text:
# Dynamics of Phase Transitions in Asymmetric Nuclear Matter

## Introduction

There are quite stimulating predictions on new phases of Asymmetric Nuclear Matter, $`ANM`$, that eventually could be reached during heavy ion reaction dynamics with radioactive beams  . More symmetric and narrower isotopic distribution of primary fragments are predicted, and sensitive to the symmetry term of the $`EOS`$. For semi-central collisions the dynamics of the participant zone appears also to be quite affected by the symmetry term .

Collective flows are particularly interesting since we can probe different density regions of the $`EOS`$. A very stimulating result shown here is the sensitivity to the microscopic covariant structure of the isovector channel in the in medium interaction. A related earlier possible transition to a mixed phase with deconfined matter is finally presented.

The EOS symmetry term

The behaviour of the symmetry term of the nuclear $`EOS`$ is poorly known in regions far from normal density. In the following we will compare results obtained with forces that have the same saturation properties for symmetric $`NM`$. We will refer to a ”asy-stiff/superstiff” $`EOS`$ when we are considering a potential symmetry term with a linear/parabolic increase with nuclear density and to a ”asy-soft” $`EOS`$ when it shows a saturation and eventually a decrease above normal density .

In Figs.2,2 we report, for a $`{}_{}{}^{124}Sn`$ asymmetry $`(NZ)/A=0.2`$, the density dependence of the symmetry contribution to the mean-field potential (left) and of the chemical potentials (right) for neutrons (top curves) and protons (bottom curves) , for the different effective interactions in the isovector channel.

From the behavior in the low densities region we expect that when the inhomogenities develop both neutrons and protons have the tendency to move from lower to higher density regions, in phase: the system is unstable against isoscalar-like fluctuations and not isovector, see later. Since the variations of the two chemical potentials are different (larger for protons) we expect a lower asymmetry in the liquid phase. In the case of a contact between more dilute and ”normal” density regions, we see from Fig.2 that in this range the neutrons have the tendency to move towards the dilute part producing a $`n`$-enrichment while the protons will migrate to the higher density regions. This mechanism is present in the ”neck fragmentation”, : the neck $`IMF^{}s`$ will be always more $`n`$rich compared to the fragments produced in the case of bulk fragmentation.

Stochastic transport simulations  of fragment production collisions at medium energies are confirming these predictions, see refs.  where a comparison with recent data  is also performed.

## Isospin Distillation in Dilute Nuclear Matter

For charge asymmetric systems we expect a qualitative new feature in the liquid-gas phase transition, the onset of chemical instabilities that will show up in a novel structure of the unstable modes . Experimentally this will be revealed through the $`IsospinFractionation`$ or $`Distillation`$ effect in multifragmentation events.

We have now a new degree of freedom, the concentration, and in the spinodal region the fluctuations against which a binary system becomes unstable depend on the nature of the interaction between the two components of the mixture. We define density fluctuations as isoscalar-like in the case when proton and neutron densities fluctuate in phase and as isovector-like when the oscillations are out of phase. For the dilute asymmetric nuclear matter because of the attractive force between protons and neutrons at low density the phase transition is uniquely driven by isoscalar-like instabilities .

An intuitive picture is presented in Fig.3. With increasing asymmetry the direction of the unstable modes (arrows) in the ($`\delta \rho _n,\delta \rho _p`$) plane is more and more diverging from the constant concentration value (thick lines), towards a less asymmetric liquid phase. The angle between the two directions, i.e. the amount of isospin distillation, will be proportional to the repulsion of the symmetry term at sub-saturation densities.

## Symmetry effects at high baryon density: collective flows

It is quite desirable to get information on the symmetry energy at higher density, where furthermore we cannot have complementary investigations from nuclear structure like in the case of the low density behaviour. Heavy Ion Collisions ($`HIC`$) provide a unique way to create asymmetric matter at high density in terrestrial laboratories.

The isospin dependence of collective flows has been already discussed in a non-relativistic framework . The main new result shown here, in a Relativistic Mean Field ($`RMF`$) scheme , is the importance at higher energies of the microscopic covariant structure of the effective interaction in the isovector channel: effective forces with very similar symmetry terms can give rise to very different flows in relativistic heavy ion collisions .

A full description of the isovector channel in a relativistic framework in principle should rely on the balance between a scalar ($`\delta like`$, attractive) and a vector (repulsive)  contributions. This is a quite controversial point. In relativistic $`HIC^{}s`$, due to the large counterstreaming nuclear currents, one may directly exploit the different Lorentz nature of a scalar and a vector field .

For the description of heavy ion collisions we solve the covariant transport equation of the Boltzmann type within the Relativistic Landau Vlasov ($`RLV`$) method  (for the Vlasov part) and applying a Monte-Carlo procedure for the collision term, including inelastic processes involving the production/absorption of nucleon resonances, .

