant correlation ($`r=0.90`$, for a chance probability of $`3\times 10^8`$). The slope is $`(M+1)/N`$, which is fitted to be $`0.38\pm 0.11`$.

The variability/luminosity relation (Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz, 2000) can be used to constrain $`N`$. Variability ($`V`$) is a measure of how ’spikey’ a burst light curve is, which empirically varies as the inverse of the rise times in the light curves. The rise times will be limited by the geometric delays which scale as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, so $`V\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$. Schaefer (2002) has shown from 9 bursts with measured red shifts that $`LV^{1.57\pm 0.17}`$. Thus, we have $`L\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3.14\pm 0.34}`$, which is to say $`N=3.14\pm 0.34`$.

I now have four observational restrictions and two theoretical restrictions on $`N`$ and $`M`$. (1) The narrowness of the observed $`E_{peak}`$ distribution requires $`(M+1)/N<0.45`$. (2) The variation of $`E_{peak}`$ with $`P_{256}`$ is easily explained if $`(M+1)/N=0.40\pm 0.14`$. (3) The variation of $`E_{peak}(1+z)`$ with L for two independent set of bursts shows that $`(M+1)/N`$ equals $`0.36\pm 0.03`$ and $`0.38\pm 0.12`$. (4) The variability/luminosity relation gives $`N=3.14\pm 0.34`$. (5) Ordinary relativistic effects for any internal shock model implies that $`N3`$. (6) The conversion of the jet energy to thermal energy suggests that $`0M1`$. Constraints 1-3 reduce to $`(M+1)/N=0.36\pm 0.03`$. Constraints 4 and 5 give $`N=3.14\pm 0.34`$. These two results then imply that $`M=0.13\pm 0.15`$, which is consistent with constraint 6. In round numbers, $`N=3`$ and $`M=0`$.

## 5 Implications

What should very high red shift ($`z10`$) GRBs look like? A first guess (e.g., Bloom et al., 2001) might be that the cosmological red shift will transform them to appear more like x-ray bursts with $`E_{peak}20`$ keV. The analysis in this paper shows that this first guess is wrong since the $`z10`$ bursts must have a very high luminosity and hence a very high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which will blue shift the $`E_{peak}`$ back to gamma-ray energies. In particular, from either equation 5 or Figure 1, we see that the highest red shift bursts will all have the same $`E_{peak}`$ as the nearby events of the same $`P_{256}`$. Thus, any $`z>5`$ bursts that are in the BATSE catalog will have $`E_{peak}200keV`$.

Kippen et al. (2001) have used BATSE real-time data to look at fast x-ray transients discovered by the BeppoSAX satellite (Heise et al., 2001). They find that these events have similar light curves and durations as GRBs, which is suggestive that the events are normal bursts. Their peak flux is up to 3 times lower than the BATSE trigger threshold while their median $`E_{peak}`$ value is 70 keV. The natural suggestion was made that very faint and very soft bursts might be at very high red shift. However, the model presented in this paper shows that all bursts below the BATSE threshold will on average have a low $`E_{peak}`$, with no necessity of high red shift. (This is also realized from a simple extrapolation of the data from Mallozzi et al. as shown in Figure 2.) That is, a low $`P_{256}`$ is due to some combination of low luminosity (hence a low blue shift from the jet) and large distance (hence a large cosmological red shift) which will produce systematically low $`E_{peak}`$ values. While some of the fast x-ray transients might be at high $`z`$, the steepness of the GRB luminosity function implies that almost all are at moderate red shift.

It is disappointing that lines of constant $`E_{peak}`$ are closely parallel to lines of constant $`P_{256}`$ in the $`L`$ versus $`z`$ plot. If this had not been true, then a simple measurement of $`E_{peak}`$ and $`P_{256}`$ would define the bursts’ position in the plot and we would hence know the burst luminosity and red shift.

The value of $`E_0`$ is approximately constant for all bursts. This constancy is similar to recent results that bursts are ’standard candles’ from the lag/luminosity and variability/luminosity relations as well as that the total energy of bursts is nearly a constant. Thus it now seems that many aspects of GRBs are constant, despite the chaotic appearance of their light curves. One implication of this constancy is that GRBs might prove useful as tools for cosmology.

The lag/luminosity and variability/luminosity relations will be the primary methods of getting luminosity distances. Unfortunately, these relations are not as tight as we might hope. It is possible that $`E_{peak}`$ might be used as a third parameter to improve the distance indicators, much as the Cepheid luminosities are improved with a period/color/luminosity relation. Thus, lag/$`E_{peak}`$/luminosity and variability/$`E_{peak}`$/luminosity relations might substantially improve the accuracy of GRBs as standard candles.

I thank Robert Mallozzi and the BATSE Team for providing the $`E_{peak}`$ values for the 84 bursts.


format: text

text:
# 1 Penrose diagram of a space time with a black hole.

Initial data for black hole collisions

Sergio Dain1

1Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut

> I describe the construction of initial data for the Einstein vacuum equations that can represent a collision of two black holes. I stress in the main physical ideas.

The physical system we want to describe is a binary system of two black holes. It is expected that lot of such systems exist in the universe. Moreover, these systems are expected to have the following two properties. First, gravitational radiation will be emitted by them and the new detectors will be able to measure it. Second, these systems are completed described by the Einstein field equations. By this I mean that there exist solutions of the Einstein equations that can reproduce the gravitational wave forms emitted by them. The ultimate goal is to find these solutions and compare the waves forms with the result of the measurements.

One method for constructing an appropriate class of solutions of the Einstein equation is through an initial value formulation: we give appropriate data and then we evolved them numerically. It is not obvious that an initial value formulation is the most appropriate way to construct a solution for an astrophysical problem because we can not prepare the initial conditions of an astrophysical system in the laboratory. It is, in principle, impossible to find the exact initial data for a real astrophysical system. The whole program will succeed if we are able to find some properties of the binary system that do not depend very much on fine details of the initial data. In this sense black holes are perhaps better candidates than ordinary stars, since they are much simpler, they do not involve the matter equations. For example, stationary black holes are expected to be characterized completed only by two parameters: mass and spin; on the other hand stationary stars can have a complicated multipolar structure.

A black hole is a region of no escape which does not extend out to infinity. In the standard text books   the definition of a black hole is made using the conformal compactification of the space time. If the space time admit a suitable conformal boundary at null infinity and the causal past of this boundary is globally hyperbolic, then the black hole region is defined as the difference between the space time and the causal past of null infinity. The boundary of the black hole region is a null surface called the event horizon.

I want to discuss the problem of finding initial data for black holes. An *initial data set* for the Einstein vacuum equations is given by a triple $`(S,h_{ab},K_{ab})`$ where $`S`$ is a connected 3-dimensional manifold, $`h_{ab}`$ a (positive definite) Riemannian metric, and $`K_{ab}`$ a symmetric tensor field on $`S`$. They satisfy the vacuum constraint equations

$$D^bK_{ab}D_aK=0,$$
(1)
$$R+K^2K_{ab}K^{ab}=0,$$
(2)
on $`S`$, where $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative with respect to $`h_{ab}`$, $`R`$ is the trace of the corresponding Ricci tensor, and $`K=h^{ab}K_{ab}`$. Examples of initial data are $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ in Fig. 1.

We want to construct initial data set that evolve in a space time with a black hole region. In order to do this, we must recognize the black hole on the initial data. The event horizon is not very useful because is a global property of the space time, we need to known the whole space time in order to calculate it. However, there is a remarkable consequence of the black hole theory, it is related with the concept of the apparent horizon. An *apparent horizon* can be defined as follows. Given a slice $`S`$, we say that a two surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contained in $`S`$ is an apparent horizon if it satisfies the following equation

$$D_an^aK+K_{ab}n^an^b=0,$$
(3)
where $`n^a`$ is the unit normal vector to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Equation (3) involves only quantities that are present on the initial data. No evolution is needed. By the singularity theorems (see ) we know that a data with an apparent horizon will evolve in a geodesically incomplete space time. That is, the space time will have a singularity. If the cosmic censorship conjecture is true, this singularity will be inside the black hole region. If there is a black hole, then the apparent horizon must be inside the black region. That is, the presence of an apparent horizon indicate the presence of a black hole.

In general, a space time with a black hole will have slices with an apparent horizon and slices without it. In Fig. 1 the slice $`S_1`$ have no apparent horizon, and the slice $`S_2`$ contains one. Both data describe the same space time, but looking $`S_1`$ it will be very difficult to decide that the space time contain a black hole. The presence of apparent horizon gives as a practical criteria to distinguish a black hole data. However, it is important to recall that in principle it is possible to have a black hole without any apparent horizon.

A space time contains two black black hole if the event horizon has two disconnected components. Again, is very difficult to recognize this situation on the initial data. But, we can recognize when the apparent horizon has two disconnected components. It seems to be reasonable to assume that when these two components of the apparent horizon are very separated from each other the event horizon will have also two disconnected components.

Summarizing: a simply way of constructing a two black holes initial data is by imposing that the data contain an apparent horizon with two disconnected components.

The question is now how to construct initial data with apparent horizons. In order to force the data to have an apparent horizon we have to impose to the constraint equations (1), (2) appropriate boundary conditions. Black hole data will be just a particular choice of boundary conditions.

