text:
# QCD and Natural Philosophy

## 1 What is the Origin of Mass?

### 1.1 Framing the Question

That a question makes grammatical sense does not guarantee that it is answerable, or even coherent. In that spirit, let us begin with a critical examination of the question posed in this Section: What is the origin of mass?

In classical mechanics mass appears as a primary concept. It was a very great step for the founders of classical mechanics to isolate the scientific concept of mass. In Newton’s laws of motion, mass appears as an irreducible, intrinsic property of matter, which relates its manifest response (acceleration) to an abstract cause (force). An object without mass would not know how to move. It would not know, from one moment to the next, where in space it was supposed to be. It would be, in a very strong sense, unphysical. Also in Newton’s law of gravity, the mass of an object governs the strength of the force it exerts. One cannot build up an object that gravitates out of material that does not. Thus it is difficult to imagine, in the Newtonian framework, what could possibly constitute an “origin of mass”. In that framework, mass just is what it is.

Later developments in physics make the concept of mass seem less irreducible. The undermining process started in earnest with the theories of relativity. The famous equation $`E=mc^2`$ of special relativity theory, written that way, betrays the prejudice that we should express energy in terms of mass. But we can also read it as $`m=E/c^2`$, which suggests the possibility of explaining mass in terms of energy. In general relativity the response of matter to gravity is independent of mass (equivalence principle), while space-time curvature is generated directly by energy-momentum, according to $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }`$, with $`\kappa 8\pi G_N/c^2`$. Mass appears as a contributing factor to energy-momentum, but it has no uniquely privileged status.

At an abstract level, mass appears as a label for irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. Since representations with $`m0`$ appear in tensor products of $`m=0`$ representations, it is possible, at least kinematically, to build massive particles as composites of massless particles, or of massless particles and fields.

#### 1.1.1 Lorentz’s Dream

At a much more concrete level, the question of the origin of mass virtually forced itself upon physicists’ attention in connection with the development of electron theory. Electrons generate electromagnetic fields; these fields have energy and therefore inertia. Indeed, a classical point-electron is surrounded by an electric field varying as $`e/r^2`$. The energy in this field is infinite, due to a divergent contribution around $`r0`$. It was a dream of Lorentz (pursued in evolved forms by many others, including Poincaré, Dirac, Wheeler, and Feynman), to account for the electron’s mass entirely in terms of its electromagnetic fields by using a more refined picture of electrons. Lorentz hoped that in a correct model of electrons they would emerge as extended objects, and that the energy in the Coulomb field would come out finite, and account for all (or most) of the inertia of electrons.

Later progress in the quantum theory of electrons rendered this program moot by showing that the charge of an electron, and therefore of course its associated electric field, is intrinsically smeared out by quantum fluctuations in its position. Indeed, due to the uncertainty principle the picture of electrons as ideal point-particles certainly breaks down for distances $`r\mathrm{}/mc`$, the Compton radius. At momenta $`p\mathrm{}/r`$, the velocity $`p/m`$ formally becomes of order $`c`$, and one cannot regard the electron as a static point source. If we cut off the simple electrostatic calculation at the Compton radius, we find an electromagnetic contribution to the electron mass of order $`\delta m\alpha m`$, where $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi \mathrm{}c1/137`$ is the fine structure constant. In this sense the easily identifiable and intuitive electromagnetic contribution to the mass, which Lorentz hoped to build upon, is small. To go further, we cannot avoid considering relativity and quantum mechanics together. That means quantum field theory.

#### 1.1.2 Its Debacle

In quantum electrodynamics itself, the whole issue of the electromagnetic contribution to the electron mass becomes quite dodgy, due to renormalization.

Quantum electrodynamics does not exist nonperturbatively. One can regulate and renormalize order-by-order in perturbation theory, but there are strong arguments that the series does not converge, or even represent the asymptotic expansion of a satisfactory theory. In a renormalization group analysis, this is because the effective coupling blows up logarithmically at short distances, and one cannot remove the cutoff. In a lattice regularization, one could not achieve a Lorentz-invariant limit.111Actually this blow-up, the famous Landau pole, arises from extrapolating the perturbative result beyond its range of validity. What one can deduce simply and rigorously is that the effective coupling does not become small at short distances: QED is not asymptotically free. If there is a fixed point at finite coupling, it may be possible to construct a relativistically invariant limiting theory. But even if such a theory were to exist, its physical relevance would be quite dubious, since we know that there’s much more to physics than electrodynamics at distances so short that the logarithms matter. So one cannot strictly separate the issue of electromagnetic mass from the unknown physics which ultimately regularizes the short-distance singularities of QED.

If we regard QED as an effective theory, essentially by leaving in an energy cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, corresponding to a distance cutoff $`\mathrm{}c/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we get a contribution to the mass at short distances going as $`\delta m\alpha m\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)`$. Quantum mechanics has changed the power-law divergence into a logarithm. As a result, $`\delta m`$ is a fractionally small contribution to the total mass, at least for sub-Planckian $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{19}`$ GeV). We know that QED ceases to be a complete description of physics, or even a well-isolated theory, far below such energies.

In any case, since the mass renormalization is multiplicative, an electron field whose bare quanta have bare mass is zero produces physics quanta with physical mass zero. Indeed, the massless version of QED has enhanced symmetry – chiral symmetry – which is not destroyed by (perturbative) renormalization.

In short, very little seems to survive from Lorentz’s original dream. I’ve described this fiasco in some detail, since it provides an instructive background to contrast with our upcoming considerations.

#### 1.1.3 Upping the Ante

Quantum field theory changes how we view the question of the origin of mass dramatically. As we have seen, it quashes hope for a simple classical mechanistic explanation.

At a more profound level, however, quantum field theory makes the question of the origin of mass seem both better posed and more crucial. Very few such theories are known to exist nonperturbatively in four space-time dimensions. Even if we relax our standards to include renormalizable quantum field theories, i.e. those which are reasonably self-contained as effective field theories, we find a very restricted set. Such theories, unless they contain many fields and few symmetries, allow few continuous parameters. Among those few, parameters specifying bare masses of the quanta feature prominently. So massless theories are even more tightly constrained, and bring us closer to the ideal of a parameter-free, purely conceptual description of Nature.

Moreover, theories often acquire enhanced symmetry when mass parameters vanish. In such cases masslessness is “natural”, in the sense that it can be stated as an abstract structural property of the theory, namely its enhanced symmetry. To the extent we feel a more symmetric theory is more beautiful, the massless theories are singled out as more beautiful. These features of naturalness and beauty, which motivate massless theories, survive even if one is not committed to the technical requirement of renormalizability.

### 1.2 Most of the Answer: QCD Lite

Enough of generalities! I want now to describe some very specific, and I think quite beautiful, insights into the origin of mass in the real world. We will construct – following Nature – mass without mass, using only $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

#### 1.2.1 Introducing QCD Lite

My central points are most easily made with reference to a slight idealization of QCD I call, for reasons that will be obvious, QCD Lite. It is a nonabelian gauge theory based on the gauge group $`SU(3)`$ coupled to two triplets and two antitriplets of left-handed fermions, all with zero mass. Of course I have in mind that the gauge group represents color, and that one set of triplet and antitriplet will be identified with the quark fields $`u_L,u_R`$ and the other with $`d_L,d_R`$.

Upon demanding renormalizability,222Or, in physical terms, the existence of a relativistically invariant limiting theory. Or alternatively, radical decoupling from an unspecified, gratuitous high-energy cutoff. this theory appears to contain precisely one parameter, the coupling $`g`$. It is, in units with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, a pure number. I’m ignoring the $`\theta `$ parameter, which has no physical content here, since it can be absorbed into the definition of the quark fields. Mass terms for the gluons are forbidden by gauge invariance. Mass terms for the quarks are forbidden by chiral $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ flavor symmetry.

#### 1.2.2 Running Coupling; Dimensional Transmutation

The coupling constant $`g`$ that appears in the Lagrangian of QCD Lite, like the corresponding constant $`e`$ in QED, is a dimensionless number (in units with $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). Likewise for the fine-structure constant $`\alpha _sg^2/4\pi `$. But the real situation, when we take into account the effect of quantum mechanics, is quite different. Empty space is a medium, full of virtual particles, and responds dynamically to charges placed within it. It can be polarized, and the polarization clouds surrounding test charges can shield (screen) or enhance (antiscreen) their strength. In other words, quantum-mechanically the measured strength of the coupling depends on the distance scale, or equivalently the (inverse) energy scale, at which it is measured: $`\alpha _s\alpha _s(Q)`$. This is a central feature of QCD Lite, and of course of QCD itself. These theories predict that the effective coupling gets small at large $`Q`$, or equivalently at short distance.

This behavior displays itself in a remarkably direct and tangible form in the final states of electron-positron annihilation. Hadrons emerging from high-energy electron-positron annihilation organize themselves into collimated jets. Usually there are two jets, but occasionally three. The theoretical interpretation is profound but, given asymptotic freedom, straightforward. The primary products emerging from the annihilation are a quark and an antiquark. They emit soft – that is, low energy-momentum – radiation copiously, but only rarely hard radiation. That’s a restatement, in momentum space, of asymptotic freedom. The soft radiation materializes as many particles, but these particles inherit their direction of flow from the quark or antiquark, and therefore constitute a jet. In the relatively rare case that there is hard radiation, that is to say, emission of an energetic gluon, the gluon induces its own independent jet. All this can be made completely quantitative. There are precise predictions for the ratio of three- to two-jet events, the rare occurrence of four (or more) jet events, how these ratios change with energy, angular dependence, and so forth. The observations agree with these predictions. Thus they provide overwhelming, direct evidence for the most basic elements of the theory, that is the quark-gluon and gluon-gluon couplings.

