text:
# Glasses in hard spheres with short-range attraction

## I Introduction

Glassy states are found in many systems Angell (1995). However, understanding the glass transition is still a major challenge for statistical and condensed-matter physics. Simple and well-characterized models hold an important place in this field. The glass transition in the simplest model colloid, a suspension of hard spheres, has been studied in detail for more than a decade Pusey and van Megen (1986); van Megen and Underwood (1994); Bengtzelius et al. (1984); Götze and Sjogren (1992). The phase behaviour of a system of $`N`$ hard-spheres of radius $`R`$ in volume $`V`$ is determined by a single variable, the density or volume fraction $`\varphi =(4/3)\pi R^3N/V`$. Increasing $`\varphi `$ drives the system from a stable fluid to a fluid-crystal coexistence, and then a fully crystallized phase Pusey and van Megen (1986), which should be the thermodynamically favorable phase up to $`\varphi =\pi /3\sqrt{2}0.74`$. However, at $`\varphi \varphi _g0.58`$, hard spheres fail to crystallize Pusey and van Megen (1986); van Megen and Underwood (1994). This is usually interpreted as a glass transition due to the caging of particles by each other. The most successful theoretical account given of this transition to date is from mode coupling theory (MCT) Bengtzelius et al. (1984); van Megen and Underwood (1994). Within this framework, the coupling between different density fluctuation modes drives the system into a dynamically arrested state Götze and Sjogren (1992).

More recently, the focus of attention has moved on to hard spheres with a short-range attraction. Besides being a good model for understanding the fundamentals of the glass transition, such ‘sticky hard spheres’ are also ubiquitous in applications. Attraction in hard-spheres can be realized experimentally by adding non-adsorbing polymers to colloids. The center of mass of a polymer coil of radius of gyration $`r_g`$ is excluded from a zone of width $`r_g`$ from the surface of each colloid. When two colloids come close enough to each other so that their polymer-excluded regions overlap, the imbalance in polymer osmotic pressure pushes them together. This effective ‘depletion’ attraction is well described Rudhardt et al. (1998) by the Asakura-Oosawa form Asakura and Oosawa (1954). Its dimensionless range can be estimated by the ratio $`\xi =r_g/R`$, while its strength is governed by the concentration of polymer coils in the free volume available to them, $`c_p^{\text{free}}`$. The free volume depends on the exact structure of the suspension, and is not an easily obtained experimental parameter. However, the concentration of polymer in the whole system, $`c_p`$, can be used as an alternative variable to describe the composition of the system Lekkerkerker et al. (1992).

The presence of a short-range attraction in hard spheres widens the equilibrium fluid-crystal coexistence region in the phase diagram Lekkerkerker et al. (1992); Ilett et al. (1995), and introduces (non-equilibrium) gels at low volume fractions Poon et al. (1995, 1999) and a re-entrant glass transition at high volume fractions Bergenholtz and Fuchs (1999a, b); Fabbian et al. (1999); Mallamace et al. (2000); Dawson et al. (2001); Pham et al. (2002); Puertas et al. (2002); Eckert and Bartsch (2002); Bergenholtz et al. (2003); Sciortino et al. ; Zacarelli et al. . In this paper we report a comprehensive study of structure and dynamics in the vicinity of this re-entrant glass transition in a model colloid-polymer mixture: sterically-stabilized polymethylmethacrylate particles with added linear polystyrene Poon (2002).

We used light scattering to study the structure of colloids by measuring the static structure factor (SSF), $`S(q)`$, which is effectively the Fourier transform of the pair correlation function. Dynamic light scattering was used to obtain the normalized collective dynamic structure factor (DSF), $`f(q,\tau )`$, which measures the time correlation of particle density fluctuations at wave vector $`q`$ after delay time $`\tau `$. Our results agree in broad outline with previous experimental studies and the trends predicted by MCT, while the detailed nature of our study and the very wide time window of our measured DSFs (11 orders of magnitude) together shed new light on the nature of the re-entrant glass transition in sticky hard spheres. Preliminary reports of some of these data have been given before Pham et al. (2002); Poon et al. (2003).

## II Experimental methods

### II.1 Sample preparation

The colloidal particles used in this study were poly-methylmethacrylate (PMMA) spheres sterically stabilized by chemically-grafted poly-(12-hydroxystearic acid) (PHSA) dispersed in cis-decalin Antl et al. (1986). The solvated PHSA, approximately 10nm thick, produces a nearly-hard-sphere interaction between the colloidal particles Auer et al. (2003). The particle radius, $`R=202`$nm, was determined from the lattice spacing of the crystal phase at fluid-crystal coexistence, taking the crystal to be at $`\varphi =0.545`$. Particle size polydispersity was 0.069, measured from the apparent angle dependence of the diffusion coefficient in a dilute suspension Pusey and van Megen (1984).