The boundary condition are divided naturally in two: an outer boundary condition at infinity and an inner boundary condition. The outer boundary condition is asymptotically flatness, it means that we are dealing with an isolated system. It is a fall off condition for the metric $`h_{ab}`$ and the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}`$. This boundary condition is well understood. The inner boundary condition is the condition that we have to impose on the inner boundary in order to force it to be an apparent horizon. The inner boundary condition is not so well understood as the outer one. The standard way to produce an apparent horizon involves the choice of a non trivial topology for the data   . These methods introduce the apparent horizon in an indirect manner. They do not really deal with an inner boundary. I think it would be very interesting to know how to prescribe directly this inner boundary condition in a consistent way. The only article I known in this direction is a numerical study by J. Thornburg .

There exist an infinite number of data which contain apparent horizon with two disconnected components. Which is, among them, the data that will correspond to the real astrophysical process? If the black hole are close to each other to answer this question is probably as difficult as to calculate the whole space time. But if the black hole are initially very well separated from each other then one expect some simplifications. In particular, the first requirement we should impose is that the data near each of the black hole should be, in some appropriate sense, close to the data of one isolated black hole. We call this the *far limit* of the data. The important point is that we know exactly the data for one black hole: the Kerr initial data. This suggest that one way to produce an initial data with the right far limit is by “summing” two Kerr initial data.

If the black holes do not have spins, then they should have a far limit to the Schwarzschild one. The Schwarzschild initial data can be chosen to be time symmetric, that is $`K_{ab}=0`$. With this assumption the constraint equations can be reduced to a linear equation. In this case is simpler to make sense of “summing” two Schwarzschild black holes, this has been done in  .

In the case of Kerr, the constraint equation are non linear. It is possible to sum part of the initial data (the “free data”), for the rest of the data one should solve the constraint equations. One can prove that, under certain assumptions, these equations have solutions. Then, one obtain an initial data which have a far limit to the Kerr initial data. This construction has been made in

It important to note that in all these data the linear momentum of the individual black holes is zero in the far limit approximation. There exist data with arbitrary linear momentum, like , but they do not have a fat limit to Kerr. They are also numerical studies of data which have arbitrary linear momentum and also a far limit to Kerr (see the review  and reference therein), but so far no analytic existence proof of these type of data is available. The main difficulty is that most of the knowledge we have about the constraint equations is based on the assumption that the data is maximal (i.e; $`K=0`$). The Kerr data in standard Boyer-Lindquist coordinates is maximal. However, remarkably enough, is it not known any maximal, boosted (i.e; with no trivial linear momentum), initial data for Kerr or even for Schwarzschild. These boosted maximal slices can in principle be used to construct a data for two black holes in which each of them has arbitrary linear momentum in the far limit.


text:
# Dislocation Dynamics in Rayleigh-Bénard Convection

## Abstract

Theoretical results on the dynamics of dislocations in Rayleigh-Bénard convection are reported both for Swift-Hohenberg models and the Boussinesq equations. For intermediate Prandtl numbers the motion of dislocations is found to be driven by the superposition of two independent contributions: (i) the Peach-Koehler force derived from the change of a Lyapunov potential with pattern wave number; (ii) a non-potential advection force on the dislocation core by its self-generated mean flow. Their competition allows for the first time to understand the experimentally observed bound dislocation pairs.

Striped patterns are ubiquitous in nature. They are found in physical, chemical, and biological systems, which are driven away from equilibrium croho . In general natural patterns are not perfect due to the presence of defects, like grain boundaries (line defects) and topological point defects (dislocations) NePaLe\_93 . The nucleation, motion, and annihilation of dislocations is essential for many pattern-selection processes, which are initiated by modulational instabilities croho . Dislocations govern the ordering kinetics of initially disordered patterns Ha\_00  and sustain in defect turbulent systems the perpetual reordering of the planforms DaBo\_02 . Thus much effort has been devoted to the study of dislocations in striped patterns (see e.g. croho ; SiZi\_81 ; TeCr\_86 ; PlEgBo\_98 ). Dislocations present a simple realization of topological singularities in a field description of continuous extended systems pismen . To which extent their dynamics can be understood in terms of ”particles” subject to effective forces is a general important issue, that transcends pattern formation.

Here we study dislocations in Rayleigh-Bénard convection (RBC), which in the past has proven itself as a paradigm for pattern forming systems croho ; BoPeAh\_00 . In RBC a horizontal layer of a simple fluid is heated from below and cooled from above. For temperature differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ above a critical value $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$, buoyancy driven convection sets in typically in form of striped convection roll patterns with the critical wavenumber $`q=q_c`$. The basic hydrodynamic equations (Oberbeck-Boussinesq equations, OBE) are well established and the theoretical analysis can be quantitatively compared with well controlled experiments BoPeAh\_00 . The communality of RBC with other bulk pattern-forming systems like, for example, vibrating granular layers deBrBiSh\_98 , gas discharges AsMuAmPU\_98 , and Taylor-Couette flow croho  is most clearly expressed in universal model equations, like the Swift-Hohenberg (SH) equation SwHo\_77  and its generalizations Ma\_83 .

In this letter we concentrate on the dislocation dynamics in the case of gas convection, which over the past decade has attracted most interest BoPeAh\_00 . Besides the appropriate SH-model, for the first time the full OBE equations are analyzed. We found the motion of dislocations to be driven by two independent ”forces”. One is the well known Peach-Koehler force, which describes the tendency of the system to develop towards a striped pattern with an optimal average wavenumber $`\overline{q}q_c`$ SiZi\_81 ; TeCr\_86 . Of particular importance is our explicit identification of a second non-potential force due to the advection of the dislocation core by its self-generated, roll-curvature driven mean flow. We demonstrate that this force acts in general to remove dislocations from the system as to reduce $`\overline{q}`$. The two forces may balance each other at a certain background wave number $`\overline{q}=q_D<q_c`$, such that the dislocation becomes stationary. For patterns with $`\overline{q}q_D`$ the competition of the two forces can prevent the annihilation of two dislocations with opposite topological charge. This explains for the first time the experimentally observed bound dislocation pairs BoCadeBrEcHuLeAh\_92 . Although the significance of the mean flow had been expected for a long time in line with experiments Wh76 , its direct identification in a previous theoretical analysis failed rem\_SiZi .

In RBC the strength of the mean flow is determined by the Rayleigh number $`R`$ (a dimensionless measure of the temperature gradient across the convection cell) and in particular by the Prandtl number $`\sigma =\nu /\kappa `$, with the kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$ and the thermal diffusivity $`\kappa `$. Intermediate Prandtl numbers ($`\sigma 1`$) are realized in gas convection experiments BoPeAh\_00 . In Fig. 1, a snapshot of the midplane temperature field $`\psi (x,y)`$ containing a dislocation with positive topological charge $`Q=2\pi `$ from simulations of the OBE is shown. $`Q`$ is defined via the winding number of the phase gradient $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ of $`\psi `$ around a dislocation with the two possibilities $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)𝑑s=\pm 2\pi `$. The mean flow (arrows), which is driven by strong curvature of the rolls in the vicinity of the dislocation core, is maximal along the symmetry axis and tends to advect the dislocation downwards out of the system. In the direction perpendicular to the plane shown in Fig. 1 the mean flow shows an almost perfect parabolic profile.

While a comprehensive exploration of the $`R,\sigma `$ parameter space within the OBE is extremely time consuming, we have gained much insight into the basic physical mechanism of dislocation dynamics by first studying the standard two-dimensional generalized SH-equations (GSH) Ma\_83 ; TeCr\_86 ; croho :

$`_t\psi +(\stackrel{}{U})\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\left[ϵ_S\left(1+^2\right)^2\right]\psi \psi ^3,`$ (1)
$`\stackrel{}{U}=(U_x,U_y)`$ $`=`$ $`(_y\xi ,_x\xi ),`$ (2)
$`\left(_t^2+c\right)^2\xi `$ $`=`$ $`g\left(\left(^2\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\times \psi \right)\stackrel{}{e}_z.`$ (3)
In terms of the two-dimensional field $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ the GSH-equations describe (in suitable dimensionless units) the bifurcation to patterns with critical wavenumber $`q_c=1`$ and their nonlinear saturation. $`ϵ_Sϵ=(\mathrm{\Delta }T/\mathrm{\Delta }T_c1)`$ measures the relative distance to onset. The coupling to the mean drift (or mean flow) $`\stackrel{}{U}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is characterized by a coupling constant $`g`$ (in RBC $`g1/\sigma `$) and a cut-off parameter $`c`$. For $`g=0`$ the GSH-equations derive from a Lyapunov functional $``$ croho  and any dynamics is “downhill” towards the minimum of $``$.