Typical results for the $`{}_{}{}^{132}Sn+^{132}Sn`$ reaction at $`1.5AGeV`$ (semicentral collisions) are shown in Figs. 5, 5. In Fig.5 we report the differential flow $`F^{pn}(y)1/N(y)_ip_{x_i}\tau _i`$ where $`N(y)`$ is the total number of free nucleons at the rapidity $`y`$, $`p_{x_i}`$ is the transverse momentum of particle $`i`$ in the reaction plane, and $`\tau _i`$ is +1 and -1 for protons and neutrons, respectively. The $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ case (full circles and solid line) presents a stiffer behaviour relative to the $`RMF\rho `$ (open circles) model, as expected from the more repulsive symmetry energy $`E_{sym}(\rho _B)`$ at high baryon densities . We have however repeated the calculation using the $`RMFD\rho `$ interaction, i.e. with only a $`\rho `$ contribution but tuned to reproduce the same $`EOS`$ of the $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ case. The results, short-dashed curve of Fig.5, are very similar to the ones of the $`RMF\rho `$ interaction. Therefore we can explain the large flow effect as mainly due to the different strengths of the vector-isovector field between $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ and $`RMF\rho ,D\rho `$ in the relativistic dynamics. In fact if a source is moving the vector field is enhanced (essentially by the local $`\gamma `$ Lorentz factor) relative to the scalar one. Keeping in mind that $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ has a three times larger $`\rho `$ field it is clear that dynamically the vector-isovector mean field acting during the $`HIC`$ is much greater than the one of the $`RMF\rho ,D\rho `$ cases.

In Fig.5 we report the elliptic flow $`v_2(y,p_t)`$, $`v_2=<(p_x^2p_y^2)/p_t^2>`$ where $`p_t=\sqrt{p_x^2+p_y^2}`$ is the transverse momentum . A negative value of $`v_2`$ corresponds to the emission of matter perpendicular to the reaction plane, $`sqeezeout`$ flow. The $`p_t`$-dependence of $`v_2`$ is very sensitive to the high density behavior of the $`EOS`$ since highly energetic particles ($`p_t0.5`$) originate from the initial compressed and out-of-equilibrium phase of the collision. We focus on the proton-neutron difference of the elliptic flow. From Fig.5 we see that in the $`(\rho +\delta )`$ dynamics the high-$`p_t`$ neutrons show a much larger $`squeezeout`$. This is fully consistent with an early emission (more spectator shadowing) due to the larger repulsive $`\rho `$-field. The $`v_2`$ observable, which is a good chronometer of the reaction dynamics, appears to be particularly sensitive to the Lorentz structure of the effective interaction.

$`\pi ^{}/\pi ^+`$ ratios

Using the same relativistic transport code we have evaluated the $`\pi ^{}`$ vs. $`\pi ^+`$ production for central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at different energies, see Fig.6.

As expected the larger repulsion seen by neutrons at high densities in the $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ will show up in a reduced $`n/p`$ ratio, smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{0,}`$ density and finally a reduced $`\pi ^{}`$ production. However now reabsorption effects are important and actually the effect appears to be decreasing at higher energies.

## Isospin and Deconfinement at High Baryon Density

It is relatively easy to show that at high baryon density and low temperature we can expect a transition from hadronic matter to deconfined quark matter. The procedure is straightforward:

(i) Start from two ”reasonable” model Equations of State ($`EOS`$), one for the hadronic phase, which can reproduce saturation properties, one for the quark phase, which can reproduce the hadron spectrum.

(ii)Construct the phase separation boundary surface from the Gibbs phase rule.

For symmetric matter the baryon density $`\rho _{tr}`$ corresponding to the transition to the coexistence region is relatively high, as expected, ranging from 4 to 8 times the saturation value $`\rho _0`$, depending on the stiffness of the hadronic $`EOS`$ at high densities. The new feature we would like to focus on in this report is the isospin dependence of such boundary location. We can foresee an interesting asymmetry effect, in the appealing direction of a decrease of $`\rho _{tr}`$, since the hadronic $`EOS`$ becomes more repulsive ref. .

The proton fraction $`Z/A`$ dependence of the $`\rho _{tr}`$ is reported in Fig.7 with the bag constant value $`B^{1/4}=150`$ MeV and $`\alpha _s=0`$ for the quark phase and various choices for the hadronic $`EOS`$: Dotted line $`GM3`$ parametrization ; Dashed line $`RMF\rho `$ parametrization ; Solid line $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ parametrization . $`GM3`$ and $`RMF\rho `$ have the same source of the interaction symmetry term (only the $`\rho `$-meson).

The effects of the asymmetry appears now quite dramatic: we see a $`\rho _{trans}`$ as low as $`2\rho _0`$ for proton fractions between 0.3 and 0.4, conditions that with some confidence we could ”locally” reach in a heavy ion collision at intermediate energy using exotic very asymmetric beams.