Because the coupling runs, we can, within any given version of QCD Lite, measure any given numerical value $`a=\alpha _s(Q)`$, simply by choosing an appropriate $`Q`$. It appeared, classically, that we had an infinite number of different versions of QCD Lite, with different values of the coupling parameter. In reality the only difference among all these theories, after they are quantized, is the unit they choose for measuring mass. All dimensionless physical parameters, and in particular all mass ratios, are uniquely determined. We can trade the dimensionless parameter $`g`$ for the unit of mass. This is the phenomenon of dimensional transmutation.

Of course the value of the overall energy scale makes a big difference when we come to couple QCD Lite, or of course QCD, to the rest of physics. Gravity, for example, cares very much about the absolute value of masses. But within QCD Lite itself, if we compute any dimensionless quantity whatsoever we will obtain a unique answer, independent of any choice of coupling parameter. Thus, properly understood, the value of the QCD coupling constant does not so much govern QCD itself – within its own domain, QCD is unique – but rather how QCD fits in with the rest of physics.

#### 1.2.3 Physical Mass Spectrum – QCD Lite and Reality

Now let us consider more concretely how these dynamical phenomena lead us to a nontrivial hadron spectrum. Looking at the classical equations of QCD, one would expect an attractive force between quarks that varies with the distance as $`g^2/4\pi r^2`$, where $`g`$ is the coupling constant. This result is modified, however, by the effects of quantum fluctuations. As we have just discussed, the omnipresent evanescence of virtual particles renders empty space into a dynamical medium, whose response alters the force law. The antiscreening effect of virtual color gluons (asymptotic freedom), enhances the strength of the attraction, by a factor which grows with the distance. This effect can be captured by defining an effective coupling, $`g(r)`$, that grows with distance.

The attractive interaction among quarks wants to bind them together; but the potential energy to be gained by bringing quarks together must be weighed against its cost in kinetic energy. In a more familiar application, just this sort of competition between Coulomb attraction and localization energy is responsible for the stability and finite size of atoms. Here quantum-mechanical uncertainty implies that quark wave-functions localized in space must contain a substantial admixture of high momentum components. For a relativistic particle, this translates directly into energy. If the attraction followed Coulomb’s law, with a small coupling, the energetic price for staying localized would always outweigh the profit from attraction, and the quarks would not form a bound state. Indeed, the kinetic energy $`\mathrm{}c/r`$ beats the potential energy $`g^2/4\pi r`$. But the running coupling of QCD grows with distance, and that tips the balance. The quarks finally get reined in, at distances where $`\alpha _s(r)`$ becomes large.

We need not rely on heuristic pictures, or wishful thinking, to speculate about the mass spectrum of QCD Lite. It has been calculated by direct numerical integration of the fundamental equations, using the techniques of lattice gauge theory.333There are significant technical issues around realizing chiral symmetry in numerical work involving discretization on a lattice. Recent theoretical work appears to have resolved the conceptual issues, but the numerical work does not yet fully reflect this progress. To avoid a fussy presentation I’ve oversimplified by passing over these issues, which do not affect my main point. The results bear a remarkable qualitative and semiquantitative resemblance to the observed spectrum of nonstrange hadrons, generally at the 10% level, comfortably within known sources of error due to finite size, statistics, etc. – and (anticipating) small quark masses. Of course, in line with our preceding discussion, the overall scale of hadron masses is not determined by the theory. But all mass ratios are predicted, with no free parameters, as of course are the resonance quantum numbers.

QCD Lite is not the real world, of course. So although in QCD Lite we get mass without mass in the strict sense, to assess how much real-world mass arises this way we need to assess how good an approximation QCD Lite is to reality, quantitatively. We can do this by adjusting the nonzero values of $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ to make the spectrum best fit reality, and then seeing how much they contributed to the fit.444Again, there are significant technical issues here, especially regarding the role of the strange quark. Fortunately, the uncertainties are numerically small. Unlike charges in QED, masses in QCD are soft perturbations, and we can calculate a meaningful finite difference between the spectra of these two theories. There is also a well-developed alternative approach to estimating the contribution of quark masses by exploiting the phenomenology of chiral symmetry breaking. Either way, one finds that the quark masses contribute at most a few per cent to the masses of protons and neutrons.

Protons and neutrons, in turn, contribute more than 99% of the mass of ordinary matter. So QCD Lite provides, for our purpose, an excellent description of reality. The origin of the bulk of the mass of ordinary matter is well accounted for, in a theory based on pure concepts and using no mass parameters – indeed, no mass unit – at all!

#### 1.2.4 Comparing with the Old Dream

While our final result fulfills the fantasy of Lorentz’s dream, the details and the mechanism whereby it is achieved are quite different from what he imagined.

Obviously we are speaking of hadrons, not electrons, and of QCD, not classical electrodynamics. The deepest difference, however, concerns the source and location of the energy whereby $`m=E/c^2`$ is realized. In Lorentz’s dream, the energy was self-energy, close to the location of the point particle. In QCD Lite the self-mass vanishes. Paradoxically, there is a sense in which the self-energy of a quark555Infinite self-energy does not conflict with zero mass. $`E=mc^2`$ describes the energy of a particle of mass $`m`$ when it is at rest; but of course, as we know from photons, there can also be energy in massless particles, which cannot be brought to rest. is infinite (confinement), but this is due to the spatial extent of its color field, which has a tail extending to infinity, not to any short-distance singularity. To make physical hadrons, quarks and gluons must be brought together in such a way that the total color vanishes. Then there is no infinite tail of color flux. The different tails of the individual quarks and gluons have annulled one another. But at finite distances the cancellation is incomplete, because Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle imposes an energetic cost for keeping color charges precisely localized together. The bulk of the mass of the hadrons comes from the residues of these long tails, not from singularities near point-like color charges.

#### 1.2.5 Comparing with the Old Debacle

It is instructive to review, point by point, how the obstructions that quantum field theory appeared to pose for the “Origin of Mass” or “Mass without Mass” program are resolved in QCD.

First of all QCD does exist even nonperturbatively, so the issues connected with renormalization can be analyzed consistently down to rock bottom.

Second, the massless theory is “natural” in the technical sense defined above. It displays enhanced symmetry. The gluons have no mass parameter because there is no such parameter consistent with local gauge symmetry. For quarks, there is an additional chiral $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ symmetry, expanded from the vectorial $`SU(2)_{L+R}`$, when they massless.

Third, these symmetries, which guarantee zero bare mass for the bare quanta, do not forbid nonzero mass for physical quanta. The gauge symmetry acts trivially on the physical quanta (confinement). The chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken: it is a property of the underlying equations but not of their stable solution (i.e., of their physical realization). Spontaneously broken chiral symmetry predicts the existence of massless collective modes, the Nambu-Goldstone bosons – pions – along with many of their properties; but it does not forbid mass for the other hadrons – protons, neutrons, etc.

Fourth, the realistic theory, with small nonzero quark masses, is a soft perturbation of the massless theory. It does not require that we make any alteration in the renormalization procedure. Thus it is commensurable with the massless theory. We can compare them unambiguously and quantitatively.

Fifth, and finally, this quantitative comparison shows that the nonzero quark masses in Nature contribute only a small fraction to the masses of protons and neutrons. The chiral symmetry of the massless theory is approximately valid in reality, and is the basis of a very useful phenomenology. The mass ratios of hadrons computed in the idealized massless theory are very nearly the same as in reality (apart, of course, from the pions).

### 1.3 (Many) Remaining Issues

While the dynamical energy of massless QCD accounts for the bulk of mass in ordinary matter, it is far from providing the only source of mass in Nature.

Mass terms for quarks and charged leptons appear to violate the electroweak gauge symmetry $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. But gauge symmetry cannot be violated in the fundamental equations – that would lead to ghosts and/or nonunitarity, and prevent construction of a sensible quantum theory. So these masses must, in a sense, have their “origin” in spontaneous symmetry breaking. That is accomplished, in the Standard Model, by having a nonsinglet Higgs field acquire a vacuum expectation value. Why this value is so small, compared to the Planck scale, is one aspect of what is usually called the hierarchy problem. Why the couplings of this field are so disparate – especially, what is particularly crucial to the structure of physical reality, why its dimensionless couplings to $`e,u,d`$ are so tiny (in the range $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$) – is an aspect of what is usually called the flavor problem.

Then there are separate problems for generating masses of supersymmetric particles (soft breaking parameters, $`\mu `$ term), for generating the mass of cosmological ‘dark matter’ (this might be included in the previous item!), for generating neutrino masses, and now apparently for generating the mass density of empty space (cosmological term).

Obviously, many big questions about the origin of mass remain. But I think we’ve answered a major one, the one that is most important quantitatively for ordinary matter, beautifully and convincingly.

## 2 Why is Gravity Feeble?

Gravity dominates the large-scale structure of the Universe, but only by default. Matter arranges itself to cancel electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces are intrinsically short-ranged. At a more fundamental level, gravity is extravagantly feeble. Acting between protons, gravitational attraction is about $`10^{36}`$ times weaker than electrical repulsion. Where does this outlandish disparity from? What does it mean?

Feynman wrote

> There’s a certain irrationality to any work on \[quantum\] gravitation, so it’s hard to explain why you do any of it …. It is therefore clear that the problem we working on is not the correct problem; the correct problem is What determines the size of gravitation?

I want to argue that in modern physics it is natural to view the problem of why gravity is extravagantly feeble in a new way – upside-down and through a distorting lens compared to its superficial appearance. When viewed this way, it comes to seem much less enigmatic.