In our numerical analysis we focused on dislocation climb, i.e., the motion parallel to the roll axis as shown in Fig. 1, in a rectangular domain $`L_{x,y}/2<x,y<L_{x,y}/2`$ with width $`L_x`$ and length $`L_y=2L_x`$. We solved both the GSH- and the OBE equations numerically by a pseudo-spectral method with semi-implicit time stepping DePe\_94 . In order to minimize finite-size effects we have simulated dislocation pairs with periodic boundary conditions in the $`x,y`$ directions (Fig. 1 has to be extended mirror-symmetrically along the $`y`$-axis). We found, however, almost identical results for the less expensive simulations with a single dislocations in a box kept finite in the $`y`$ direction by gradually ramping $`ϵ`$ to zero at $`y=\pm L_y/2`$. The ideal pattern without an immersed dislocation consisted of up to $`N=64`$ roll pairs of a wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi /q_{}`$, corresponding to $`L_x=N\lambda `$. The typical numerical resolution was $`8`$ grid points per roll diameter. It is crucial to study systematically the defect dynamics as function of the background wavenumber $`\overline{q}`$ of the underlying pattern. A superimposed dislocation leads to $`N+1`$ roll pairs in some parts of the cell (see Fig.1, below the dislocation) and consequently to a reduced wavelength $`\lambda _+=N/(N+1)\lambda `$ and thus to a wavenumber $`q_+=2\pi /\lambda _+>q_{}`$. We found that defining the background wavenumber as $`\overline{q}=(q_++q_{})/2`$ was most effective to absorb the finite-$`N`$ corrections. In designing the details of our calculational scheme and to validate our SH-code we have considerably profitted from the comparison with Ref. TeCr\_86 , devoted to the SH-model.

First we discuss the solutions of the GSH-equations. The simulations (for simplicity we consider the case of a single dislocation which climbs along the y-axis) were initialized with an approximate ansatz $`\psi (x,y,t=0)cos[q_{}x\varphi (|\stackrel{}{r}|)]`$ at the center $`\stackrel{}{r}_0=(x_0,y_0)=(0,0)`$ of the simulation domain. Here $`\varphi (r)`$ is the polar angle about $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$. After the initial transients died out (say at $`|yy_0|4\lambda `$ in Fig.1) the dislocation would climb with a constant velocity $`v_{st}`$ and a relaxed asymptotic shape $`\psi (x,y,t)=\psi (x,yv_{st}t)`$ was reached. In subsequent runs, starting from this state considerably reduced the computational time. In agreement with prior investigations TeCr\_86 ; PlEgBo\_98 , we have identified a wavenumber $`q_D(ϵ,g)`$, such that for $`\overline{q}>q_D`$ the dislocation climbed downwards (the case shown in Fig. 1) with $`v_{st}<0`$ while it moved upward for $`\overline{q}<q_D`$.

The key for the physical interpretation of the results lies in a certain universality of $`\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{U}`$. As demonstrated in Fig. 2A for a representative example of uniformly climbing dislocations at fixed background wave number $`\overline{q}=0.98`$ the numerical solutions $`\psi (x_0,\overline{y})\psi _0(\overline{y})`$ with $`\overline{y}=(yv_{st}t)`$ of Eq. 1 are virtually identical along the symmetry axis ($`x=x_0=0`$) although the mean-field coupling $`g`$ varies considerably ($`2<g<20`$). In addition, as shown in Fig. 2B for the same range of parameters, the (suitably reduced) mean flow component $`U_y(x_0,\overline{y})/g`$ along the symmetry axis has practically a $`g`$-independent shape $`U_0(\overline{y})`$, while the transverse component $`U_x`$ vanishes for symmetry reasons.

Inspection of Eq.(1) suggests that $`\psi (x_0,\overline{y})`$ can be well approximated by the potential solution $`\psi _0(\overline{y})`$ at $`g=0`$. This applies also to the source term in Eq. (3) with respect to its $`\psi `$-dependence. Thus Eq.1 on the symmetry axis reduces to:

$$v_{st}_{\overline{y}}\psi _0(\overline{y})=\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _0(\overline{y})}+(U_y_{\overline{y}})\psi _0(\overline{y}).$$
(4)
Averaging Eq.(4) over $`\overline{y}`$ leads to the following relation for $`v_{st}`$ as function of $`\overline{q}`$ and $`g`$:

$$v_{st}(\overline{q},g)=v_{pot}(\overline{q},g0)+c_1(\overline{q})gU_0^M$$
(5)
With respect to the advection term, we have made explicit the (reduced) mean flow $`U_0^M`$ at the dislocation core (i.e. the minimum of $`U_0(\overline{y}=0)`$ in Fig. 2B), which dominates the average in Eq. (4) also because of the strong maximum of $`_{\overline{y}}\psi _0(\overline{y})`$ at $`\overline{y}=0`$ (see Fig. 2 A) note\_mean . The quantities $`v_{pot},c_1`$ and $`U_0^M`$ have to be determined numerically as function of $`\overline{q}`$ and $`ϵ_S`$.

For clarity the consequences of Eq. (5) are discussed for $`Q=2\pi `$ (see Fig. 1), since the case $`Q=2\pi `$ is analogous. The potential or Peach-Koehler contribution $`v_{pot}`$, originating from the functional derivative of $``$ in Eq. (4), is negative for $`\overline{q}>q_c=1`$, vanishes for $`\overline{q}q_c`$, and becomes positive for $`\overline{q}<q_c`$. Thus the dislocation climbs as to move the wavenumber of the pattern in its wake towards an optimal value $`q_{opt}q_c`$, where the potential energy has its minimum SiZi\_81  . Since $`c_1(\overline{q})`$ in Eq.(5) was found to be always positive for all $`\overline{q}`$ and $`ϵ_S`$, the mean flow ($`U_0^M<0`$) would always advect the dislocation such as to decrease the wavenumber $`\overline{q}`$. In fact, for $`g0`$ in patterns with $`\overline{q}`$ in the range $`q_D\overline{q}q_{opt}`$ the potential contribution $`v_{pot}`$ is overcome by the mean flow contribution leading to $`v_{st}<0`$. At $`\overline{q}=q_D(ϵ,g)`$ both effects cancel leading to a immobile dislocation ($`v_{st}=0`$). In agreement with prior investigations TeCr\_86  our numerical results show that $`v_{st}`$ varies almost linearly as function $`\overline{q}`$ according to $`v_{st}(\overline{q}q_D)`$ over a wide $`\overline{q}`$-range for fixed $`g>0`$ and $`ϵ_s>0`$. According to Eq.(5) this implies at fixed $`\overline{q}`$ a linear dependence of $`v_{st}`$ on $`g`$, which was numerically confirmed in a wide $`g`$-range ($`0g30`$).

Although in full hydrodynamics (OBE) a direct analog of potential $``$ in the GSH is not defined, the reasoning in terms of a potential force ( $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$) and a competing mean flow force seems to apply well. As a typical example for $`\sigma =1.4`$, we show in Fig. 3A the linear variation of $`v_{st}(\overline{q})`$ as function of $`\overline{q}`$, which crosses $`v_{st}=0`$ at $`\overline{q}=q_D=2.75`$. In Fig. 3B it is demonstrated, that $`v_{st}`$ varies like the SH-results linearly in $`\sigma ^1g`$ at fixed $`\overline{q}`$. Our findings are in perfect agreement with the experimental and numerical analysis of the dynamics of the off center ”giant spirals” PlEgBo\_98  for $`\sigma 1`$ where the uniformly rotating outer tip would probe roll patches in a fairly large $`\overline{q}`$ range.

In agreement with experiment BoCadeBrEcHuLeAh\_92  , from equation (5) the possibility of bound dislocations pairs is obvious. A well separated pair of oppositely charged dislocations on a background pattern with $`q_D<\overline{q}<q_c`$, is driven by the dominant mean-flow contribution $`|U_0^M|`$ in Eq. (5) towards their annihilation. However, this advection force weakens continuously, as the opposing mean flow contributions from each dislocation begin to overlap destructively. Eventually the dislocations stop moving, when the reduced advection force is balanced by the opposing potential force. To our surprise even the deceleration of the approaching dislocations was well captured adiabatically by Eq. (5), derived under the assumption of constant $`v_{st}`$. In fact, we found a direct proportionality between the decreasing velocity $`v(t)`$ of the approaching dislocations and the resulting $`U_0^M(t)`$. The equilibrium distance $`l_D`$ of the dislocations in the bound pair as function of $`\overline{q}`$ and $`g`$, or $`\sigma `$, respectively, has not been investigated systematically. However, typically we find $`l_D23\lambda `$ bound .

In our OBE and GSH-simulations dislocations are found to be very robust objects except when $`\overline{q}`$ lies in the vicinity of a cross-roll (CR) instability boundary Bu\_78  for ideal rolls, e.g. in the OBE near $`\overline{q}=2.48<q_c=3.11`$ for $`\sigma =1.4,ϵ=0.3`$. Then, as in the experiments AsSt\_94 ; BoPeAh\_00  the dislocation core might split into a chain of bubbles by a localized transverse bridging of adjacent rolls. This local CR instability has been described at first in the SH-model simulations NePa\_92 , but we doubt that the disclination mechanism invoked there has a merit.