Using our Relativistic Transport Code, with the $`RMF(\rho +\delta )`$ effective interaction, we have performed some simulations of the $`{}_{}{}^{132}Sn+{}_{}{}^{132}Sn`$ (average $`Z/A=0.38`$) collision at various energies, for a semicentral impact parameter, $`b=6fm`$, just to optimize the neutron skin effect. In Fig.7 the paths in the $`(\rho ,Z/A)`$ plane followed in the c.m. region during the collision are reported, at two energies $`300AMeV`$ (crosses) and $`1AGeV`$ (circles). We see that already at $`300AMeV`$ we are reaching the border of the mixed phase, and we are well inside it at $`1AGeV`$.

In conclusion we support the possibility of observing precursor signals of the phase transition to a deconfined matter in violent collision (central and semicentral) of exotic (radioactive) heavy ions in the energy range of few hundred MeV per nucleon. A possible signature could be revealed through an earlier ”softening” of the hadronic $`EOS`$ for larger asymmetries.

## Outlook: The Eleven Observables

As a conclusion of our report we like to suggest a selection of Eleven Observables, from low to relativistic energies, that we expect particularly sensitive to the microscopic structure of the in medium interaction in the isovector channel, i.e. to the symmetry energy and its “fine structure”:

1. Competition of Reaction Mechanisms. Interplay of low-energy dissipative mechanisms, e.g. , fusion (incomplete) vs. deep-inelastic vs. neck fragmentation: a stiff symmetry term leads to a more repulsive dynamics.

2. N/Z of fast nucleon emission. Symmetry repulsion of the neutron/proton mean field in various density regions.

3. Neutron/Proton correlation functions. Time-space structure of the fast particle emission and its relation to the baryon density of the source, see the recent .

4. Fragment Multiplicities. A more efficient use of protons in forming primary fragments is expected in the asy-stiff case.

5. Isospin Distillation (Fractionation). Isospin content of the Intermediate Mass Fragments in central collisions. Test of the symmetry term in dilute matter.

6. Isospin content of Neck-Fragments. Test of the symmetry term around $`\rho _0`$.

7. Fast Fission Multiplicity. The rate of “aligned” fission events of the Projectile-Like/Target-Like Fragments reflects the symmetry repulsion in semicentral collisions.

8. Isospin Diffusion. Measure of charge equilibration in the “spectator” region in semicentral collisions, test of symmetry repulsion.

9. Neutron-Proton Collective Flows. Together with light isobar flows. Check of symmetry transport effects. Test of the momentum dependence (relativistic structure) of the interaction in the isovector channel. Measurements also for different $`p_t`$ selections.

10. $`\pi ^{}/\pi ^+`$ Yields. Since $`\pi ^{}`$ are mostly produced in $`nn`$ collisions we can expect a reduction for highly repulsive symmetry terms at high baryon density, see .

11. Deconfinement Precursors. Signals of a mixed phase formation (quark-bubbles) in high baryon density regions reached with asymmetric $`HIC`$ at intermediate energies.

From the points $`3,4,5,8,9`$ in our simulations we presently get some indications for asy-stiff behaviors, i.e. increasing repulsive density dependence of the symmetry term, but not more fundamental details. Moreover all the available data are obtained with stable beams, i.e. within low asymmetries.

Acknowledgements: In this report we are collecting also ideas and results partially reached in a very pleasant and fruitful collaboration with B.Liu, F.Matera, M.Zielinzka-Pfabe’, J.Rizzo and H.H.Wolter. We warmly thank all of them.


format: text

text:
# Spin-current induced electric field

## Abstract

We theoretically predict that a pure steady state spin-current without charge-current can induce an electric field. A formula for the induced electric field is derived and we investigate its characteristics. Conversely, a moving spin is affected by an external electric field and we present a formula for the interaction energy.

In a traditional electric circuit the number of spin-up and spin-down electrons are the same, and both kinds of electrons move in the same direction under an external electric field. The total spin-current $`I_s=\sigma (I_{}I_{})`$ is therefore zero, and only the charge-current $`I_{ec}=e(I_{}+I_{})`$ is relevant. When a system includes ferromagnetic materials or under an external magnetic field, electron spins can be polarized so that the total spin of the system is non-zero. Then, the corresponding charge-current is polarized, i.e. current due to spin-up electrons, $`I_{}`$, is not equal to the spin-down current $`I_{}`$, although both kinds of electrons move in the same direction, as schematically shown in Fig.1b. This gives a non-zero total spin-current. Spin-polarized charge-current has been the subject of extensive investigations for last two decades. Recently, a very interesting extreme case of a finite spin-current without charge-current has been investigated by several groups. Such a situation comes about when spin-up electrons move to one direction while an equal number of spin-down electrons move to the opposite direction, as schematically shown in Fig.1a. Then the total charge-current is identically zero and only a net spin-current exists. This is just the opposite situation of the traditional charge-current without any spin.