First let me quantify the problem. The mass of ordinary matter is dominated by protons (and neutrons), and the force of gravity is proportional to (mass)2. From Newton’s constant, the proton mass, and fundamental constants we can form the pure dimensionless number

$$X=G_Nm_p^2/\mathrm{}c$$

where $`G_N`$ is Newton’s constant, $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. Substituting the measured values, we obtain

$$X6\times 10^{39}.$$

This is what we mean, quantitatively, when we say that gravity is extravagantly feeble.

We can interpret $`X`$ directly in physical terms, too. Since the proton’s geometrical size $`R`$ is roughly the same as its Compton radius $`\mathrm{}/m_pc`$, the gravitational binding energy of a proton is roughly $`G_Nm_p^2/RXm_pc^2`$. So $`X`$ is the fractional contribution of gravitational binding energy to the proton’s rest mass!

#### 2.0.1 Planck’s Hypothesis

An ultimate goal of physical theory is to explain the world purely conceptually, with no parameters at all. Superficially, this idea seems to run afoul of dimensional analysis – concepts don’t have units, but physical quantities do!

There is a sensible version of this goal, however, that is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom, despite falling well short of scientific knowledge. Soon after he introduced his constant $`\mathrm{}`$, in the course of a phenomenological fit to the black-body radiation spectrum, Planck pointed out the possibility of building a system of units based on the three fundamental constants $`\mathrm{},c,G_N`$. Indeed, from these three we can construct a unit of mass $`(\mathrm{}c/G_N)^{1/2}`$, a unit of of length $`(\mathrm{}G_N/c^3)^{1/2}`$, and a unit of time $`(\mathrm{}G_N/c^5)^{1/2}`$ – what we now call the Planck mass, length, and time respectively.

Planck’s proposal for a system of units based on fundamental physical constants was, when it was made, rather thinly rooted in physics. But by now there are profound reasons to regard $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`G`$ as conversion factors rather than numerical parameters. In the special theory of relativity there are symmetries relating space and time – and $`c`$ serves as a conversion factor between the units in which space-intervals and time-intervals are measured. In quantum theory, the energy of a state is proportional to the frequency of its oscillations – and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the conversion factor. Thus $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ appear directly as measures in the basic laws of these two great theories. Finally, in general relativity theory space-time curvature is proportional to the density of energy – and $`G_N`$ (actually $`G_N/c^4`$) is the conversion factor.

If we want to adopt Planck’s astonishing hypothesis that we must build up physics solely from these three conversion factors, then the enigma of $`X`$’s smallness looks quite different. We see that the question it poses is not“Why is gravity so feeble?” but rather “Why is the proton’s mass so small?” For according to Planck’s hypothesis, in natural (Planck) units the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity. So it can only be the proton’s mass that provides the tiny number $`\sqrt{X}`$.

#### 2.0.2 Running in Place

That’s a provocative and fruitful way to invert the question, because we now have a quite deep understanding of the origin of the proton’s mass, as I’ve reviewed above.

The proton mass is determined, according to the dynamics I’ve described, by the distance at which the running QCD coupling becomes strong. Let’s call this the QCD-distance. Our question, “Why is the proton mass so small?” has been transformed into the question, “Why is the QCD-distance much larger than the Planck length?” To close our circle of ideas, we need to explain how it is that, if only the Planck length is truly fundamental, such a vastly different length arises naturally.

This last elucidation, profound and beautiful, is worthy of the problem. It has to do with how the coupling runs, in detail. When the QCD coupling is weak, “running” is actually a bit of a misnomer. Rather, the coupling creeps along like a wounded snail. We can in fact calculate the behavior precisely, following the rules of quantum field theory, and even test it experimentally, as I mentioned before. The inverse coupling varies logarithmically with distance. So if we want to evolve an even moderately small coupling into a coupling of order unity, we must let it run between length-scales whose ratio is exponentially large. So if the QCD coupling is even moderately small at the Planck length it will reach unity only at a much larger distance.

Numerically, what we predict is that $`\alpha _s(l_{\mathrm{Pl}.})`$ at the Planck length is roughly a third to a fourth of what it is observed to be at $`10^{15}`$ cm; that is, $`\alpha _s(l_{\mathrm{Pl}.})1/30`$. We cannot measure $`\alpha _s(l_{\mathrm{Pl}.})`$ directly, of course, but there are good independent reasons, having to do with the unification of couplings, to believe that this value holds in reality. It is amusing to note that in terms of the coupling itself, what we require is $`g_s(l_{\mathrm{Pl}.})1/2`$! From this modest and seemingly innocuous numerical hypothesis, which involves neither really big numbers nor speculative dynamics beyond what is supported by hard experimental evidence, we have produced a logical explanation of the tiny value of $`X`$.

## 3 The Reduction of Matter

The reductionist program, roughly speaking, is to build up the description of Nature from a few laws that govern the behavior of elementary entities, and that can’t be derived from anything simpler. This definition is loose at both ends.

On the output side, because in the course of our investigations we find that there are important facts about Nature that we have to give up on predicting. These are what we – after the fact! – come to call contingencies. Three historically important examples of different sorts are the number of planets in the Solar System, the precise moment that a radioactive nucleus will decay, or what the weather will be in Boston a year from today. In each of these cases, the scientific community at first believed that prediction would be possible. And in each case, it was a major advance to realize that there are good fundamental reasons why it is not possible.

On the input side, because it is difficult – perhaps impossible – ever to prove the non-existence of simpler principles. I’ll revisit this aspect at the end of the lecture.

Nevertheless, and despite its horrible name, the reductionist program has been and continues to be both inspiring and astoundingly successful. Instead of trying to refine an arbitrary a priori definition of this program, it is more edifying to discuss its best fruits. For beyond question they do succeed to an astonishing extent in “reducing” matter to a few powerful abstract principles and a small number of parameters.

It is most instructive to build up to our most complete reduction of matter from some intermediate models that are extremely important and useful in their own right.

### 3.1 Structural Chemistry

The first such model is obtained by regarding both nuclear masses and the speed of light as effectively infinite. We then have the theory of nonrelativistic electrons in the presence of highly localized, static sources of positive charge, in multiples of $`|e|`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge. We compute the energy as a function of the positions of the source charges, using the Schrödinger equation. Local minima define molecules, and we can compute their wavefunctions. This model gives a good approximation for the vast subject of structural chemistry.666There is an additional fine point, that we must specify some symmetry rules to take account of quantum statistics for identical nuclei. Its only continuous parameters are $`\mathrm{},e`$, and the electron mass $`m_e`$. Since $`\mathrm{}`$ can be considered as a conversion factor, and the Bohr radius $`\mathrm{}^2/m_ee^2`$ just sets the overall length scale, this is essentially a one-parameter theory. Indeed, since one cannot manufacture a dimensionless quantity out of $`\mathrm{},e,m_e`$, the remaining parameter is really a conversion factor too. Thus we have a zero-parameter theory of structural chemistry!

A more accurate version – QED with sources – recognizes $`c\mathrm{}`$ and brings in real and virtual photons. Now there is a pure number in the game, namely of course the fine structure constant $`e^2/4\pi \mathrm{}c`$. Regarding $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ as conversion factors, and taking into account that $`\mathrm{}/m_ec`$ can be used to define the overall length scale, we arrive at a very accurate one-parameter theory of structural chemistry and photochemistry.

### 3.2 Matter

The shortcoming of this theory, of course, is that the matter doesn’t move (except by radiative transitions). The theory is missing vibrational and rotational levels, not to mention reactions, diffusion, etc.

To allow motion, we must put in finite values for the nuclear masses. In doing this, we open ourselves up to many, many more input parameters. At a minimum we need the masses of the different nuclei and isotopes, and for accuracy in details we need their spins and magnetic moments, etc. At this level, all of them must be taken from experiment. There are several hundreds of parameters. Nevertheless, because they are highly overconstrained by hundreds of thousands of measurements, the resulting theory is extremely useful. It is the foundation of practical quantum chemistry.

The next step in reduction is the one supplied by QCD. QCD assures us that all the nuclear parameters can be calculated crudely – perhaps at the 10% level – using QCD Lite. To do this, we need only one parameter beyond $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$, as I’ve already discussed. That parameter can be taken as the coupling $`g_s`$, normalized at some appropriate energy scale (say $`10^5m_ec^2`$), or equivalently the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, which is roughly speaking the scale at which the coupling becomes large. To do a more accurate job, we also need to introduce the light quark masses $`m_u,m_d`$.

Our faith in QCD is not based primarily on its practical ability to reproduce nuclear parameters. The best quantitative tests of the theory come from an entirely different domain of behavior, scattering at ultra-high energy, where the quark and gluon degrees of freedom and their couplings are clearly revealed. We rely on the successful outcome of these tests, and (so far) rather crude results from massive numerical calculations of proton structure and the hadron spectrum for empirical support. This support is highly leveraged by the theory’s being rigidly principled. It embodies the basic principles of relativity, quantum mechanics, and gauge symmetry. Only a few parameters appear in the most general consistent embodiment of these principles. They are just the ones we use!777There is also the notorious $`\theta `$ parameter, a can of worms I don’t want to dive into just now.

So in practice the “reduction” we offer the chemists, or for that matter the nuclear physicists, is not of much use to them. But it is there, as a matter of principle.

At this point our best available reduction of ordinary matter is in place. A fundamental theory that we believe offers an extremely complete and accurate set of equations governing the structure and behavior of matter in ordinary circumstances, with a very liberal definition of “ordinary”, requires the parameters $`\mathrm{},c,e,m_e,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},m_u,m_d`$. Among these $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ can be regarded as conversion factors, $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ are relatively minor players, and one combination just sets an overall length scale. Thus we have a rough reduction of matter involving two parameters, and an accurate one involving four. Not bad!