In conclusion, we have presented an analysis of the defect dynamics for medium $`\sigma `$ and finite $`R`$ in RBC, which has allowed to separate clearly potential- and mean-flow forces. Our main interest was to elucidate the basic mechanism. Details, like for instance the dependence of $`q_D`$ on $`\sigma `$ and $`ϵ`$ and the impact of the stability properties of the background pattern will given in a separate manuscript. We expect that our methodology, to separate potential and nonpotential effects will be applicable as well to a number of other systems that show striped patterns as mentioned before. E.B. is grateful for support from the National Science Foundation under grant DMR0072077.


text:
# Significant suppression of weak ferromagnetism in (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4

## I Introduction

The magnetic structure of La2CuO4 has been extensively studied because it is considered to be a good example of two-dimensional $`S`$=1/2 Heisenberg antiferromagnet, whose nature is one of the central topics of quantum magnetism. Chakravarty1  La2CuO4, however, shows a rather classical long-range Néel order at low temperatures because of its relatively low crystallographic symmetry caused by an orthorhombic distortion in the low-temperature orthorhombic (LTO) phase and a finite inter-plane coupling. In the LTO phase, spins are aligned approximately along the $`b`$ axis with slight canting out of the CuO2 plane, Thio1 ; Vaknin1 ; Kastner1 ; Yamada1  which is responsible for the weak ferromagnetism of La2CuO4. The schematic drawing of the magnetic structure of La2CuO4 in the LTO phase is shown in Fig. 1 (a). The spin canting was simply explained Coffey1 ; Coffey2  by antisymmetric exchange interactions of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) type. Dzyaloshinskii1 ; Moriya1  However, it has been pointed out by Shekthman et al., SEA1 ; SEA2  Bonesteel, Bonesteel1  and Yildirim et al. Yildirim1 ; Yildirim2  that the true origin may not be so simple, because of the importance of an additional anisotropic symmetric spin-spin interaction. This interaction was already derived by Moriya Moriya1  but unfortunately ignored for a long time. Kaplan was the first who noticed the importance of this interaction. Kaplan1  He reinvestigated the role of spin-orbit interaction in super-exchange mechanism for one-dimensional $`S`$ = 1/2 antiferromagnetic (AF) spin chains and spin rings, and found that the anisotropic symmetric interaction gives an easy-axis anisotropy to the spin system that completely compensates the easy-plane anisotropy given by the DM interaction. Although the presence of this term (which we call KSEA interaction following Zheludev et al.Zheludev1 ) has been recently established in several $`S`$ = 1/2 antiferromagnets, Ba2CuGe2O7,Zheludev1 ; Zheludev2  K2V3O8,Lumsden1  and Yb4As3,Shiba1  its role in the most interesting material La2CuO4 has not been experimentally revealed yet.

One possible test is to determine the magnetic structure of the so-called low-temperature tetragonal (LTT) phase (space group $`P4_2/ncm`$), which was first reported in (La,Ba)2CuO4. Axe1  Bonesteel Bonesteel1  discussed that the weak-ferromagnetic (WF) moment per CuO2 plane should disappear in the LTT phase as is schematically drawn in Fig. 1 (b) when one takes the KSEA interaction into account. In this arrangement, spins are parallel to the rotation axes of CuO6 octahedra, and therefore, they are also parallel/antiparallel to the DM vectors. This theoretical prediction became a trigger of a long debate, Koshibae1 ; Viertio1 ; Stein1  because the magnetic structure shown in Fig. 1 (b) was different from that proposed based on neutron diffraction experiments for (La,Nd)2CuO4 crystals. Shamoto1 ; Crawford1 ; Keimer1  The latter magnetic structure is shown in Fig. 1 (c), where spins are perpendicular to the rotation axes of the CuO6 octahedra, and thus the spin canting remains intact. Since (La,Nd)2CuO4 was previously believed to be in the LTT phase, it was concluded that the LTT phase favored the spin arrangement shown in Fig. 1 (c) rather than that in Fig. 1 (b). By referring to the experimentally proposed model, Koshibae et al. Koshibae1  tried to explain the presence of WF moment in the LTT phase. They expanded the previously reported theories SEA1 ; SEA2 ; Bonesteel1  by assuming the magnitude of DM and KSEA interactions independently, and predicted the presence of WF moment in the LTT phase for a particular situation where the effect of DM interaction is dominant. Stein et al. Stein1  also calculated the WF moment with similar assumptions as Koshibae et al. Koshibae1  do, but concluded that the physically reasonable ratio of DM and KSEA interactions do not favor the presence of WF moment in the pure LTT phase. Therefore, the above mentioned controversy among theories and neutron experiments has not been solved yet.

In this paper we study the anisotropic magnetization of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 single crystals and discuss the magnetic structure to shed light on this problem of long debate. Since Eu3+ ions do not give large Curie-type susceptibility in contrast to Nd3+, (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 is a more suitable system for magnetization measurements. Although magnetic susceptibility data of polycrystalline samples have been already reported by Kataev et al., Kataev1  one needs the $`c`$-axis susceptibility data measured on a single crystal to evaluate the magnitude of spin canting out of the CuO2 plane. We observe a significant suppression of the spin canting below the structural phase-transition temperature, which has not yet been elucidated to be a transition from the LTO to the LTT phase, or to the low-temperature less orthorhombic (LTO2, space group $`Pccn`$) phase. We analyze the change of WF moment across the structural phase transition, and compare the magnitude of the spin canting with that predicted by Stein et al. Stein1 ; the obtained results point to the LTO2 crystallographic symmetry of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 below $`T_s`$. Finally we will discuss the likely magnetic structure for pure LTT symmetry, and make some comments on the previous controversy in understanding the weak ferromagnetism in La1.65Nd0.35CuO4.

## II Experimental results

(La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 single crystals are grown by a traveling-solvent floating zone method, Komiya1  and their quality is confirmed by x-ray diffractions. The crystalline rod is carefully cut into a rectangular shape with all the faces normal to the principal axes, which is confirmed using an x-ray Laue backscattering. Then the samples are annealed in He-gas flow to remove excess oxygen. Magnetic susceptibility measurements are carried out with commercial SQUID magnetometer (MPMS, Quantum Design) in magnetic field up to $`H`$ = 70 kOe. To avoid confusion, we follow the axis notation of the LTO phase, so that the $`a`$ and $`b`$ axes run along two orthogonal in-plane Cu-Cu diagonal directions and the $`c`$ axis is normal to the CuO2 plane.

Figure 2 (a) shows the magnetic susceptibility of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 measured along the $`c`$ axis ($`\chi _c`$) at $`H`$ = 5 kOe. The peak structure is identified as a Néel transition at $`T_N`$ = 265 K similar to that of Eu-free La2CuO4. Thio1 ; Lavrov1  In addition to this peak, we observe a rapid increase in $`\chi _c`$ below $`T`$ = 130 K as was reported for polycrystalline samples. Kataev1  Before discussing $`\chi _c`$ in detail, we should consider the contribution from Eu3+ ions. The magnitude of $`\chi _c`$ of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 is several times larger than that of Eu-free La2CuO4, Thio1 ; Lavrov1  which is likely to be due to the Van-Vleck contribution of Eu3+ ions. This Van-Vleck contribution is anisotropic as can be seen from the data of $`\chi _c`$ and $`\chi _{110}`$ (susceptibility measured along the  direction) shown in Fig. 2 (b). $`\chi _{110}`$ exhibits a large-scale increase upon cooling from room temperature to 80 K similar to that observed in Eu2CuO4. Tovar1  A slight and broad hump around 265 K in $`\chi _{110}`$ comes from the Néel transition. On the other hand, such large-scale increasing behavior upon cooling is not found in $`\chi _c`$ of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 in contrast to $`\chi _c`$ of Eu2CuO4 where the Van-Vleck contribution of Eu3+ ions gives a similar increase of $`\chi _c`$ also down to approximately 150 K. Tovar1  We speculate that the different oxygen coordinations around Eu3+ ion, rock-salt type in (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 and fluorite type in Eu2CuO4, are the origin of the different Van-Vleck contributions. In the following discussion, we assume that the temperature dependence of $`\chi _c`$ is mostly coming from the magnetic response of CuO2 planes.

Our sample shows somewhat lower $`T_N`$ in comparison with polycrystalline (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 (Ref. ) or single-crystalline La2CuO4 (Ref. ), which suggests that a small amount of excess oxygen may remain in our sample. However, this does not change the magnetic structure of AF long-range order, and we can safely neglect its effect in the present context. Below $`T_N`$, $`\chi _c`$ decreases down to $`T_s`$ = 130 K, which coincides with the reported LTO $``$ LTO2/LTT structural phase-transition temperature Suh1 ; Klauss1  and then steeply increases until $`T`$ = 110 K; such increase is not seen in $`\chi _{110}`$. The size of this increase is approximately 5 $`\times `$ 10-5 emu/mol. This is larger than that observed in polycrystalline samples, Kataev1  which is apparently because of averaging of $`\chi _{110}`$ and $`\chi _c`$. This increase at $`T_s`$ is most likely related to the change of inter-plane magnetic couplings as will be discussed later.

In order to clarify whether the magnitude of WF moment is changed across the structural phase transition, we measure the high-field susceptibility, which is shown in Fig. 3 (a). The temperature dependence of $`\chi _c`$ at $`H`$ = 70 kOe ($`\chi _c^{70\mathrm{k}}`$) is notably different from that at $`H`$ = 5 kOe ($`\chi _c^{5\mathrm{k}}`$) below $`T_N`$; it increases continuously instead of forming a peak structure at $`T_N`$, shows a broad maximum around 170 K, and then decreases toward 50 K. Below 20 K there is a hysteresis between zero-field cool (ZFC) and field cool (FC) data as conventional ferromagnets with a finite coercive force show, which suggests the presence of magnetic domains. It should be noted that such a hysteresis is absent in La2CuO4, and only ligtly hole-doped (La2-xSrx)CuO4 exhibits hysteretic behavior between FC and ZFC process. Lavrov1  It is likely that the substitution of Eu3+ for La3+ induces a structural disorder that causes a domained structure in our sample.