By Ampere’s law, a charge-current induces a magnetic field in the space around it. In this paper, we ask and answer the following question: can a pure steady state spin-current without charge-current induce an electric field? The problem can be viewed in the following way. Associated with the electron spin $`\sigma `$, there is a magnetic moment $`g\mu _B\sigma `$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`g`$ is a constant. Therefore when there is a spin-current $`I_s`$, there is a corresponding magnetic moment current $`I_m=g\mu _BI_s`$. In the rest of the paper, we theoretically prove that a magnetic moment current can induce an electric field. We further prove that an external electric field can also act on a spin-current.

To start, we recall that a static classical magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ produces a magnetic field $`𝐁`$. Consider a classical magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ due to a tiny charge-current ring, see Fig.1c. The charge-current is $`I_{ec}`$ and radius of the ring is $`\delta `$. The magnetic field $`𝐁`$ of this charge-current ring is easily obtained by the Biot-Savart law. Then, let $`\delta 0^+`$ and $`I_{ec}\mathrm{}`$ but keep $`𝐦=\pi \delta ^2I_{ec}\widehat{n}_m`$ as a constant ($`\widehat{n}_m`$ is the unit vector of the magnetic moment), the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ due to magnetic moment $`𝐦`$, at space point $`𝐑`$, can be written as:

$$𝐁=\frac{\mu _0𝐦𝐑}{4\pi R^3}.$$
(1)
Another method for obtaining the same magnetic field is by using the mathematical construction of equivalent magnetic “charge”. In this method, we imagine the magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ being consisted of a positive and a negative magnetic “charge” $`\pm q_{mc}`$ situated very close to each other with a distance $`\delta `$ (see Fig.1d). When $`\delta 0^+`$ and $`q_{mc}\mathrm{}`$, we hold $`𝐦=q_{mc}\delta \widehat{n}_m`$ as a constant. Each magnetic “charge” $`q_{mc}`$ produces a magnetic field $`\frac{\mu _0q_{mc}𝐑}{4\pi R^3}`$. The field $`𝐁`$ induced by magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ can then be obtained by adding contributions of the two magnetic “charges” $`\pm q_{mc}`$. Of course, we again obtain Eq.(1). Note that the language of magnetic “charge” is only a mathematical construction convenient for our derivations, and no magnetic monopole is hinted whatsoever.

After reviewing the magnetic field of a static magnetic moment, in the rest of the paper we consider magnetic moments in motion. In the first example we consider the simplest case of a classical infinitely long one-dimensional (1D) lattice of chargeless magnetic moment, with the whole lattice moving with speed $`𝐯`$ (see Fig.1e). This gives a pure steady state magnetic moment current. Since nothing is changing with time, a very surprising result, as we now prove, is that this magnetic moment current induces an electric field. The induced field for this situation can be calculated exactly by a simple Lorentz transform, therefore providing a benchmark result for our more general results to be discussed later. Let $`\rho _m`$ to be the linear density of magnetic moment for the lattice and we will use two methods to solve the electromagnetic field of the spin-current.
Method One. We first solve the total magnetic field of a static 1D magnetic moment lattice by integrating Eq.(1) over the lattice. This is easy to do and we call the result $`𝐁_{static}`$: $`𝐁_{static}=\frac{\mu _0\rho _m\widehat{n}_m𝐑_{}}{2\pi R_{}^2},`$ where $`𝐑_{}=𝐑(𝐑\widehat{l})`$. Here $`\widehat{l}`$ is unit vector along the lattice. Then we make a relativistic transformation: the electromagnetic field of the moving magnetic moment lattice can be obtained straightforwardly by the Lorentz transform of $`𝐁_{static}`$. The results are

$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma 𝐁_{static},`$ (2)
$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma 𝐯\times 𝐁_{static},`$ (3)
where $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\frac{v^2}{c^2}}`$. Clearly, we have an induced electric field $`𝐄`$ and this field is related to $`𝐯`$. We note that although the results are unambiguously obtained, we have not identified the physical origin of the resulting electromagnetic field, i.e. this method does not tell us whether the field is induced by the magnetic moment or by the magnetic moment current. For this reason, we analyze the same problem again from a second method.
Method Two. Here we use the equivalent magnetic “charge” method discussed above. This means removing the current density of the ring at the equation $`\times 𝐁=\mu _0𝐉_{ec}+\mu _0ϵ_0\frac{𝐄}{t}`$, and adding the imaginary magnetic charge at the equation $`𝐁=0`$, i.e. this equation changes to $`𝐁=\mu _0\rho _{mc}`$, where $`\rho _{mc}`$ is the volume density of magnetic “charge”. We emphasize again that this practice is only a mathematical trick to solve our problem. When our magnetic moment moves, the original Maxwell equation in which the magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ is described by a tiny charge-current ring, satisfies relativistic covariance. Clearly, Maxwell equations after the equivalent magnetic charge transformation must also satisfy relativistic covariance. This covariance can be achieved, as shown in standard textbook, by changing the Maxwell equation to $`\times 𝐄=\frac{𝐁}{t}`$ to $`\times 𝐄=\frac{𝐁}{t}\mu _0𝐉_{mc}`$, where $`𝐉_{mc}`$ is the magnetic “charge” current. The last equation means that a moving magnetic “charge” can produce an electric field. The electric field $`𝐄`$ produced by a volume (linear) element of magnetic “charge” current, $`𝐉_{mc}dV`$ ($`I_{mc}d𝐥`$), is simply:

$$𝐄=\frac{\mu _0𝐉_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐜}}dV\times 𝐑}{4\pi R^3}=\frac{\mu _0I_{mc}d𝐥\times 𝐑}{4\pi R^3}.$$
(4)
Now we are ready to solve the electromagnetic field of our 1D moving magnetic moment lattice because it is equivalent to two lines of positive/negative moving magnetic “charges”: they are easily obtained by integrating Eqs.(1) and (4) respectively. The same final results of Eqs.(2,3) are obtained. The present derivation allows us to conclude that the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ is induced by magnetic moment and the electric field $`𝐄`$ is induced by the magnetic moment current. Fig.1f shows electric field lines and magnetic field lines at the y-z plane, here the infinitely long magnetic moment lattice is along the x-axis and $`\widehat{n}_m`$ is along the +z-direction.

If there exists another infinitely long magnetic moment lattice with opposite magnetic moment direction ($`\widehat{n}_m`$) and opposite moving direction ($`𝐯`$, shown in Fig.1a), then the net magnetic moment is canceled exactly and only a net magnetic moment current exists. In this case, it is easy to confirm that the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ due to each lattice adds up to zero identically, while the electric field $`𝐄`$ reinforce each other so that the total electric field of the composite system is doubled. Hence we conclude that this finite electric field must originate from the magnetic moment current, and it cannot be due any other effects.

In the example above, we have clearly shown that a moving classical 1D magnetic moment can induce an electric field $`𝐄`$. In the following we investigate the question: can moving electron magnetic moment (i.e. spin) induce an electric field? We also extend the above 1D model to general situation. Before proving this is indeed the case, we emphasize the fact that since a magnetic moment (or a spin) is itself a vector unlike charge which is a scalar, the magnetic moment current density cannot be described only by a single vector $`𝐉_mdV`$ (or $`I_md𝐥`$). In order to completely describe a magnetic moment current density, we have to use a set of two vectors ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_mdV`$) or ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`I_md𝐥`$), in which $`𝐉_m`$ expresses the strength and direction of the flow of magnetic moment current, while $`\widehat{n}_m`$ expresses the polarization of the magnetic moment itself. This is different from the familiar charge current. Note that for two magnetic moment current such as that of Fig.1a, if only their $`𝐉_m`$ are the same and their $`\widehat{n}_m`$ are different, they are two different magnetic moment currents and their induce electric fields are also different (see below).

In the following, we apply the equivalent magnetic “charge” method to deduce a general result beyond 1D for the quantum object of electron spin-current. Here, the spin or magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ of an electron at space point $`𝐫`$ is equivalent to a positive magnetic charge $`\frac{m}{\delta }`$ at $`𝐫+\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$ and a negative magnetic charge $`\frac{m}{\delta }`$ at $`𝐫\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$. The spin-current ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_mdV`$) at the space $`𝐫`$ is equivalent to two magnetic “charge” currents: one is $`\frac{𝐉_m}{\delta }dV`$ at $`𝐫+\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$ and the other $`\frac{𝐉_m}{\delta }dV`$ at $`𝐫\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$, where $`\delta 0^+`$. We make the very reasonable fundamental assumption that any electromagnetic field induced by moving electron spins, if exists, must satisfy relativistic covariance. From this assumption, the Maxwell equations for the magnetic “charge” and its current are:

$`\times 𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐁}{t}}\mu _0𝐉_{mc},`$ (5)
$`\times 𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _0ϵ_0{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}}+\mu _0𝐉_{ec},`$ (6)
$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{ec}/ϵ_0,`$ (7)
$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _o\rho _{mc},`$ (8)
where $`\rho _{mc}`$ and $`\rho _{ec}`$ are the volume density of the magnetic and electric charge, $`𝐉_{mc}`$ and $`𝐉_{ec}`$ are their current density. In contrast, in the original Maxwell equation, the source of field are electric charge and its current: the field of a magnetic moment is calculated by turning this moment into an infinitesimal charge-current loop as we have done above. Here, we use the magnetic “charge” description and its associated current to express the spin of particles and the spin-current. We emphasize two points: (i) Eqs.(5-8) are superiorer for our problem of calculating fields of electron spin-current because they do not require us to turn electron spins into little charge-current loops. No one knows how to do the latter, in fact, because the inner structure of an electron is not known. Hence, while the original Maxwell equations do not directly describe fields of electron spin and the spin-current, Eqs.(5-8) can describe them and this description is very reasonable if we only investigate fields outside of an electron, e.g. for $`R>10^5`$Å. (ii) Eqs.(58) do not represent an attempt of rewriting Maxwell equation. They are the Maxwell equation when we use equilent magnetic “charge” and demanding relativistic covariance.