### 3.3 Astrophysics

In astrophysics, as opposed to condensed matter physics, chemistry, and biology, gravity and the weak interactions play important roles. Their intrinsic weakness is compensated by the availability of vast amounts of matter and vast amounts of time, respectively. To treat these additional interactions we must introduce two additional parameters, the Newton constant $`G_N`$ and the Fermi constant $`G_F`$. Altogether, then, we now have $`\mathrm{},c,e,m_e,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}},m_u,m_d,G_N,G_F`$. Referring back to our discussion of Planck’s hypothesis, we are inclined to regard $`\mathrm{},c`$ and $`G_N`$ as conversion factors. Also, we derive both $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ from the value of the unified coupling at the Planck scale. So we are left with this “reasonable” number ($`g_{\mathrm{unified}}1/2`$) and four “unreasonable” numbers: $`m_e,m_u,m_d`$, and $`G_F^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, that specify various masses in Planck units.

The absurd smallness of these numbers, and of the dimensionless ratio888It is important to note that the dimensionless form of this ratio does not involve $`G_N`$. Its absurd smallness is not an artifact of Planck units. $`m_e(G_F/\mathrm{}c)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, define important unmet challenges for theoretical physics. They are salient aspects of what are called the hierarchy and flavor problems, respectively.

Though wonderful challenges remain, the success of the reductionist program is already most impressive. An accurate description of matter, including astrophysics, is built up from a few abstract principles and five parameters.

### 3.4 Cosmology and Quantitative Anthropics

Having come this far it would be inhuman not to take the discussion to its logical climax in cosmology. That brings in many unsettled questions that go far beyond the scope of this lecture. I’ll restrict myself to a very brief discussion of a few issues closely tied to the foregoing considerations. I’ll assume as given the emerging “standard model of cosmology”, based on small perturbations around a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model.

To specify quantitatively the standard model of cosmology we must add a few more parameters to our world-model. These include at least the baryon number density $`\rho _b`$, the dark matter density $`\rho _d`$, the overall amplitude $`A`$ of a scale-invariant spectrum of primordial fluctuations (assumed adiabatic and Gaussian), and the cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Further work may uncover the need for additional parameters, for example if the Universe is not quite flat, or if the spectrum of perturbations is not quite scale-invariant, but for now the four I mentioned appear to form an adequate, minimal set. If we accept that cosmology is “reduced” to general principles and four continuous parameters, beyond the ones we use to describe matter and astrophysics, the question arises how far this achievement fulfills the reductionist program. I think that most physicists do not feel entirely satisfied with it. That is because the parameters in cosmology, given in this way, do not appear directly in the description of the behavior of simple fundamental entities. Rather they appear as the description of average properties of macroscopic (very macroscopic!) agglomerations. We would like to calculate these parameters in terms of different ones more related to the fundamental laws of physics in the early Universe. There are rough ideas about how we might do this in the cases of $`\rho _b`$ (B and CP violation) and $`\rho _d`$ (axion and/or lightest supersymmetric particle production), even rougher ideas in the case of $`A`$ (inflationary potentials), and various tenuous speculations regarding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. There is a very good chance, I think, that the constitution of the dark matter will detected experimentally in the near future. Then we’ll have a much better chance to understand at least $`\rho _d`$ properly!

Taken this far the status of the reductionist program in cosmology, though much less fully developed, is not very different in character from the preceding discussions of matter and astrophysics. But there are specifically cosmological issues, too.

Although it is usually passed over in silence, I think it is very important philosophically, and deserves to be emphasized, that our standard cosmology is radically modest in its predictive ambitions. It consigns almost everything about the world as we find it to contingency. That includes not only the aforementioned question of the number of planets in the Solar System, but more generally every specific fact about every specific object or group of objects in the Universe, apart from a few large-scale statistical regularities. Indeed, specific structures are supposed to evolve from the primordial perturbations, and these are only characterized statistically. In inflationary models these perturbations arise as quantum fluctuations, and their essentially statistical character is a consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

This unavoidably suggests the question whether we might find ourselves forced to become even more radically modest.999A few outliers hope to move back the other way. One can only wish them luck! Let us suppose for the sake of argument the best possible case, that we had in hand the fundamental equations of physics. Some of my colleagues think they do, or soon will. Even then we have to face the question of what principle determines the solution of these equations that describes the observed Universe. Let me again suppose for the sake of argument the best possible case, that there is some principle that singles out a unique acceptable solution. Even then there is a question we have to face: If the solution is inhomogeneous, what determines our location within it?

Essentially inhomogeneous solutions of fundamental equations are by no means a contrived or remote possibility. They are at the heart of all the brane-world constructions that have received much attention recently; they are characteristic of eternal inflation models; they arise very naturally in axion physics and its generalizations . On a less cosmic scale, closer to home, they are what we see all around us – and of course, each of us is a highly structured inhomogeneity.

The standard cosmological model is yet another case, and supplies an especially clear parable. As we have just discussed, the laws of reductionist physics do not suffice to tell us about the specific properties of the Sun, or of Earth. Indeed, there are many roughly similar but significantly different stars and planets elsewhere in the same Universe. On the other hand, we can aspire to a rational, and even to some extent quantitative, “derivation” of the parameters of the Sun and Earth based on fundamental laws, if we define them not by pointing to them as specific objects – that obviates any derivation – but rather by characterizing broad aspects of their behavior. In principle any behavior will do, but possibly the most important and certainly the most discussed is their role in supporting the existence of intelligent observers, the so-called anthropic principle. There are many peculiarities of the Sun and Earth that can be explained this way. A crude example is that the mass of the Sun could not be much bigger or much smaller than it actually is because it would burn out too fast or not radiate sufficient energy, respectively.

Now if the Universe as we now know it constitutes, like the Solar System, an inhomogeneity within some larger structure, what might be a sign of it?101010Of course, to make it interesting I’m assuming that we can’t actually look beyond, due to the vastness of the homogeneous region we’re in, or the limitations of our probes. If the parameters of fundamental physics crucial to life – just the ones we’ve been discussing! – vary from place to place, and most places are uninhabitable, there would be a signature to expect. We should expect to find that some of these parameters appear very peculiar – highly nongeneric – from the point of view of fundamental theory, and that relatively small changes in their values would preclude the existence of intelligent observers. Weinberg has made a case that the value of the cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fits this description; and I’m inclined to think that $`(m_um_d)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and several other combinations of the small number of ingredients in our reduced description of matter and astrophysics do too. A fascinating set of questions is suggested here, that deserves careful attention .

## 4 Metatheory

QCD is unique among physical theories in its combination of logical closure and empirical success. So it is appropriate to consider it from the outside, as an object of metatheory.

### 4.1 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of QCD

There is a sense in which QCD is better than it has to be. It is not a complete theory of the world. Even within the standard model quarks have additional interactions, beyond QCD, that become significant – indeed, problematic – at short distances. So there is no logical requirement that QCD, extrapolated on its own down to infinitely short distances, should exist as a fully consistent relativistic quantum field theory. But it does. Is this just a happy coincidence, or does it point to something deeper? (Candidate idea: There must be fully consistent quantum field theories, because such theories are the ultimate description of Nature. A few years ago this might have been string-blasphemy; now it might be acceptable as duality.)

Although it’s somewhat off the point, I’ll take the opportunity to mention that this over-effectiveness reminds me of another apparently quite unrelated case, the cosmic censorship hypothesis in general relativity. We know that classical general relativity is not a complete theory, and there’s no logical reason why it should hide its defects from view. Yet in many cases, and perhaps generically, it does seem that singularities get hidden behind horizons.

### 4.2 The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of QCD

There some aspects of QCD I find deeply troubling – though I’m not sure if I should!

I find it disturbing that it takes vast computer resources, and careful limiting procedures, to simulate the mass and properties of a proton with decent accuracy. And for real-time dynamics, like scattering, the situation appears pretty hopeless. Nature, of course, gets such results fast and effortlessly. But how, if not through some kind of computation, or a process we can mimic by computation?

Does this suggest that there are much more powerful forms of computation that we might aspire to tap into? Does it connect to the emerging theory of quantum computers? These musings suggest some concrete challenges: Could a quantum computer calculate QCD processes efficiently? Could it defeat the sign problem, that plagues all existing algorithms with dynamical fermions? Could it do real-time dynamics, which is beyond the reach of existing, essentially Euclidean, methods?

Or, failing all that, does it suggest some limitation to the universality of computation?

Deeply related to this is another thing I find disturbing. If you go to a serious mathematics book and study the rigorous construction of the real number system, you will find it is quite hard work and cumbersome. QCD, and for that matter the great bulk of physics starting with classical Newtonian mechanics, has been built on this foundation. In practice, it functions quite smoothly. It would be satisfying, though, to have a “more reduced” description, based on more primitive, essentially discrete structures. Fredkin and recently Wolfram have speculated at length along these lines. I don’t think they’ve got very far, and the difficulties facing such a program are immense. But it’s an interesting issue.

#### Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818. I’d like to thank the organizers for putting together a varied and fascinating program, and bringing it all to Paris. And I’d like specifically to thank Dominique Schiff for encouraging me to give a “philosophical” talk, which I had fun doing. She shouldn’t be held responsible for my excesses, though.


format: text

text:
# Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays: Strangelets?0† —– Extra dimensions, TeV-scale black holes and strange matter

##

Two puzzles in modern physics and astrophysics at least: What’s the nature of ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs)? Does strange (quark) matter exist? These two might be understood by offering a simple suggestion that UHECRs are actually strange matter, which does not conflict with the study of extra dimensions.