The field dependence of the magnetization at $`T`$ = 50 K \[inset of Fig. 3 (a)\] clearly shows the WF transition around $`H_c`$ = 30 kOe. The transition width is large in comparison with that of La2CuO4. Thio2  These data give us two important clues to reveal the magnetic structure of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4. One is a finite but significantly suppressed WF moment and the other is a decrease of the critical field from that of La2CuO4. Lavrov2  To see the suppression of WF moment more clearly, we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _c`$ = $`\chi _c^{70\mathrm{k}}`$ \- $`\chi _c^{5\mathrm{k}}`$, which is shown in Fig. 3 (b). Below $`T_N`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _c`$ follows the temperature dependence typical for the evolution of spontaneous magnetization. Just above $`T_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _c`$ reaches almost 1.5 $`\times `$ 10-4 emu/mol, and its extrapolation to the lower temperatures gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _c`$ $``$ 1.7 $`\times `$ 10-4 emu/mol at $`T`$ = 0 K. This value corresponds to the spontaneous magnetization of 12 emu/mol, which would be the WF moment if the LTO structure were maintained down to $`T`$ = 0 K. In the real sample, however, the structural phase transition occurs, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _c`$ is reduced approximately to 5 $`\times `$ 10-5 emu/mol ($`M_{WF}`$). This value gives the magnetization of 3.5 emu/mol, consistent with the vertical shift of two dotted lines in the inset of Fig. 3 (a). Therefore, the magnitude of WF moment is suppressed almost by 70%. Moreover, the decrease of the critical field indicates a reduction in the inter-plane coupling. The critical field of the WF transition is mainly determined by the competition between AF inter-plane coupling and Zeeman effect $`H_c`$ $`\times `$ $`M_{WF}`$ which is lowered approximately by 5 times. Thus, the AF inter-plane coupling is reduced as well.

## III Discussion

### III.1 Theoretical predictions of the magnetic structure

Let us briefly survey several theoretical works on the magnetic structure of rare-earth doped La2CuO4. In order to analyze the experimental data, we need information of the WF moment not only in the LTO and LTT phases but also in the LTO2 phase. To our knowledge, Coffey et al. Coffey2  was the first who discussed possible magnetic structures of La2CuO4 in the LTT phase. They proposed two kinds of ground state: one with a canted moment per CuO2 plane and one without. After Shekhtman et al. SEA1  pointed out the importance of the KSEA term upon discussing the magnetic structure of LTO phase, Bonesteel Bonesteel1  tried to include this term in calculations of the magnetic ground state of the LTT phase, and concluded that the canted moment per CuO2 plane should be zero (Fig.1(b)) if the KSEA term is properly incorporated into the spin Hamiltonian. In the Bonesteel’s paper, a structural difference between the LTO2 and LTT phases has been carefully considered; a spin canting angle out of the CuO2 plane has been derived to be proportional to the angle $`\kappa `$ that is the angle between the Cu-O-Cu bond direction and the rotation axis of CuO6 octahedron ($`\kappa =\pi /4`$, $`0<\kappa <\pi /4`$, and $`\kappa =0`$, for the LTO, LTO2, and LTT phases, respectively). Viertiö and Bonesteel Viertio1  then discussed the relation between the interplanar couling and the weak ferromagnetic transition in (La2-xNdx)CuO4 using the same assumptions as in Ref. 12.

The theoretical calculation done by Stein et al. Stein1  is basically the same as that done by Bonesteel and co-workers Bonesteel1 ; Viertio1 , but they have evaluated the WF moment more rigorously. Stein1  They calculated the $`\kappa `$ dependence (it is denoted as $`\alpha `$ in their original paper) of the WF moment under several different conditions, which is reproduced in Fig. 4. The vertical axis $`M_F/(SD/2J)`$ is the WF moment normalized by the magnitude of spin, Heisenberg interaction and DM interaction. The only tunable parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, qualitatively gives the relative magnitude of the DM and KSEA interactions; $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 1 corresponds to the situation without KSEA interaction (Heisenberg + DM), and $`M_F/(SD/2J)`$ = 1 regardless of $`\kappa `$, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ = 0 corresponds to the situation where the KSEA interaction completely compensates the easy-plane anisotropy given by the DM interaction as was derived by Bonesteel Bonesteel1  (Heisenberg + DM + KSEA). Intermediate values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ correspond to the situation that the easy-plane anisotropy caused by the DM interactions still survives even under the presence of KSEA interactions. Since the case discussed by Koshibae et al. is included in this parameter region, Stein’s calculation may reproduce all the possible situations by tuning $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and thus, it is most convenient for analyzing our experimental data.

### III.2 Magnetic structure of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4

Based on the Stein’s calculations, we can discuss the source of the 70% suppression of the WF moment across $`T_s`$. Figure 4 teaches us that the WF moment would be the same in the LTO, LTO2, and LTT phases when only the DM interaction is effective. This is however inconsistent with our observation. We do observe the suppression of the WF moment, and this fact itself indicates that the KSEA interaction actually works in (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4. It should be noted that such quantitative comparison of the WF moment across $`T_s`$ can be done only by magnetization measurements, while a neutron diffraction measurement is not sensitive enough to judge whether the spin canting is present or not. Thus, it is not surprising that previous neutron experiments failed to detect this change.

Figure 4 also gives the range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\kappa `$ for our sample. One can easily notice that the critical line, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.5`$, is terminated at $`M_F/(SD/2J)`$ = 1/$`\sqrt{2}`$ $``$ 0.70 at $`\kappa `$ = 0. This means that if one observes the WF moment less than 70% of that in the LTO phase, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must be smaller than 0.5. The WF moment of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 below $`T_s`$ is only $``$ 30% of that just above $`T_s`$ as we indicate by the position of $`M_F/(SD/2J)`$ $``$ 0.3 in Fig. 4. Therefore, to produce such small WF moment, $`\kappa `$ should be limited to the region 0 $`<`$ $`\kappa `$ $`<`$ $`\pi `$/20. This suggests that our sample is in the LTO2 phase even though the rotation angle is close to that for the LTT phase.

It should be pointed out that our identification of the structural symmetry is different from the reported symmetry for (La,Eu)2CuO4, Suh1 ; Klauss1  which was suggested to be the LTT phase at the lowest temperature. However, to our knowledge, there has been no conclusive structural analysis for the low-temperature phase of (La,Eu)2CuO4. Since the symmetry below $`T_s`$ was not important in many studies on (La,Eu)2CuO4, peoples have not paid attention to the difference between the LTO2 and LTT phases. What we found in the present work is that the spin canting out of the CuO2 plane is quite sensitive to the structural difference between these phases that is the reason why we can distingish the LTO2 phase from the LTT phase. We also emphasize that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is definitely smaller than 0.5 for (La,Eu)2CuO4. This is consistent with the conclusion by Stein et al., Stein1  where they estimated $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be 0.10 from several microscopic parameters.

As a result, we arrive at a conclusion that the most probable magnetic structure for LTO2 (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 should be as shown in Fig. 5, where spins are parallel to neither  nor  directions. This model implies a reduction of the effective inter-plane coupling, which explains the increase of $`\chi _c`$ below $`T_s`$. The inter-plane coupling is determined by a subtle balance of the exchange interactions mainly between spins at (0, 0, 0) and ($`a/2`$, 0, $`c/2`$) and that between spins at (0, 0, 0) and (0, $`b/2`$, $`c/2`$). Since the above two interactions are not equivalent in the LTO phase Uchinokura1 , the effective inter-plane coupling remains finite. This inequivalence should decrease according to the symmetry change from the LTO to the LTO2 phases, and finally disappear in the LTT phase. The effective coupling between spins at the neighboring layers then decreases, and spins become more susceptible to the magnetic field applied along the $`c`$ axis. A more detaied discussion on the effect of inter-plane coupling has been already given by Viertio and Bonesteel. Viertio1  It is most likely that the reduction of the effective inter-plane coupling is the main reason why $`\chi _c`$ increases below $`T_s`$. It should be noted that the Van-Vleck susceptibility of Eu3+ ions can also contribute to the rapid increase of $`\chi _c^{5\mathrm{k}}`$ below $`T_s`$, because the oxygen coordination around Eu3+ ions is modified across this temperature. However, this effect is sufficiently small as is suggested by the $`c`$-axis susceptibility data of (La1.65Eu0.2Sr0.15)CuO4, Simovic1  and, therefore, one may safely attribute the large increase of $`\chi _c^{5\mathrm{k}}`$ below $`T_s`$ to the response from CuO2 planes.

### III.3 Implication for the magnetic structure in the LTT phase

Finally we briefly discuss the likely magnetic structure of the LTT phase. Our results indicate that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`<`$ 0.5. This parameter implies that the WF moment should disappear in the LTT phase ($`\kappa `$ = 0). Thus the magnetic structure of the LTT phase is expected to be consistent with that shown in Fig. 1 (b), but is inconsistent with that shown in Fig. 1 (c). A natural next step is to find a system that exhibits a true LTT symmetry without doped carriers, in which we may expect a perfect disappearance of the effective inter-plane couplings. Unfortunately, suitable compound possessing a true LTT symmetry and AF long-range order has not been found yet. However, we believe that we can find a better system other than (La,Eu)2CuO4 in near future, which will be useful for the study of pure two-dimensional $`S`$=1/2 AF spin systems.