From the Eqs.(5-8), the electric field induced by an infinitesimal element of magnetic “charge” current $`𝐉_{mc}dV`$ is obtained from Eq.(4). Then the total electric field $`𝐄`$ of the element of magnetic moment current ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_mdV`$) can be calculated by adding the two contributions of the two magnetic “charge” currents: $`\frac{𝐉_m}{\delta }dV`$ at $`\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$ and $`\frac{𝐉_m}{\delta }dV`$ at $`\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{n}_m`$ ($`\delta 0^+`$). We obtain

$$𝐄=\frac{\mu _0}{4\pi }𝐉_m𝑑V\times \frac{1}{R^3}\left[\widehat{n}_m\frac{3𝐑\left(𝐑\widehat{n}_m\right)}{R^2}\right].$$
(9)
This is one of the main results of this paper. Eq.(9) clearly shows that the magnetic moment current ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_mdV`$) (i.e. spin-current ($`\sigma `$, $`𝐉_sdV`$)= ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`\frac{𝐉_m}{g\mu _B}dV`$)) indeed can produce an electric field. This formula can be thought as the “ Biot-Savart law” for spin-current induced electric field. We emphasize that in the derivation of Eq.(9), the only assumption made was that the electromagnetic field of the moving spin satisfies relativistic covariance. As a check, applying Eq.(9) to the 1D lattice exactly solved above, it is straightforward to perform the integration and obtain Eq.(3).

Some further discussion of our results are in order. An electron has its charge and magnetic moment (spin): charge produces electric field, charge-current produces magnetic field, spin produces magnetic field, and we have just shown that a steady state spin-current produces an electric field! (i) For the case of a spin-current without charge-current shown in Fig.1a, the total net charge is zero for our neutral system; the total charge-current is zero; and the total magnetic moment is also zero. The only non-zero quantity is the total spin-current (magnetic moment current). Our results predict even for this situation, an electric field is induced by the presence of spin-current. (ii) For the spin-polarized charge-current shown in Fig.1b, which have been extensively investigated recently, a charge-current, total magnetic moment, and a spin-current may all exist. In this case, the charge-current and magnetic moment produce magnetic field, and the spin-current produces electric field. (iii) For a closed-loop circuit in which a steady state spin-current flows, one can prove that the induced electric field $`𝐄`$ has the property $`_c𝐄𝑑𝐥=0`$, where $`C`$ is an arbitrary close contour not cutting the spin-current. This is true even when the spin-current threads the contour $`C`$: very different from the Ampere’s law of magnetic field induced by a charge-current.

Fig.2 shows electric field lines of a spin-current element ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_mdV`$). The spin-current element is located at origin, $`𝐉_m`$ points to $`+𝐱`$ direction, and $`\widehat{n}_m`$ is in the x-z plane. The angle between $`𝐉_m`$ and $`\widehat{n}_m`$ is $`\theta `$. Because the induced electric field $`𝐄`$ must be perpendicular to $`𝐉_m`$ (i.e. to x axis), we plot the field lines in the y-z plane at $`x=1`$, 0, and +1. (i) For $`\theta =\pi /2`$, $`\widehat{n}_m𝐉_m`$. At $`x=0`$, the field line configuration is similar (although not exactly the same) to that produced by an electric dipole at $`𝐲`$ direction (Fig.2a). At $`x=\pm 1`$, the field lines have a mirror symmetry between upper and lower half y-z plane (Fig.2b). (ii) For $`\theta =0`$, $`\widehat{n}_m𝐉_m`$. At $`x=0`$, $`𝐄=0`$ for any y and z. At $`x=\pm 1`$, the field lines are concentric circles (Fig.2c and d). The center of the circles is at $`y=z=0`$ where $`𝐄=0`$. (iii) For $`\theta =\pi /3`$, the fields are shown in Fig.2(e,f) for $`x=\pm 1`$. In fact, this $`𝐄`$ can be decomposed into a summation of two terms corresponding to the fields of $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and $`\theta =0`$. At $`x=0`$, the field lines are similar to that shown in Fig.2a. It is worth to mention that from Fig.2, it is clearly shown that $`_c𝐄𝑑𝐥0`$. Notice that this is not contradictory to characteristic (iii) of the last paragraph, because there the electric field is produced by a steady closed-loop spin-current.