The UHECRswx02  detected, with energy as high as $`3\times 10^{20}`$ eV, can not be usual cosmic rays (protons, nuclei) due to the GZK-cutoff, and also not be photons since photon-photon pair production can significantly loss the energy, and various ideas appear then in literatures to understand the observations, including decaying of topological defects, violation of the Lorentz invariance, etc. However the more realistic candidates, within the framework of the standard model of particle physics, are neutrinosfs02  and strangeletsml02 , both of which are basically unaffected by the GZK-cutoff. Madsen & Larsenml02  suggested that UHECRs are strangelets (stable lumps of strange matter) since strangelets can have high mass (circumventing the GZK-cutoff) and charge (being helpful for acceleration) but low charge-to-mass ratio. In addition, many detected events (e.g., the Centauro events) of cosmic ray experiments were suggested to be strangelet-originatedww96 . But a necessary and difficult issue is the detailed Monte Carlo simulation of strangelet shower development, which is certainly important to obtain a certain conclusion. Actually the propagation of strangelets through the terrestrial atmosphere is consideredbgrs99 ; bgrs00 ; bgmrs00 , by which some exotic cosmic ray events may be explained. If UHECRs are strangelets, they are very probably not neutrinos since maybe no Greisen neutrinos (through the interaction of UHECRs with the cosmic microwave background) can be produced.

It is of fundamental importance to study strange matter in physics and astrophysicssuzhou02 . Strange matter may exist if the Bodmer-Witten’s conjecture is correct, while the most essential thing is how to find convincing evidence in lab-physics and/or astrophysics. Previously it is a common opinion that strange stars are crusted, but this concept was criticized by Xu & Qiaoxq98 ; xian02 , who addressed that bare strange stars (BSSs, i.e., strange stars without crusts) being chosen as the interior of pulsars have advantages. Up to now, there is actually possible evidence for BSSsxian02 : drifting sub-pulses of radio pulsars, featureless thermal spectrum of compact stars, and super-Eddington luminosity of soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters. Besides helping to identify strange stars, the bare quark surface can also be valuable in the study of the formation of TeV-scale black holes. Such mini black hole formation is another astrophysical consequence of BSSs, and we will try to demonstrate below that neutrinos as the candidates of UHECRs can also be excluded at least in the case of two extra dimensions.

TeV-scale black hole is an addition to the old black hole family (primordial black hole, stellar black hole, and supermassive black hole). Recently a great deal of attention is paid to the possibility that our space has more than three dimensionsruba01 ; land02 , especially after Arkani-Hamed et al.’sadd98 ; aadd98  suggestion that the compactified extra dimensions could be as large as $`1`$ mm. It is well known that the Plank scale is $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}1.2\times 10^{19}`$GeV/$`c^2`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$ if the Plank constant, $`c`$ is the speed of light, and $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant), but $`M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ may meaningless if the space of our universe is actually of $`D=3+n`$ dimensions, with $`n`$ extra spatial dimensions. The fundamental gravity scale, $`M_{}`$, for $`D`$ spacial dimensions is then

$$M_{}^{n+2}(\frac{\mathrm{}}{c})^nM_{\mathrm{pl}}^2R^n,$$
(1)
if the $`n`$-dimensional extra space is flat and compact with radii of the order of $`R`$. Arkani-Hamed et al.add98  assume $`M_{}1`$ TeV in order to solve the hierarchy problem of the standard model, the problem of why there exists such a large “desert” between the electroweak scale (of order $`M_{\mathrm{EW}}1`$ TeV) and the Plank scale ($`M_{\mathrm{pl}}10^{16}`$ TeV). One can obtain $`R(\mathrm{}/M_{}c)(M_{\mathrm{pl}}/M_{})^{2/n}`$ from eq.(1). The extra dimensions should be $`n2`$, because of $`R=2.8\times 10^{15}`$ cm for $`n=1`$ which conflicts with observations. In the string theory, the extra dimensions can be as large as $`n=7`$, we thus list the compact radii in case of $`M_{}=1`$ TeV for indications: $`R=0.24`$ cm for $`n=2`$, $`R=1.0\times 10^6`$ cm for $`n=3`$, $`R=2.2\times 10^9`$ cm for $`n=4`$, $`R=5.3\times 10^{11}`$ cm for $`n=5`$, $`R=4.5\times 10^{12}`$ cm for $`n=6`$, and $`R=7.8\times 10^{13}`$ cm for $`n=7`$. Only black holes with mass $`M>M_{}`$ may be expected to form since many unknown quantum gravity effects (e.g., the string excitations) could play important role for $`M<M_{}`$. The Schwartzchild radius for a spacial D-dimensional, neutral, non-rotating black hole with mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ isadm98

$$r_\mathrm{s}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\sqrt{\pi }cM_{}}[\frac{M_{\mathrm{BH}}}{M_{}}\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2}]^{\frac{1}{n+1}}.$$
(2)
For TeV-scale black holes, $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}M_{}1`$ TeV, one has $`r_\mathrm{s}(1.54,1.49,1.50,1.54,1.58,1.63)\times 10^{17}`$ cm for $`n=2,3,4,5,6,7`$, respectively. It is found that $`R`$ is much larger than $`r_\mathrm{s}`$.

If UHECRs, with energy $`10^{19}`$eV, are structureless point-like particles in the standard model, miniature black holes may form when they bombard BSSsgll02 . Without losing generality, let’s assume UHECRs are neutrinos, and have a discussion below. When such a neutrino with energy $`E_\nu `$ interacts with a quark with mass $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ in a BSS, a TeV-scale black hole may form if the center-of-mass energy $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}=\sqrt{2c^2m_\mathrm{q}E_\nu }>M_{}1`$ TeV and the interaction is within a scale of $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}c^2E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$). As the neutrino and the quark are extremely close, with a scale of $`R`$, they may feel extra dimensions by much strong gravitational interaction since gravitons can propagate in bulk although most of the other particles are in brane only. Once a TeV-scale mini black hole forms, it decaystu02 ; gll02 , radiating thermally, over a surface area $`A`$, at the Hawking temperature $`T_\mathrm{H}`$,

$$A=r_\mathrm{s}^{n+2}\frac{2\pi ^{(n+3)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+3}{2})},T_\mathrm{H}(M_{\mathrm{BH}})=\frac{\mathrm{}c}{k}\frac{n+1}{4\pi r_\mathrm{s}},$$
(3)
where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, unless $`T_\mathrm{H}`$ is smaller enoughgll02 ,

$$T_\mathrm{H}(E_{\mathrm{cm}}/c^2)<T_{\mathrm{eff}}T_\mathrm{F}\sqrt{\gamma }[1+(1\gamma ^2)/3]^{1/4},$$
(4)
where $`T_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi temperature of quarks, and $`\gamma =(E_\nu +m_\mathrm{q}c^2)/E_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ is the Lorentz factor of the newborn mini black hole after the initial collision. The initially produced hole increases mass by absorption of another particle if Eq.(4) is satisfied, and will continue to accrete to a mass of $`E_\nu `$, in a scale ($`0.1`$ mm) being much smaller than the radius of a BSS, before it stopsgll02  (i.e., with $`\gamma =1`$). At this time, the mini black hole causes eventually a catastrophic collapse of all of the BSS into a stellar black hole if $`T_\mathrm{H}(E_\nu /c^2)<T_\mathrm{F}`$. Therefore neutrino-induced collapse of BSSs requires both $`T_\mathrm{H}(E_{\mathrm{cm}}/c^2)<T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{H}(E_\nu /c^2)<T_\mathrm{F}`$.

We calculated for these two requirements by choosing $`M_{}=1`$ TeV, $`T_\mathrm{F}=0.5`$ GeV, and $`m_\mathrm{q}=m_\mathrm{s}=200`$ MeV ($`m_\mathrm{s}`$ is the current mass of strange quark); the results are shown in Fig.1. It is found that, for $`n`$ from $`2`$ to $`7`$, the neutrino energy at which $`T_\mathrm{H}(E_{\mathrm{cm}}/c^2)<T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is fulfilled is much lower than that where $`T_\mathrm{H}(E_\nu /c^2)<T_\mathrm{F}`$ is satisfied. This means that it is easier for an ultra high energy neutrino to trigger the formation of a TeV-scale black hole which may eventually decay by Hawking radiation, whereas neutrino-induced collapse of the whole star into a stellar black hole needs much higher $`E_\nu `$. So one can have following a scenario for a neutrino with $`E_\nu >(10^{13}10^{15})`$ eV when it collides a BSS: it either leads formation of a TeV-scale black hole which evaporates soon, or results in a collapse of the BSS into a stellar black hole if $`E_\nu `$ is high enough. However for such a neutrino bombarding a neutron star or a crusted strange star, only a TeV-scale black hole with substantial Hawking radiation can be created and the formation of a stellar black hole is impossible, since the mean free length ($`\rho r_\mathrm{s}^2/m_\mathrm{u}1`$ cm, with the outer-crust density $`\rho 10^{10}`$g/cm3 and the atomic mass unit $`m_\mathrm{u}`$) of the black hole production is much smaller than the thickness ($`0.5`$ km) of the crustsgll02 . It is worth noting that the extra dimensions are supposed to be flat in the above calculations. A study of warped extra dimensions, as in the model of Randal & Sundrum, is necessary, which may results in the suppression of black hole growthfe02 .