## IV Summary

To summarize, we have investigated the magnetic susceptibility of (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4. The antiferromagnetic long-range order typical for the LTO phase establishes below $`T_N`$ = 265 K, where a finite spin canting out of the CuO2 plane appears. In contrast to Eu-free La2CuO4, (La1.8Eu0.2)CuO4 shows an additional structural phase transition at $`T_s`$ = 130 K, below which the spin canting is suppressed by 70%. All the results are consistently explained by the theory given by Stein et al., Stein1  in which the KSEA interactions are taken into account together with the DM interactions. According to this theory, the spin arrangement for the LTO2 phase is determined. Furthermore, we observe a reduction of the effective inter-plane coupling below the structural transition temperature, which is probably one of the keys to understand the various anomalies found in the LTT phase of (La,Nd,Sr)2CuO4.

## Acknowledgment

The authors thank M. Matsuda and W. Koshibae for fruitful discussions.


text:
# Theory at Quark Matter ’02

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The collisions of large nuclei may give us insight into the nature of QCD at high temperatures and/or densities. In this talk I review the status of theory for heavy ion collisions from Quark Matter 2002. I concentrate on the the results for the largest nuclei, with atomic number $`A200`$.

At the SPS at CERN, there are two notable results for $`AA`$ collisions, for $`\sqrt{s}/A:517`$ GeV :

$`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ suppression: the number of $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ pairs is smaller in the most central collisions, versus the extrapolation from peripheral collisions, or from collisions with smaller $`A`$ . The effect is most striking for the largest nuclei.

Excess dileptons below the $`\rho `$: the rate of $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs exceeds that in conventional hadronic models , although a broadened $`\rho `$-meson explains the excess. The effect is more prominent at lower, and not high energies, suggesting a density dependent effect. This also supports interest in going to even lower energies, such as at the proposed GSI collider.

At BNL, RHIC has run at energies of $`\sqrt{s}/A=55`$ GeV (briefly), at $`130`$ GeV during Run I, and at $`200`$ GeV during Run II. Results from Run I were first presented at Quark Matter 2001; those from Run II, at this Quark Matter, 2002.

There is one notable change expected change between the SPS and RHIC. At the SPS, the particle multiplicity in $`AA`$ collisions is a single peak about zero rapidity. By RHIC energies, a Central Plateau was expected to open up, in which physics is (approximately) boost invariant, independent of rapidity. Away from the incident nucleons of the fragmentation region, the Central Plateau is where a system at nonzero temperature, and almost zero quark density, might emerge. Perhaps even deconfined matter, as the Quark-Gluon Plasma.

RHIC experiments find that the Central Plateau is rather narrow. In all, particles are spread out over $`\pm 5`$ units of rapidity. The multiplicites for identified particles are nearly constant over the central $`\pm 1`$ unit of rapidity . However, the pion’s average transverse momentum, $`p_t`$, is only constant over $`\pm .5`$ units of rapidity . But as with other variables, there is much to gain by looking at all rapidities.

Even without (much) electromagnetic data, which proved so interesting at the SPS, so far there are four notable features of the RHIC data:

“High”-$`p_t`$ suppression: the number of particles with transverse momentum $`p_t`$ between $`210`$ GeV is suppressed, relative to that in $`pp`$, times the number of binary collisions . The overall suppression is by factors of $`24`$. The suppression is now seen to be approximately constant for these $`p_t`$ . This is opposite what happens at the SPS, where high $`p_t`$ particles are not suppressed, but enhanced by factors of $`23`$, through the Cronin effect.

Elliptic flow: is a measure of momentum anistropy in non-central collisions. Hydrodynamics predicts elliptic flow is linear in $`p_t`$ for pions. This is seen up to $`p_t1.5`$ GeV, as is the hydrodynamic behavior of protons. For $`p_t:26`$ GeV, though, the (total) elliptic flow is flat , which is not expected from hydrodynamics (or anything else).

HBT radii: pion interferometry gives a measure of the spatial size(s) of the system. Hydrodynamics predicts that a certain ratio of two sizes, $`R_{out}/R_{side}`$, is greater than one, and increases as $`p_t`$ does. Instead, experiment finds that $`R_{out}/R_{side}`$ decreases with increasing $`p_t`$, and is about one by $`p_t400`$ MeV . HBT radii indicate that hadronization occurs as a type of “blast” wave .

Jet absorption: At these energies, jets are seen in $`pp`$ collisions, but an angular correlation finds that in $`AA`$ collisions, the “backward” jet is strongly suppressed . That is, in $`AA`$ collisions there is stuff there which eats jets.

It is thus an extremely exciting time. For now, experiment is triumphant: especially after the run at $`\sqrt{s}/A=200`$ GeV, there is a striking agreement between different experiments for many quantities of interest. The crucial advance has been precise measurements. If quantities are only measured to $`\pm 30\%`$, then a lot of theories can hide under the error bars. With errors $`\pm 5\%`$, it becomes possible to definitively rule (many) theories out.

The challenge to theorists to synthesize all of these measurements into a consistent framework. Common prejudices held before the RHIC data — such as large increases in multiplicity, and large sizes from a strongly first order transition — are extinct. Certain models can explain some aspects of the RHIC data, but at present, no model can explain everything interesting.

My review of theory at Quark Matter 2002 is organized thematically, emphasizing results of relevance to experiment. Consequently, I will offend by omission, neglecting all work on color superconductivity and other interesting topics.

## 2 THE BEDROCK: THE LATTICE

Our understanding of QCD at nonzero temperature rests upon numerical simulations on the Lattice . While dynamical quarks must be included in any realistic simulation of QCD, at present the Lattice is not near to the continuum limit with light, dynamical quarks. What it can do, with precision near the continuum limit, is tell us about the pure glue theory. While it is easy to bemoan the lack of nearly continuum data with quarks, it should not obscure this fundamental advance. That we can compute reliably the thermodynamics for non-abelian fields with three colors is no mean feat.

In the pure gauge theory, the deconfining phase transition is rigorously associated with the spontaneous breaking of a global $`Z(3)`$ symmetry, above a transition temperature $`T_c`$. Taking the string tension to be ($`400`$ MeV)2, $`T_c270`$ MeV, within errors which are, at present, $`\pm 5\%`$. One expects a confined phase of hadrons below $`T_c`$, and a deconfined Quark-Gluon Plasma above $`T_c`$. The great surprise from the Lattice is that there is a third region, sandwiched between these two. This happens because the deconfining transition is so weakly first order that there is a nearly critical region about $`T_c`$. For example, just below $`T_c`$, the string tension is about one-tenth its value at zero temperature. The nearly critical modes which become light about $`T_c`$ are electric $`Z(3)`$ glueballs, or Polyakov loops. Magnetic $`Z(3)`$ glueballs, or ’t Hooft loops, stay heavy.

The Lattice also gives us insight into the transition as the number of colors is varied from three. It is truly second order for two colors, with a critical region whose width, in terms of the reduced temperature $`T/T_c`$, is wider than for three colors. This leads me to the conjecture that for $`N_c`$ colors, while the transition is of second order when $`N_c<\mathrm{}`$, its width, in terms of $`T/T_c`$, shrinks like $`1/N_c`$ as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$. At $`N_c=\mathrm{}`$, then, the transition is of first order.

For three colors, the nearly critical region is within $`\pm 10\%`$ of $`T_c`$. A consequence of a narrow critical region is that the potentials for Polyakov loops change very rapidly, within temperatures $`\pm 2.5\%`$ of $`T_c`$ . For the rapid expansion rates present in heavy ion collisions, this suggests that even if the system is thermal at $`T_c`$, its evolution below $`T_c`$ is far out of equilibrium .

A recent advance on the Lattice is to compute spectral functions using the Maximum Entropy Method . The spectral density for the pion has a narrow peak in the confined phase, but is a broad peak in the deconfined phase, at least by $`1.5T_c`$. In the $`\rho `$ channel, at $`.6T_c`$ the peak has moved up a little, and broadened more; the $`\rho `$ is completely washed out by $`1.5T_c`$. Spectral functions for heavy quark bound states have also been computed. Notably, the Lattice finds that the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ remains bound even at $`1.5T_c`$, although less tightly bound states, such as the $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$, evaporate below $`T_c`$. This is in contrast to potential models, which find, due to the decreasing string tension, that all charmonium bound states disassociate below $`T_c`$ .

At present, the Lattice can only simulate dynamical quarks if the pions are too heavy. Estimates are $`T_c175`$ MeV, with no true phase transition in the thermodynamic limit, but only cross over behavior. It is possible that a first order transition reappears for physical pions, closer to the continuum limit . In principle, the transition can be more strongly first order than in the pure glue theory, since with the addition of three flavors of massless quarks, the ideal gas pressure goes up by a factor of three. (It is useful to compare to the ideal gas pressure, since asymptotic freedom implies that the pressure is ideal at infinite temperature.)

Present simulations with dynamical quarks demonstrate an approximate universality, termed “flavor independence”. This is the observation that as a function of $`T/T_c`$, the ratio of the true pressure, to the corresponding value in an ideal gas of quarks and gluons, is nearly universal, independent of the number of flavors. This is remarkable, given the large changes in both $`T_c`$ and in the ideal gas term. This suggests that the thermodynamics of QCD, with three colors and three flavors of dynamical quarks, is dominated by that of the pure glue theory.