So far we have demonstrated that a spin-current can indeed induce an electric field. On the other hand, does external electric field have any effect on a spin-current? Consider a lab frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ where there is an electromagnetic field $`(𝐄^{},𝐁^{})`$, and a static magnetic moment $`𝐦^{}`$. There is a potential energy $`𝐦^{}𝐁^{}`$ but $`𝐦^{}`$ does not couple to $`𝐄^{}`$. Using the language of magnetic “charge” discussed above, we can in effect consider that a force $`q_{mc}𝐁^{}`$ is acting on the magnetic “charge” $`q_{mc}`$. Inside a new frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ moving with speed $`𝐯`$ respect to the lab frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, the magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ (or the magnetic charge $`q_{mc}`$) move with speed $`+𝐯`$. A Lorentz transform of the the four-momentum $`p_\mu =(𝐩,\frac{iW}{c})=(p_1,p_2,p_3,\frac{iW}{c})`$ from frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives the force $`𝐅`$ on the moving magnetic “charge” $`q_{mc}`$ by the electromagnetic field $`𝐄,𝐁`$: $`𝐅=\frac{d𝐩}{dt}=\frac{d𝐩}{d\tau }\frac{d\tau }{dt}=(\frac{dp_1^{}}{d\tau },\gamma ^1\frac{dp_2^{}}{d\tau },\gamma ^1\frac{dp_3^{}}{d\tau })=q_{mc}(B_1^{},\gamma ^1B_2^{},\gamma ^1B_3^{})=q_{mc}\left(𝐁\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐄\right)`$ where $`\tau `$ is the proper time, $`t`$ is the time, the quantity with a prime (without prime) is in frame $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), and the direction of $`p_1`$ is the same as velocity $`𝐯`$. Hence, a moving magnetic moment $`𝐦`$ (or spin $`\sigma `$) in an external electromagnetic field $`𝐄,𝐁`$ feels a torque: $`𝐦\times \left(𝐁\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐄\right)`$, and the associated potential energy is:

$$𝐦\left(𝐁\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐄\right)=g\mu _B\sigma \left(𝐁\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐄\right).$$
(10)
Clearly, the term $`𝐦𝐁`$ describes the action of magnetic field on $`𝐦`$ which is well known. There is a new term $`𝐦\left(\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐄\right)`$, and it obviously expresses the action of electric field $`𝐄`$ on the moving magnetic moment. We therefore conclude that when a particle with spin $`\sigma `$ is moving inside an electric field $`𝐄`$, the spin prefers to orient to the direction of $`𝐯\times 𝐄`$.

At last, it should be mentioned some previous works have investigated effects of moving magnetic dipole $`𝐦`$ in early days of special relativity. The main finding was that a moving magnetic dipole induces an electric dipole $`𝐏_e=\frac{𝐯}{c^2}\times 𝐦`$. Notice the our present work is different. What we predicted is that a steady state spin-current can induce an electric field $`𝐄`$ (see Eq.(9)). This gives a new and fundamental source of electric field. In constract, a single moving moment does not give a steady state spin-current. Moreover, the results are different. For example, when $`𝐯𝐦`$, the induced dipole $`𝐩_e=0`$ so that no electric field is induced and any torque $`𝐩_e\times 𝐄`$ from external electric field vanishes. Our result on spin-current induced field, on the other hand, gives a non-zero $`𝐄`$ when $`𝐯𝐦`$.

So far we have found that a spin current can induce an electric field $`𝐄`$; and conversely, an external electric field puts a moment of force on a spin-current. The magnitudes of these effects can be estimated. Consider a spin current ($`\widehat{n}_m`$, $`𝐉_m`$) flowing in an infinitely long wire with crossection area of 2mm$`\times `$2mm. Let $`\widehat{n}_m𝐉_m`$, take electron density is $`10^{29}/m^3`$ and a drift velocity $`10^2m/s`$, then the spin-current induced electric field is equivalent to that of a potential difference $`12\mu `$V at distances $`1.1`$mm and $`1.1`$mm on either side of the wire. This electric potential is indeed very small, but is definitely nonzero and should be measurable using present technologies.

Acknowledgments: We thank Prof. D. Stairs for an illuminating discussion about electromagnetism. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, le Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’Aide à la Recherche de la Province du Québec, and NanoQuebec (Q.S., H.G,), and a RGC grant from the SAR Government of Hong Kong under grant number HKU 7091/01P (J.W.).


text:
# ITEP-LAT/2002–31 KANAZAWA 02–40 HEAVY QUARK POTENTIAL IN LATTICE QCD AT FINITE TEMPERATURE 11footnote 1Talk given by V. Bornyakov at “Confinement V”, Gargano, Italy, 10-14 Sep. 2002. ,22footnote 2This work is partially supported by grants INTAS-00-00111, RFBR 02-02-17308, 01-02-17456, 00-15-96-786 and CRDF RPI-2364-MO-02. M.Ch. is supported by JSPS Fellowship No. P01023. P.U. is supported by Kanazawa foundation.