The exotic quark surface of a bare strange star could thus be an effective astro-laboratory in the investigations of the extra dimensions and of the detection of ultra-high energy neutrino fluxes. Generally the age of BSSs should be greater than $`10^{79}`$ year if BSSs are the nature of pulsars. This gives a limit of neutrino flux smaller than $`10^{26}`$ cm-2 s-1 for {$`E_\nu >2.3\times 10^{20}`$ eV, $`n=2`$} ({$`E_\nu >5.1\times 10^{23}`$ eV, $`n=3`$}, {$`E_\nu >1.3\times 10^{27}`$ eV, $`n=4`$}, {$`E_\nu >3.5\times 10^{30}`$ eV, $`n=5`$}, {$`E_\nu >1.0\times 10^{34}`$ eV, $`n=6`$}, {$`E_\nu >3.2\times 10^{37}`$ eV, $`n=7`$}), based on Fig.1b. This upper limit conflicts with observation if $`n=2`$, and the UHECRs events with energy $`10^{20}`$ eV motivated Gorham et al.gll02  to address that $`n=2`$ is excluded. Nonetheless, because of the advantagesml02  of strangelets as UHECRs (1, higher electric charge helps to accelerate to much higher energy; 2, more massive strangelets can easily go beyond the GZK-cutoff), one can not simply ruled out $`n=2`$. If our universe has really two extra dimensions, the observed events may in fact be a hint of UHECRs being strangelets (rather than structureless particles, e.g., neutrinos), since increasing possible evidence for BSSs appearsxian02 . Furthermore, if one can identify astrophysical events, with rate of $`_{\mathrm{BSS}\mathrm{BH}}`$, of neutrino-induced collapse of BSSs to black holes in the future, we could obtain observational constrain on the extra dimensions by combining the studies of the neutrino spectrum (if being known) and of $`_{\mathrm{BSS}\mathrm{BH}}`$. It is worth noting that, if the recently discovered UHECRs with energy $`10^{20}`$ eV are actually strangelets, maybe no TeV-scale black hole will be found in future neutrino detectorshh02  (e.g., ICECUBE, RICE), at least the event numbers would be much smaller than that expected previouslyfs02 . We note here that, Kravchenko et. al.kra02  find actually no clear event of ultra high energy neutrino interacting with ice by analyzing the date from the RICE antenna array, but put only upper limits on the flux of such neutrinos, which could be significantly smaller than the results of Fly’s Eye and AGASA (see Fig.8 in kra02 ).

What is the astrophysical origin of strangelets with ultra high energy? One possibility of creation is during supernova exploration since strangelets produced at a very early history of the Universe would have evaporated a long time agoaf85 . But little theoretical work is done to understand the strangelet production in this way, including the mass distribution of strangelets ejected from a protostrange star and the full emerging spectrum in mass-energy after the strangelets pass through the expanding shellvh98 . Strong magnetic field ($`10^{12}`$ G) is created soonxb01 , and a strangelet with baryon number $`A10^9`$ can be accelerated to $`10^{20}`$ eV in the unipolar induced electric field ($`6\times 10^{16}/P_{10}^2`$ volts, with $`P_{10}`$ the initial rotation period in 10 ms, $`P_{10}1`$) if the strangelet have chargeml02  $`Z8A^{1/3}`$ and is almost totally ionized. The Lorentz factor of a strangelet with baryon $`A10^9`$ and energy $`10^{20}`$ eV is only $`\gamma 10^2`$, and the radiative energy losses proposedm03  are thus negligible because of high baryon numbers (the radiation efficiency is proportional to $`(Z/A)^2A^{2/3}`$). The energy per quark in such a strangelet is only $`10^{11}`$ eV, which is too low to trigger the formation of a TeV-scale black hole.

There are some other astrophysical indications of strange matter ejected during supernova explorations. For example, pulsar planets were discoveredwf92  but their astrophysical origin is not known with certaintymh01 ; an alternative and simple suggestion is that they are in fact strange (matter) objects which were ejected with a velocity being smaller than the escaping velocity from stellar surface and then fell back to planet orbits. Strange objects with mass much smaller than planet one, in a fossil disk formed after supernova exploration, may sometimes accrete onto the center star as accretion flow falls toward the star. If the star is a BSS, the gravitational energy release in this process may trigger an extremely super-Eddington burst, like that observed in soft $`\gamma `$-ray repeaters (SGRs). As addressedzxq00 ; usov01 , it may be natural to explain the burst, with peak luminosity $`10^7`$ times of Eddington one, and the light curves in a framework that a comet-like object falls to a BSS. We propose that these comet-like objects are actually strange objects. For such an object with $`10^{24}`$ g, its radius is $`10^8`$ cm if its density $`1`$ g/cm3, but is only $`10`$ m if it is a strange object. As we know pulsar-like stars have a typical radius $`10^6`$ cm, because of the strong tide effect near the star, the comet-like objects can not be composed of water, dust, or other ordinary matter, but of strange matter. In addition, the gravitational microlensing study reports objects with much low masssahu01 , which may be composed also of strange matter.


text:
# Net baryon density in 𝐴𝑢+𝐴𝑢 collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

## Abstract

We calculate the net baryon rapidity distribution in Au+Au collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in the framework of the Parton Cascade Model (PCM). Parton rescattering and fragmentation leads to a substantial increase in the net baryon density at mid-rapidity over the density produced by initial primary parton-parton scatterings. The PCM is able to describe the measured net baryon density at RHIC.

preprint: DUKE-TH-02-224

First experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) have shown that the matter created in the central rapidity region contains a significant excess of baryons over antibaryons. While a slight baryon excess was not unexpected, the magnitude of the net baryon multiplicity density $`dN_{\mathrm{B}\overline{\mathrm{B}}}/dy19\pm 2`$ bbar\_exp ; itzhak  at $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=130`$ GeV and $`14\pm 4`$ brahms  at $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=200`$ GeV is higher than what many theoretical models had predicted LC4RHIC . In particular models in which the deposition of energy at midrapidity is driven by quasiclassical glue fields ColorGlass  or fragmenting color flux tubes Schwinger , which produce quarks and anti-quarks in equal abundance, underpredicted the data. On the other hand, models invoking baryon junctions Kharzeev ; HijingB  for the transport of baryon number from the beam rapidity into the central region $`y0`$ have done remarkably well. The baryon junction mechanism was originally proposed as a means to understand baryon number annihilation and stopping in elementary $`p+p`$ and $`p+\overline{p}`$ reactions junction\_orig . In this letter we shall address the question whether only baryon junctions provide a mechanism capable of explaining the RHIC data, or whether they can also be understood in the framework of a more conventional picture, based on parton distributions and pQCD driven multiple interactions.

Two effects based on established physics can contribute to the baryon excess at midrapidity. First, the measured parton distribution functions in the nucleon are well known to exhibit a substantial asymmetry between quark and antiquark distributions at moderately small values of Bjorken-$`x`$ ($`x0.01`$) relevant for RHIC energies ( Fig. 1, see below). Second, it is known from experiments with $`p+A`$ collisions that multiple scattering is quite effective in transporting baryons to smaller rapidities Busza . The parton cascade model (PCM) GM92 ; Geiger ; VNIBMS  provides a natural framework for exploring the consequences of these two effects quantitatively.

Devised as a description of the early, pre-equilibrium phase of a nucleus-nucleus collision at relativistic energy, the PCM does not include a description of hadronization and the subsequent scattering among hadrons. These late-stage processes, however, are not expected to alter the distribution of net baryon number with respect to rapidity, because baryon diffusion in a hadronic gas is slow Stephanov  and net baryon number is locally conserved. We therefore believe that these limitations of the PCM approach should not stand in the way of an adequate explanation of the net baryon distribution. In this work, we present calculations of the net baryon multiplicity density distribution in Au+Au collisions at 130 and 200 GeV center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair.

The fundamental assumption underlying the PCM is that the state of the dense partonic system can be characterized by a set of one-body distribution functions $`F_i(x^\mu ,p^\alpha )`$, where $`i`$ denotes the flavor index ($`i=g,u,\overline{u},d,\overline{d},\mathrm{}`$) and $`x^\mu ,p^\alpha `$ are coordinates in the eight-dimensional phase space. The partons are assumed to be on their mass shell, except before the first scattering. In our numerical implementation, the GRV-HO parametrization grv  is used, and the parton distribution functions are sampled at an initialization scale $`Q_0^2`$ to create a discrete set of particles. Partons generally propagate on-shell and along straight-line trajectories between interactions. Before their first collision, partons may have a space-like four-momentum, especially if they are assigned an “intrinsic” transverse momentum.

The time-evolution of the parton distribution is governed by a relativistic Boltzmann equation:

$$p^\mu \frac{}{x^\mu }F_i(x,\stackrel{}{p})=𝒞_i[F]$$
(1)
where the collision term $`𝒞_i`$ is a nonlinear functional of the phase-space distribution function. The calculations discussed below include all lowest-order QCD scattering processes between massless quarks and gluons Cutler.78 . A low momentum-transfer cut-off $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$ is needed to regularize the infrared divergence of the perturbative parton-parton cross sections. Additionally, we include the branchings $`qqg`$, $`qq\gamma `$, $`ggg`$ and $`gq\overline{q}`$ frag . The soft and collinear singularities in the showers are avoided by terminating the branchings when the virtuality of the time-like partons drops below $`\mu _0=1`$ GeV. Some of these aspects were originally discussed in Geiger . The present work is based on our thoroughly revised, corrected, and extensively tested implementation of the parton cascade model, named VNI/BMS VNIBMS .

Figure 1 shows the net baryon-number distribution $`xA\left[f_q(x)f_{\overline{q}}(x)\right]/3`$ with the Bjorken-$`x`$ variable. We have defined,

$$xf_q(x)=\underset{i=u,d,s}{}xF_i(x),$$
(2)
where $`F_i(x)`$ is the iso-spin averaged parton-distribution function for a nucleon in the gold nucleus, so that

$$F_i(x)=\frac{Z}{A}F_i^P(x)+\frac{(AZ)}{A}F_i^N(x).$$
(3)
where the superscripts $`P`$ and $`N`$ stand for protons and neutrons. Thus the figure brings out the asymmetry between the quark and antiquark distributions at moderately small values of Bjorken-$`x`$ ($`x0.01`$) relevant for energy deposition at midrapidity at RHIC energies. The various lines denote different initialization scales for the parton distribution functions. This provides the basis for the evaluation of the dynamical evolution of the stopping through parton collisions, sometimes accompanied by gluon radiation and quark pair creation.