Advances have been made with systems at nonzero (quark) chemical potential $`\mu `$. The Lattice can generate a thermal distribution of quarks, but with standard Monte Carlo techniques, it cannot fill a Fermi sea. However, for a quark with energy $`E`$, if the temperature $`T`$ is much greater than $`\mu `$, then the Fermi-Dirac distribution function at $`\mu 0`$ is approximately that for $`\mu =0`$:

$$\frac{1}{e^{(E\mu )/T}+1}\frac{1}{e^{E/T}+1}$$
(1)
That is, at high temperature it doesn’t matter much whether or not you fill the Fermi sea. Thus the Lattice can compute at $`T\mu `$: by $`\mu 200`$ MeV, $`T_c`$ has only decreased a small amount, to $`160`$ MeV . This is well on the way to nuclear matter, which at zero temperature, occurs when $`\mu `$ exceeds $`313`$ MeV. This is a new and strong constraint on effective models of thermal QCD, which often give too large a decrease.

## 3 STATISTICAL MODELS: A BIG BOOST (VELOCITY)

For the most central collisions at zero rapidity, an amazing summary of the single particle spectra is a thermal fit . Fits in which chemical freeze-out occurs at the same temperature as kinetic freeze-out are favored, with $`T165`$ MeV and $`\mu 14`$ MeV . Resonance decays describe the excess of low momentum pions in central collisions. What happens for peripheral collisions, which must also have resonance decays, and yet do not have an excess of low momentum pions, is less clear, and usually ignored.

The approximate equality of the temperatures for chemical and kinetic freeze-out is peculiar. Any scattering in a hadronic phase produces chemical freeze-out at a higher temperature than that for kinetic freeze-out , so the data suggest that both temperatures are really one of hadronization, with little rescattering in a hadronic phase. This is one hint of possible non-equilibrium behavior at RHIC.

The temperature for chemical freeze-out is consistent with data at lower $`\sqrt{s}/A`$. From energies of $`\sqrt{s}/A`$ from a few GeV on up, chemical freeze-out occurs along a curve in which the energy per particle is constant, about $`1`$ GeV. In the plane of $`T`$ and $`\mu `$, even if the hadronization temperature agrees with $`T_c`$ at $`\mu =0`$, it is distinctly lower than $`T_c(\mu )`$ for $`\mu 0`$. For example, chemical freeze-out at AGS energies gives about $`\mu =200`$ MeV, and a hadronization temperature which is at most $`120`$ MeV; from the Lattice, though, at this $`\mu `$ the corresponding $`T_c`$ is much higher, $`160`$ MeV .

To describe the behavior of particles with increasing mass, it is necessary to assume that all hadrons are emitted with respect to a local moving rest frame. At RHIC, the radial velocities of this local rest frame go up to $`2/3`$ c; averaged over radius, they are about $`1/2`$ c. This can be seen by eye: versus $`p_t`$, single particle distributions for pions turn up, while those for protons (say) turn down.

The radial dependence of the velocity of the local rest frame is not constrained by the data, and is fit to agree with the observed spectrum. The same is true of hydrodynamical models . This is why they are fits. For example, consider how the single particle spectra change with rapidity, or centrality. While the temperature might be the same, the local flow velocity now depends not just upon the radius, but also upon the rapidity, centrality, etc. It is untenable to consider only zero rapidity, and ignore the rest.

A statistical model implies not only what the chemical composition is, but, as well, the $`p_t`$-dependence of the single particle spectrum. Of course a thermal distribution should only hold up to some upper scale, perhaps $`12`$ GeV. It would be interesting to compute the ratios of moments of transverse momenta:

$$r_n=\frac{|p_t^n_{exp}p_t^n_{th}|}{p_t^n_{th}}.$$
(2)
Here $`exp`$ and $`th`$ denote, respectively, moments computed from experiment, versus a thermal distribution (with some assumed velocity profile). By definition, if the overall number of particles is thermal, $`r_0=0`$. For $`n>1`$, $`r_n`$ is a dimensionless series of pure numbers; the fit is good until $`r_n`$ is no longer small. This must happen at some large $`n`$, since eventually fluctuations from hard momentum processes dominate. It would be interesting to determine these ratios from experiment, for all collisions in which a thermal fit works.

## 4 “IDEAL” HYDRODYNAMICS AND ELLIPTICAL FLOW

A dynamical realization of a thermal fit is a hydrodynamical model. A specific equation of state is assumed, with some initial temperature and velocity profile at some initial time. The system then evolves according to an equation of state, with the parameters chosen to agree with the observed single particle spectra. First order transitions are usually assumed, but this doesn’t matter much, given the rapid expansion characteristic of heavy ion collisions.

A measure of hydrodynamic behavior is given by elliptic flow. For a peripheral collision, in which the two nuclei only partially overlap, an “almond” is formed in the plane perpendicular to the reaction plane. As the system hadronizes, this spatial anistropy turns into a momentum anistropy, with the average momentum larger along the narrow part of the almond then along the long part. This elliptical anistropy  has been measured as a function of centrality and $`p_t`$; overall, the values at RHIC are about twice as large as at the SPS. By geometry, elliptic flow vanishes for zero centrality, as nuclei which completely overlap cannot have any anistropy. Elliptic flow, as measured from two-particle correlations, fails to do this, so that more sophisticated measures, involving correlations between four or more particles, are imperative .

Hydrodynamic models predict that for pions, the elliptic flow depends linearly on the transverse momentum. The local flow velocity also predicts the behavior of elliptic flow for heavier particles, such as protons. Both predictions are borne out by the experimental data, for momenta up to $`p_t1.5`$ GeV.

Versus centrality, as measured by the number of participants, hydrodynamics predicts that the elliptic anistropy is linear near zero centrality, which is observed. When the number of participants is half the maximum value, though, hydrodynamics significantly overpredicts the elliptic flow.

Calculations with three dimensional hydrodynamics, giving single particle distributions versus rapidity, have been performed . Even with agreement at zero rapidity, the results from these hydrodynamic calculations are much broader in rapidity than the experimental data .

There are two conundrums about these hydrodynamic fits: first, the initial times required in hydrodynamic calculations are extremely small, $`.6`$ fm/c . Secondly, they assume ideal hydrodynamics. Even with times expected from saturation (see below), this is a very short time. Further, in QCD viscosity coefficients can be computed from the Boltzman-Altarelli-Parisi equations. At least in weak coupling, the shear viscosity is large (on a natural scale), and cannot be neglected .

These technicalities should not obscure the fact that elliptic flow demonstrates that heavy ion collisions exhibit significant collective behavior. Further, while fits to single particle spectra with ideal hydrodynamics and short times may well work, this does not exclude the possibility of similar fits with non-ideal hydrodynamics; it is not clear how the times might then change.

As an example,  assumes that particles obey a thermal distribution in the transverse direction, but free stream in the longitudinal (or beam) direction. Adjusting the initial conditions to give the right single particle distributions, the resulting elliptical anistropy is too small by a factor of two. As in many other examples, the data sharply limits theory.

Experimentally, it is unremarkable that hydrodynamics fails above $`p_t1.5`$ GeV. Hydrodynamics should break down at short distances; that it works down to $`.13`$ fm is actually pretty good. Rather, the surprise is that the elliptic anistropy is approximately constant for $`p_t:26`$ GeV. In QCD, one expects cross sections to peak at some momentum scale on the order of a few GeV, and then to fall off with the powers characteristic of QCD. It is very difficult to imagine how anything flat in $`p_t`$ could ever emerge.

One possibility is that one is not measuring collective phenomenon at all, but simply some property of two jets, which is misinterpreted as collective flow.  used a mini-jet model to obtain an elliptic anistropy which agrees with experiment; the single-particle spectra, though, is wrong. Methods to determine elliptic anistropy using correlations between four or more particles should be insensitive to contamination by jets .

## 5 HBT RADII: A “BLAST” WAVE?

For identical particles, a length scale can be determined by pion interferometry through the Hanbury-Brown-Twiss (HBT) effect . This length scale is related to the surface at which the pions last interacted. Since there is axial symmetry to a heavy ion collision, there are three distances, corresponding to along the beam direction, $`R_{long}`$, along the line of sight, $`R_{out}`$, and perpendicular to that, $`R_{side}`$.

One of the big surprises from RHIC is that the HBT radii did not grow much between $`\sqrt{s}/A=17`$ to $`200`$ GeV. The change in $`R_{long}R_{side}R_{out}`$ is, more or less, the same as the increase in multiplicity, $`50\%`$.

This can be taken as direct experimental evidence for the absence of a strongly first order phase transition in QCD, completely independent from the Lattice. If the transition were strongly first order, as it went through $`T_c`$ the system would supercool and grow in size. Estimates of the sizes of the system before QM’01 ranged up to tens of fermi, which are not seen. Unfortunately, putting a bound on the latent heat of the transition is manifestly a model dependent exercise. Still, it would be an amusing exercise.

The details of the HBT radii, however, have proven to be much more interesting than expected. Before the RHIC data, it was thought that the hadronic firetube from an $`AA`$ collision might be like a “burning log”. But instead of smouldering, the RHIC data suggests that the log blows up.

In particular, the results from RHIC appear to contradict any hydrodynamic description . Versus experiment, hydrodynamics gives values of $`R_{long}`$ and $`R_{out}`$ which are too large, and a $`R_{side}`$ which is too small. Of especial interst is the ratio of $`R_{out}/R_{side}`$: hydrodynamics predicts this ratio should be $`1.52`$, and which increases with $`p_t`$. At RHIC, the ratio decreases as $`p_t`$ goes up, and is about one, $`.85R_{out}/R_{side}1.15`$ .