( a ITP, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, 920-1192, Japan
b ITEP, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow, 117259, Russia
c IHEP, Protvino, 124280, Russia
d NIC/DESY Zeuthen, Platanenallee 6, 15738 Zeuthen, Germany and Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany
e Steklov Mathematical Institute, Vavilova 42, 117333 Moscow, Russia
f ZIB, D-14195 Berlin, Germany )

## Abstract

Results of the study of lattice QCD with two flavors of nonperturbatively improved Wilson fermions at finite temperature are presented. The transition temperature for $`\frac{m_\pi }{m_\rho }0.8`$ and lattice spacing $`a0.12`$ fm is determined. A two-exponent ansatz is successfully applied to describe the heavy quark potential in the confinement phase.

Studies of $`N_f=2`$ lattice QCD at finite temperature with improved actions have provided consistent estimates of $`T_c`$ . Still there are many sources of systematic uncertainties and new computations of $`T_c`$ with different actions are useful as an additional check. To make such check we performed first large scale simulations of the nonperturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson fermion action at finite temperature. Other goals of our work were to study the heavy quark potential and the vacuum structure of the full QCD at $`T>0`$.

We employ Wilson gauge field action and fermionic action of the same form as used by UKQCD and QCDSF collaborations  in $`T=0`$ studies. To fix the physical scale and $`\frac{m_\pi }{m_\rho }`$ ratio we use their results. Our simulations were performed on $`16^38`$ lattices for two values of the lattice gauge coupling $`\beta =5.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5.25}`$.

As numerical results show  both Polyakov loop and chiral condensate susceptibilities can be used to locate the transition point. We use only Polyakov loop susceptibility. We found critical temperature $`T_c=213(10)`$ and $`222(10)`$MeV at $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.78,0.82`$, respectively. These values are in good agreement with previous results  at comparable $`m_\pi /m_\rho `$.

To test finite size effects simulations on $`24^38`$ lattice for $`T/T_c=0.94`$ have been made. We found that results for all our observables agree with our smaller volume results within error bars. Thus finite size effects do not introduce strong systematic uncertainties in our results.

The heavy quark potential $`V(r,T)`$ in full QCD at non-zero temperature has been studied in . It is given by $`L_\stackrel{}{x}L_\stackrel{}{y}^{}/9=e^{V(r,T)/T}`$, where $`L_\stackrel{}{x}`$ is Polyakov loop. In the limit $`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|\mathrm{}`$, $`L_\stackrel{}{x}L_\stackrel{}{y}^{}`$ approaches the cluster value $`|L|^2`$, where $`|L|^20`$ because the global $`Z_3`$ symmetry is broken by the fermions.

The spectral representation for the Polyakov loop correlator is

$$L_\stackrel{}{x}L_\stackrel{}{y}^{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}w_ne^{E_n(r)/T}.$$

At $`T=0`$ one gets $`V(r,T=0)=E_0(r)`$. In contrast, $`V(r,T)`$ at $`T>0`$ gets contributions from all possible states. We assume that in the confinement phase, at temperatures below $`T_c`$, the Polyakov loop correlator can be described with the help of two states, namely string state and broken string (two static-light meson) state:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}L_\stackrel{}{x}L_\stackrel{}{y}^{}=e^{(V_0+V_{str}(r,T))/T}+e^{2E(T)/T},`$ (1)
$`V_{str}(r,T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6r}}\mathrm{arctan}x{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12r}}+\sigma (T)r+{\displaystyle \frac{xT}{3}}\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+x^2\right),`$ (2)
$`E(T)=V_0/2+m(T),`$ (3)
where $`m(T)`$ is the effective quark mass at finite temperature, $`x=2rT`$. The $`T0`$ string potential (2) was derived in . The alternative fit of our data can be done using the finite temperature QCD static potential :

$$V_{KMS}(r,T)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{\mu }(1e^{\mu r})\frac{\alpha }{r}e^{\mu r},$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha `$ are parameters. We used function (4) to fit the data.

In computation of the Polyakov loops correlator to reduce statistical errors hypercubic blocking  has been employed. Details of this computation were reported in . Parameters of the fit (1)-(3) are presented in Fig. 1. The values for the ratio $`\sigma (T)/\sigma (0)`$ are higher than those obtained in quenched QCD , especially close to $`T_c`$. The values for $`m(T)`$ are also 20-30 % higher than those obtained in . Using parameters of the potential we calculate the string breaking distance $`r_{sb}`$ from relation $`V_{str}(r_{sb},T)=2m(T)`$. In Fig. 1 one can see that $`r_{sb}`$ decreases down to values $`0.3`$ fm when temperature approaches critical value. Our fit using $`V_{str}(r,T)`$, eq.(2), is probably not valid when $`r_{sb}`$ becomes so small. It still provides reasonable values for string tension and effective mass for $`T/T_c<0.95`$ when $`r_{sb}>0.5fm`$. The comparison of two fits, eqs.(13) and eq.(4) showed that both fits are equally good within our error bars. There is an indication that with more precise data one can discriminate between these two fits at low temperatures. We found also that parameters of the fit eq.(4) are in a clear disagreement with parameters suggested in .