The partons in a fast moving nucleon or a nucleus are distributed both in the transverse and longitudinal directions. Due to the large longitudinal Lorentz contraction, the longitudinal momentum $`p_z=xP`$ is the most interesting variable. Before or immediately after the first collision of a parton, one can relate $`p_z`$ to the rapidity variable $`y=Y+\mathrm{ln}x+\mathrm{ln}(M/Q_s)`$, where $`Y`$ is the rapidity of the fast moving nucleon, $`M`$ is the nucleon mass, and $`Q_s`$ denotes the typical transverse momentum scale. Depending on the picture of the initial state, $`Q_s`$ is either given by the average intrinsic virtuality, often called the saturation scale sat-Q , or by the typical transverse momentum given to the parton in the first interaction which brings it onto the mass shell. In any case, $`|\mathrm{ln}(M/Q_s)|<1/2`$ for Au+Au collisions at RHIC.

If the partons in the two gold nuclei were to decohere completely upon passing through each other without any further interaction, the resulting net baryon rapidity distribution would be approximately given by figure 1 – predicting a contribution to the net baryon density of about 7 at mid-rapidity (with $`Y=5.4`$ for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=`$200 GeV) due to each nucleus. This is seen as follows. The baryon number in the nucleus $`A`$ is given by

$$A=\frac{1}{3}A\left[xf_q(x)xf_{\overline{q}}(x)\right]d\mathrm{ln}x,$$
(4)
so that the net baryon-distribution “contained” in the nucleus is

$$\left(\frac{dN}{dy}\right)_{B\overline{B}}=\frac{1}{3}xA\left[f_q(x)f_{\overline{q}}(x)\right].$$
(5)
We shall see that the parton-interactions incorporated in the PCM remain consistent with this intuitive picture.

A crucial parameter of the PCM is the low momentum transfer cut-off $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$. Under certain assumptions this parameter can be determined from experimental data for elementary hadron-hadron collisions sjostrand ; naga ; eskola1 . In the environment of a heavy-ion collision, color screening will destroy the association of partons to particular hadrons, since the density of free color charges is so high that the color screening length becomes smaller than the typical hadronic scale. In a previous publication VNIBMS  we have established a consistency limit for the allowed range of $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$ by calculating the screening mass $`\mu _D`$ in the produced parton matter as a function of the cut-off $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$ and demanding ($`p_T^{\text{min}}\mu _D`$). The initialization scale and low momentum cut-off of the pQCD cross sections were chosen as $`Q_0^2=(p_T^{\text{min}})^2=0.50`$ GeV2 for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=130`$ GeV and 0.59 GeV2 for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=200`$ GeV, respectively. The energy scaling of this parameter agrees with that determined by Eskola et al. EKRT  for the geometric minijet saturation model.

Figure 2 shows the PCM predictions for the net baryon rapidity distributions for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=130`$ GeV (upper panel) and 200 GeV (lower panel), respectively. The initial projectile and target rapidities are $`\pm 4.9`$ for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=130`$ GeV and $`\pm 5.4`$ for $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=200`$ GeV. The calculations are done without assigning any intrinsic $`k_T`$ to the partons – initially all partons move with the velocity $`\beta =\pm P_z^\mathrm{A}/E_A`$ of the nucleus in the center-of-mass frame, where $`P_z`$ is the momentum and $`E_A`$ is the energy of the nucleus.

Crosses in Fig. 2 denote a calculation in which the PCM has been restricted to primary-primary parton scatterings, and therefore reflects a calculation in which each parton is allowed to scatter only once. Already one hard collision is sufficient to deposit a net surplus of quarks into the mid-rapidity region, resulting in a net baryon density at $`y_{cm}=0`$ of 6.3 for 130 GeV and 5.0 at 200 GeV. For comparison, the net baryon number distribution for each colliding nucleus, scaled by a factor 0.4 from the distribution shown in Fig. 1, is shown as a solid line. The remarkable agreement demonstrates that the net baryon number distribution produced by first parton-parton collisions is predetermined by the initial parton structure of the nuclei. The factor 0.4 is the average “liberation factor” $`c`$ for partons in the PCM for the selected parameters. This factor is consistent with predictions by some gluon saturation models KV01 .

The diamonds in Fig. 2 represent a calculation with full parton-parton rescattering. Allowing for multiple parton collisions increases the net baryon density at mid-rapidity roughly by a factor of two at 130 GeV and by 75% at 200 GeV, filling up the dip around mid-rapidity. This trend continues when parton fragmentation is included (squares): at 130 GeV fragmentation processes add another 50% to the net baryon density at mid-rapidity, bringing it up to about 18, whereas at 200 GeV the net baryon density increases to near 14. The rapidity change of a quark in each subsequent collision after its liberation in the first hard scattering yields an average rapidity shift of roughly 0.65 units per collision.

The band around mid-rapidity in Fig. 2 denotes the range of experimental estimates for the net-baryon density at mid-rapidity for 130 GeV and 200 GeV, respectively bbar\_exp ; brahms ; itzhak . These estimates depend on how the extrapolations from ($`p\overline{p}`$) and ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) to ($`B\overline{B}`$) have been carried out, the extreme scenarios being the assumption of full isospin equilibration for baryons, $`(B\overline{B})=2\times (p\overline{p})`$, vs. the full inclusion of the isospin asymmetry of the initial state, $`(B\overline{B})=A/Z\times (p\overline{p})`$. Note that our calculation does not suffer from this uncertainty.

Figure 3 shows the net baryon density at mid-rapidity as a function of the momentum cut-off $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$ for Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}=200`$ GeV. Again, crosses denote the calculation restricted to primary-primary collisions, diamonds represent the full rescattering mode and squares include the effect of parton fragmentations. The observed power law dependence of the net baryon density as a function of $`Q_0`$ stems from the properties of the pQCD cross sections in the PCM. The absence of a saturation at small values of $`Q_0`$ indicates that not all valence quarks are “liberated” in the range of cut-off values considered here. Indeed, we find that the liberation factor for quarks in the nuclear parton distributions varies from about 0.7 for $`x>0.1`$ to about 0.2 for $`x0.01`$. Figure 3 can be used to rescale the PCM prediction for the net baryon rapidity distribution in Fig. 2 (bottom part) to other values of $`Q_0`$. For the range of $`Q_0`$ values extracted from RHIC data the PCM is well able to describe the measured net baryon excess.

This success raises the obvious question: what does our model predict for the net baryon distribution at lower energies? We have reported prc\_contrast  recently that the partonic cascades provide only a dilute medium at SPS energies ($`\sqrt{s}_{NN}20`$ GeV), which does not support enough multiple scattering among partons to justify a perturbative treatment. This implies that partonic cascades having $`p_T>p_T^{\text{min}}`$ constitute only a small part of the dynamics of the collision at SPS energies. Indeed we find that the net-baryon multiplicity at central rapidity in Pb+Pb collision at $`\sqrt{s}_{NN}`$ = 17.4 GeV is only about 20% of the experimental value estimated by the NA49 experiment na49 . Similar considerations also apply to $`p+p`$ collisions, which do not produce a dense partonic medium where color screening occurs at a perturbative scale $`p_T^{\text{min}}>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The transport of net baryon number then must be due to nonperturbative mechanisms. The situation is dramatically different in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC energies, where multiple parton scattering at $`p_T>p_T^{\text{min}}`$ produces a medium, in which color is screened at a sufficiently short distance to allow for a choice of $`p_T^{\text{min}}`$ in the domain of pQCD.

In conclusion, we find that the parton cascade model predicts a net baryon excess at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at RHIC, which is in qualitative agreement with the measured values. Two mechanisms are driving this excess: One is the presence of a net baryon density in the initial state parton distributions at Bjorken-$`x`$ around 0.01 reflecting the size of the valence quark component in this range of $`x`$. The other important factor is the rescattering among partons, which transports more partons, and hence additional net baryon number, to mid-rapidity. This transport mechanism increases the net baryon number density well into the range of measured values.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by RIKEN, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, DOE grants DE-FG02-96ER40945 and DE-AC02-98CH10886, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Momentum Distribution Function of a Narrow Hall Bar in the FQHE Regime

## Abstract

The momentum distribution function ($`n(k)`$) of a narrow Hall bar in the fractional quantum Hall effect regime is investigated using Luttinger liquid and microscopic many-particle wavefunction approaches. For wide Hall bars with filling factor $`\nu =1/M`$, where $`M`$ is an odd integer, $`n(k)`$ has singularities at $`\pm Mk_F`$. We find that for narrow Hall bars additional singularities occur at smaller odd integral multiples of $`k_F`$: $`n(k)A_pk\pm pk_F^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_p1}`$ near $`k=\pm pk_F`$, where $`p`$ is an odd integer $`M,M2,M4,\mathrm{},1`$. If inter-edge interactions can be neglected, the exponent $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_p=(1/\nu +p^2\nu )/2`$ is independent of the width ($`w`$) of the Hall bar but the amplitude of the singularity $`A_p`$ vanishes exponentially with $`w`$ for $`pM`$.

Incompressible states associated with the fractional quantum Hall effect have gapless edge excitations which can be described using a chiral Luttinger liquid model. At $`\nu =1/M`$ the momentum distribution functions of these liquids have singular contributions proportional to $`|k\pm Mk_F|^{M1}`$ where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wavevectorW ; KF ; MM ; HR . The singularities give rise to a number of power laws for the dependence of observables on temperature or on voltage which differ from the power laws which would apply for Fermi liquids and can, at least in principle, be tested experimentally. Initial experimentsMUW  appear to confirm the Luttinger liquid model predictions. Experimental systems in which Luttinger liquid model predictions are expected to be tested, often involve the formation of electrostatically defined constrictions in the two-dimensional electron gas, which bring opposite sides of the Hall bar into close proximity and enhance inter-edge scattering amplitudes. In this paper we consider the momentum distribution function of such a narrow Hall bar systems. Using both Luttinger liquid model and microscopic trial wavefunction approaches, we find that additional singularities arise which are absent in the limit of large Hall bars. The presence of these additional singularities may play an important role in interpreting transport and other experiments in narrow Hall bars.