The HBT data can be parametrized as a type of “blast” wave, with a velocity $`3/4`$ c . This may indicate a type of “explosive” behavior , a term first used by the experimentalists.

HBT radii can also be used to give a measure of the entropy carried by pions . Per degree of freedom, the entropy in peripheral collisions is greater than that in a Bose-Einstein gas, but is less than that for the most central collisions. This may indicate coherence in the initial state.

Partonic models in which the cross section is artificially multiplied by a factor of $`14`$  give both $`R_{out}/R_{side}1`$, at least by $`p_t1.5`$ GeV, and a flat elliptical anistropy. One may view this as evidence that at hadronization, apparently near $`T_c`$, the partons appear to behave much more strongly than expected from perturbative QCD.

## 6 “HIGH”-$`p_t`$ SUPPRESSION

From the first RHIC data, it was clear that the spectra for “high”-$`p_t`$ particles, meaning above, say, $`2`$ GeV, is qualitatively different in central $`AA`$ collisions, versus $`pp`$ collisions at the same energy. Dividing by the number of participants, the number of particles at high-$`p_t`$ is significantly less in central $`AA`$ collisions than in $`pp`$, by overall factors of $`24`$ . This is quantified through the ratio $`R_{AA}`$, which is the ratio of the number of particles in central $`AA`$ collisions, divided by that in $`pp`$, as a function of $`p_t`$. The suppression begins above $`p_t2`$ GeV; above $`4`$ GeV, $`R_{AA}1/31/4`$ for charged hadrons, and $`R_{AA}1/51/6`$ for pions . A surprise of the Run II data is that for $`p_t:29`$ GeV, $`R_{AA}`$ is approximately constant, up to at least $`9`$ GeV .

This suppression of high-$`p_t`$ particles is opposite to what is observed at the SPS. There, due to what is known as the Cronin effect, the ratio $`R_{AA}`$ is greater than one, going up to $`2.5`$ by $`p_t3`$ GeV. This change in the spectrum must be considered as one of the most dramatic features of the RHIC data.

The usual explanation of high-$`p_t`$ suppression is due to energy loss . Bjorken originally noted that a fast quark (or gluon) loses energy as it traverses a thermal bath, in just that same way that any charged particle does in matter. Single particle distributions can be explained using parton models .

Detailed features of the data appear difficult to explain as energy loss, though. Naively, one might expect soft processes to scale as the number of participants, $`A`$, and hard processes to scale as the number of collisions, $`A^{4/3}`$. As a hard process, then, one would expect energy loss to scale as $`A^{4/3}`$. Instead, in peripheral collisions, $`R_{AA}`$ scales with the number of participants . It is possible that the difference of two terms of order $`A^{4/3}`$ is of order $`A`$, but that seems unnatural.

Further, the observed constancy of $`R_{AA}`$ for $`p_t:29`$ GeV is surprising; perturbative models of QCD do not give constant behavior. The apparent constancy also reflects changes in particle composition, while pions dominate below $`p_t2`$ GeV, unlike $`pp`$ collisions, there are as many protons as pions above $`p_t2`$ GeV. Taking protons as color baryon junctions, in perturbative QCD the pion part of $`R_{AA}`$ peaks at a smaller $`p_t`$ than the proton part .

In weak coupling, energy loss in QCD is proportional to $`\sqrt{E}`$, where $`E`$ is the energy of the jet . If one assumes, simply for the sake of understanding the data, that the energy loss is proportional instead to $`E`$, with hard particles losing $`7\%`$ of their energy per scattering, then a next-to-leading order calculation in QCD gives a good fit to the data .

## 7 SATURATION

Another surprise from the first RHIC data was that the multiplicity did not grow as rapidly as predicted, at least on the basis of various cascade models. A natural explanation for this is given by models of saturation .

The application of saturation to AA collisions is, at the most basic level, purely a kinematical effect. Consider a nucleus-nucleus collision, in the rest frame of one of the nuclei. For atomic number $`A200`$, in its rest frame the incident nucleus has a diameter no greater than $`2A^{1/3}15`$ fm. By Lorentz contraction, this distance gets shrunk down by a factor which is about $`1/(\sqrt{s}/A)`$. Eventually, the color charge of the incident nucleus looks not like a nucleus, but just like a very thin pancake, with a big color charge $`A^{1/3}`$. Assuming that distances on the order of $`1/31/4`$ fm are small on hadronic scales, the incident nucleus looks like a thin pancake when $`\sqrt{s}/A:4560`$ GeV. It is amusing that a simple estimate gives an energy right near where a Central Plateau, in which the particle density is constant with rapidity, first appears.

In detail, saturation is a dynamic criterion. It states that at sufficiently small Bjorken-$`x`$, quark and gluon distribution functions are dominated by gluons, which peak at a characteristic momentum scale, termed the “saturation” momentum, $`p_{sat}`$. (This gluon dominance is reminiscent of flavor independence for thermodynamics.) For any perturbative approach to work, $`p_{sat}`$ cannot be less than at least $`1`$ GeV. The above kinematic argument suggests that $`p_{sat}^2A^{1/3}`$: thus one can probe smaller $`x`$ values with large nuclei at RHIC, say, than in $`ep`$ collisions at HERA.

What is most important about saturation is, again, almost a kinematical effect: it resets the “clock” for heavy ion collisions. In the Bjorken picture which dominated before the RHIC data, one assumed that hadronization occured at time scales $`1`$ fm/c; after all, what other time scale is there? Thus in the Bjorken picture, there seemed as if there was little time for even the largest nuclei, only $`7`$ fm in radius, to thermalize. (Unless, again, there were a strongly first order transition, which is why it was so popular before RHIC.)

With saturation, however, the natural scale of the clock is given by $`1/p_{sat}`$; for $`p_{sat}1`$ GeV, this is already $`.2`$ fm/c; see, e.g., . That is, saturation makes the hadronic “clock” runs at least five times faster! The possibility of interesting things happening is far more likely.

Saturation is realized in the Color Glass Model . The gluon fields from the incident nucleus are described as classical color sources, reacting much quicker than the fields in the target nucleus. Taking a gluon field to scale with the QCD coupling constant $`g`$ as $`A_\mu ^a1/g`$, one concludes that the action, and indeed all quantities — such as particle multiplicity, average energy, etc. — scale like $`1/g^2`$. In an asymptotically free regime, then, all quantities grow like $`1/\alpha _s(p_{sat})\mathrm{log}(p_{sat})`$. This small, logarithmic growth in the multiplicity agrees qualitatively with the RHIC data (although one really needs the increase to LHC energies to make this quantitative).

This picture is only approximate. Even if a gauge field is $`1/g`$, the action need not scale like $`1/g^2`$. In $`AA`$ collisions, at initial stages there is a screening mass generated along the beam direction, but not transverse, with a mass squared $`\alpha _s`$ at leading order . Such a dynamically generated mass scale changes integral powers of $`1/\alpha _s\mathrm{log}(p_{sat})`$ into fractional powers; see, e.g., .

Modulo these theoretical quibbles, it seems plausible that saturation describes the initial state of $`AA`$ collisions at high energies. Fits to the particle multiplicity, including the dependence upon centrality and rapidity, agree approximately with the data . It is not evident how to turn gluons into hadrons, as sometimes the mysteries of “parton-hadron duality” are invoked. It is surprising that such models work over a wide region of centrality and rapidity, since saturation (valid at small Bjorken-$`x`$) should not work well in the fragmentation region (which is large Bjorken-$`x`$). The particle density in such fits has peculiar peak at zero rapidity . Experimentally, the fragmentation region appears to be described by a universal limiting form  (although it is crucial to have data with identified particles, which is presently lacking).

Saturation does not describe other basic features of the data, though. The most serious problem is that the average $`p_t`$ in saturation is $`p_t2p_{sat}`$; even with $`p_{sat}`$ as low as $`1`$ GeV, this is an average $`p_t2`$ GeV. In contrast, at RHIC $`p_t550`$ MeV. The average energy from saturation will decrease due to inelastic processes and the generation of entropy. Assuming that this fixes the overall constant, one is still at a loss to explain why the average $`p_t`$ changes by at most $`1\%`$ between $`\sqrt{s}/A=130`$ GeV and $`200`$ GeV, while the multiplicity changes by at least $`15\%`$ . In saturation models, the average $`p_t`$ grows with multiplicity.

A related problem is the chemical composition. Parton-hadron duality is really gluon-pion duality; but if the average gluon momentum is large, why don’t the hard gluons become kaons? Instead, at RHIC kaons are much less numerous than pions, only about $`15\%`$ as much.

The elliptic anisotropy can be calculated in a Color Glass . As a function of momentum, it is dominated by very soft momentum, peaking at a value of $`p_tp_{sat}/4`$. This is not seen experimentally.

Of course if saturation describes the initial state, and not the final state, then there is no problem with the above features of the data. Estimates of thermalization in perturbative QCD give numbers $`3`$ fm/c . Further, thermalization occurs not due to elastic processes, but is dominated by inelastic processes .

It is claimed that the logarithmic growth of the total cross section follows from saturation . This is a matter of black and white: if there are massless particles, there is no bound on the total cross section. Thus saturation, which has no mass gap, cannot guarantee a finite total cross section.