The Lagrangian of the chiral Luttinger liquid modelW ; KF  for the edge excitations of a Hall bar system occupied by an incompressible state with $`\nu =1/M`$ is

$$L=\frac{1}{4\pi \nu }\{_x\varphi _R(i_\tau +v_x)\varphi _R+_x\varphi _L(i_\tau +v_x)\varphi _L\}$$
(1)
This Lagrangian describes independent excitations at the right(R) and left(L) edges with oppositely directed velocities of magnitude $`v`$. The fields $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\varphi _L`$ satisfy the commuation rules

$$[\varphi _R(x),\varphi _R(x^{})]=[\varphi _L(x),\varphi _L(x^{})]=i\pi \nu sgn(xx^{})$$
(2)
The operators for creating an electron and a fractionally charged particle with charge $`\nu e`$ at right (R) and left (L) edges may be written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}^+(x)=exp(i\varphi _{R,L}(x)/\nu )`$ and $`exp(i\varphi _{R,L}(x))`$, respectively. The singularites in $`n(k)`$ at $`\pm Mk_F`$ follow from this form for the electron creation operator. The criteria used to construct these operators are that they create the appropriate amount of charge at the edge and that they have the correct statistics. For the electron creation operator there is abundant numerical evidencePM  that this ansatz is correct in wide Hall bars. Although the true microscopic creation operator evidently contains additional contributions in general, these cannot be expressed in terms of the low-energy edge degrees of freedom and will will not give rise to singularities in $`n(k)`$. We believe that for narrow Hall bars the microscopic electron creation operator will have additional low-energy edge contributions. Additional Boson operators with Fermi statistics and unit charge can be created by partitioning the charge between $`n`$ quasiparticles located at the right edge and $`l`$ quasiparticles located at the left edge with $`n+l=M`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}^{}(x)=exp(in\varphi _R)exp(il\varphi _L)$$
(3)
where n+l=M. The propagator of this object may be calculated using the standard bosonization techniques:W ; KF

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}^{}(0)>\frac{exp(i(nl)k_Fx)}{x^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,l}}}$$
(4)
Note that since $`n+l=M`$ is odd, $`p=nl`$ must also be odd. By Fourier transforming $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}^{}(0)>`$ we see that $`n(k)`$ has power-law singularities at $`\pm pk_F`$ with the exponents $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_p1`$, where $`p=M,M2,M4,\mathrm{},1`$ and

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,l}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{\nu }+(nl)^2\nu )$$
(5)
We see that as $`p=nl`$ decreases the exponent $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,l}`$ also decreases. When the width of the Hall bar greatly exceeds microscopic lengths, added electrons will be clearly associated with either left or right edges and the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,l}^{}`$ to the microscopic electron creation operator should become small unless $`n=0`$ or $`l=0`$.

To help verify that these new operators do in general contribute to the microscopic electron creation operator we consider a specific convenient microscopic model of spinless fermions with strong repulsive short-range interactions in a circularly symmetric confining potential which confines the electrons to an annulus. Under appropriate circumstances the exact ground state of such a model is given by a many-fermion wavefunction of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{M,L}[z]=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_k^L\mathrm{\Phi }_M[z]$$
(6)
where $`L`$ is an integer, $`N`$ is the number of electrons, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M[z]`$ is the Laughlin wavefunction at filling factor $`\nu =1/M`$. Here a symmetric gauge is used so that the single particle wavefunctions $`\varphi _m(z)`$ are labelled by angular momenta $`m`$ and are localized around circles of radius $`R_m=\mathrm{}\sqrt{2(m+1)}`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the magnetic length. In this wavefunction all the single particle states from $`m=L`$ to $`L+M(N1)`$ are occupied. Electrons are confined to an annulus with inner and outer radii, $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, equal to $`\mathrm{}(2(L+1))^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(2(L+M(N1)+1))^{1/2}`$ respectively. For $`L1`$, the width of the annulus $`w`$ is $`\mathrm{}\frac{M(N1)1}{(2L)^{1/2}}`$. For $`L=0`$ the innner radius of the annulus shrinks to zero and the wavefunction reduces to the Laughlin wavefunction for the ground electronic state of a circular electron droplet whose outer edge can be described by a Luttinger liquid model. The wavefunction at finite $`L`$ can be thought of as being generated by creating $`L`$ fractionally charged quasiholes at the center of the droplet. For large $`L`$ at fixed $`N`$, the difference between inner and outer radii of the electronic annulus becomes small so that the wavefunction is the ground state wavefunction for a model of a narrow Hall bar. In the limit of infinite $`L`$, the annulus becomes arbitrarily narrow and the wavefunction becomes equivalent to that for the Calogero-SutherlandCS  model of a one-dimensional electron gas. Related connections between Laughlin and Calogero-Sutherland models have been discussed previously.HR ; SF  We note, for example, that the exponents characterizing the singularities in $`n(k)`$ predicted by the Luttinger liquid model above are identical to those of the of the Calogero-Sutherland one-dimensional model.KY

For this circular geometry, the momentum distribution function of a Hall bar maps to the angular momentum distributionMM  of the annulus which is given by

$$<n_m>=d^2zd^2z^{}\varphi _m^{}(z)n(z,z^{})\varphi _m(z^{}).$$
(7)
Here $`n(z,z^{})`$ is the one-body density matrix for the ground state of the system, which we have computed using a Monte Carlo method. We identify $`<n_m>`$ and $`\frac{mm_c}{N/2}`$ with $`n(k)`$ and $`k/k_F`$, where $`m_c=L+M(N1)/2`$ is the angular momentum at the center of the annulus. Then the wavevectors corresponding to the inner and outer edges are $`k/k_F=M(N1)/N`$ and $`k/k_F=M(N1)/N`$.

It is possible to calculate $`n(k)`$ analytically for $`k`$ near $`Mk_F`$ by following WenW  and using a plasma analogy. The total potential energy U of the system is

$$\frac{U}{M}=\underset{i<j}{}2M\mathrm{ln}|z_iz_j|+2L\underset{k}{}\mathrm{ln}|z_k|M\underset{k}{}|z_k|^2/2$$
(8)
where first, second, and third terms represent, respectively, the mutual Coulomb interaction energy, the external potential energy due to the charge L at the origin, and the potential energy due to the uniform positive background charge. The potential energy of a particle placed at $`r>>R_2`$ is a sum of the potential energies due to the fixed charges (background charges and electrons in the annulus)

$$V_{fix}(r)=\frac{Mr^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{MR_2^2}{\mathrm{}^2}ln(r/R_2)$$
(9)
and the screening charge

$$Vsc(r)=Mln|rR_2^2/r|$$
(10)
The electron density may be evaluated using $`\rho (r)e^{(V_{fix}(r)+Vsc(r))/M}`$. Equating $`\rho (𝐫)=_mn_m|\varphi _m(𝐫)|^2`$ we find $`n(k)(k\pm Mk_F)^{M1}`$ near $`k=\pm Mk_F`$.

Fig.1 displays $`n(k)`$ vs $`k/k_F`$ for M=3 at two values of $`w=1.24\mathrm{}`$ and $`2.52\mathrm{}`$. To extract the exponent at $`k=\pm k_F`$ we use a scaling ansatz for the momentum distribution function of a finite sample with length R

$$n(k,R)R^\alpha f(|kk_F|R)$$
(11)
where $`R=2\pi \mathrm{}\sqrt{2(m_c+1)}`$, $`kk_F/k_F1`$, and the scaling function $`f(x)x^\alpha `$ for large x. The difference between $`n(k)`$ at two values of $`k`$ adjacent to $`k_F`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n=n(k_F^+,R)n(k_F^{},R)=g(w)R^\alpha $$
(12)
where $`k_F^+/k_F`$ and $`k_F^{}/k_F`$ are $`1+1/N`$ and $`11/N`$. Analysing our numerical data accordingly we find $`\alpha =0.6\pm 0.1`$. This estimate is consistent with the exact result $`2/3`$. We have also investigated the width dependence $`g(w)`$ and find that it is approximately exponential: $`g(w)exp(w/a)`$ with $`a`$ about $`1.6\mathrm{}`$. The exponent at $`k=\pm 3k_F`$ is numerically verified to be 2, in agreement with the analytical result. In Fig.2 we plot n(k) vs $`(\frac{k}{k_F}+3)^{2.4}`$ for M=5. From the linear dependence we deduce that the relevant exponent is 2.4, in agreement with the Luttinger liquid model predictions.

In summary, we conclude on the basis of both microscopic many-particle wavefunctions and Luttinger liquid model that in a narrow Hall bar $`n(k)`$ has singularities at $`k=\pm pk_F`$, where $`p=M,M2,M4,\mathrm{},1`$ and that the magnitude of the corresponding exponents decreases with decreasing $`p`$. For both calculations we have worked with models in which inter-edge interactions are absent so that the exponents are independent of the Hall bar width, while the amplitudes of the singularities vanish exponentially with $`w`$ for $`pM`$. These new and stronger singularities will be importantF  in the interpretation of experimental searches for Luttinger liquid behavior in narrow Hall bars.

E. Yang thanks S. J. Rey for useful conversations. This work was supported in part by NON DIRECTED RESEARCH FUND, Korea Research Foundation, and in part by the National Science Foundation under grants DMR-9416906, DMR-9400142, DMR-9528578 and PHY-9407194.