The colloidal volume fraction was calibrated by measuring the amount of crystal phase in the coexistence region and taking the fluid and crystal volume fraction to be at 0.494 and 0.545 respectively. Samples of the volume-fraction-calibrated stock were also weighed and dried in a vacuum oven to determine the effective density of the particles, which was then used in subsequent calculations of the volume fraction of samples prepared from the stock. The stock volume fraction was also re-calibrated from time to time by drying and weighing.

To induce attraction between the colloids, we added non-adsorbing linear polystyrene. This well-characterized model colloid-polymer mixture has been studied extensively over the last decade Poon (2002). The polymer used was purchased from Polymer Laboratories and had a molecular weight of $`M_w=370000`$ daltons. Its radius of gyration in cis-decalin at $`20^{}`$C was calculated from the data in Berry (1966) to be $`r_g=17.8`$ nm. Thus the dimensionless range of the depletion attraction is $`\xi r_g/R=0.09`$.

Colloid-polymer mixture samples were prepared by mixing stocks of colloids and polymers with known concentration and solvent by weight. Sample volumes were about 1 cm3. Knowing the density of each species permits calculation of the final composition.

The main uncertainty in sample composition comes from a systematic uncertainty in the calibrated volume fraction of the colloid stock. This is because the volume fractions of coexisting fluid and crystal phases for slightly polydisperse hard-spheres are slightly different from those in a monodisperse colloid, but the exact values are uncertain Bolhuis and Kofke (1996); Bartlett (1997). However, all samples were prepared from the same stocks of colloids and polymer solutions, or stocks calibrated against each other. Some samples were also derived from others in a controlled way (see next paragraph). Therefore despite some systematic uncertainties in the estimation of absolute volume fractions due to polydispersity, the uncertainties in sample compositions relative to each other were mostly from random errors in weighing. These uncertainties are below a percent in the worst case and are insignificant in this work.

Samples were tumbled for prolonged periods of time to ensure proper mixing of the components. After homogenizing, a small amount of each sample was transferred to 3 mm-inner diameter glass tubes and sealed for light scattering experiments. The rest of the sample was then left undisturbed for visual observation of any phase transitions until sedimentation appeared. Then some samples may be diluted with solvent while others were left opened for solvent to evaporate before re-homogenizing. In this way, a sequence of samples, some very close in composition, could be prepared.

### II.2 Light scattering methods

The slight difference in the refractive indices of PMMA and cis-decalin (1.49 and 1.48 respectively) was enough to render all of our samples turbid (transmission coefficients $``$ 20–40%). We therefore used two-color light scattering to extract the singly-scattered component. The detailed experimental arrangement and data analysis for this method have been described elsewhere Segrè et al. (1995). Here we just summarize relevant procedures.

Two lasers of different wavelengths, blue ($`\lambda _B=488`$ nm) and green ($`\lambda _G=514.5`$ nm), and two detectors with filters were used in what were essentially two separate but simultaneous scattering experiments on the same scattering volume. The incident and scattered beams were arranged such that the scattering angles $`\theta _B`$ and $`\theta _G`$ were different but the scattering vectors were identical, i.e. $`𝐪_B=𝐪_G=𝐪`$, where $`\left|𝐪\right|=4n\pi \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)/\lambda `$ and $`n`$ is the refractive index of cis-decalin. The outputs of the two detectors were cross-correlated to give the intensity correlation function (ICF):

$$g^{(2)}(q,\tau )=\frac{I_B(q,0)I_G(q,\tau )}{I_B(q)I_G(q)},$$
(1)
where $`I_B`$ and $`I_G`$ are the scattered blue and green intensities respectively, and the angled brackets denote ensemble averages.

In this arrangement, it can be shown Segrè et al. (1995) that only the singly-scattered light of each color probes exactly the same Fourier component of the density fluctuations and thus are correlated. All other, multiply-scattered, light does not probe the same component for both colors and is completely uncorrelated and thus does not contribute to the time-dependence of $`g^{(2)}(q,\tau )`$. This can be expressed Segrè et al. (1995) in terms of the normalized single scattering dynamic structure factor, $`f(q,\tau )`$:

$$g^{(2)}(q,\tau )=1+\beta ^2\beta _{MS}^2\left[f(q,\tau )\right]^2,$$
(2)
where the factor $`\beta ^2`$ depends on the ratio of detector area and coherence area for single scattering and also on the overlap of the scattering volumes probed by each color. This factor is instrument related and dependent on scattering angle but not on the sample used. The other factor $`\beta _{MS}^2`$ reflects the fraction of singly-scattered intensities, $`I_B^S`$ and $`I_G^S`$, relative to the total (singly and multiply) scattered intensities:

$$\beta _{MS}^2=\frac{I_B^SI_G^S}{I_BI_G}.$$
(3)
The concentration of polymer in our samples is low. The highest ratio of intensity scattered from polymer to that from colloid was measured to be $`4\times 10^3`$. This highest ratio only applied for one sample (H in Fig. 1) at the lowest scattering angle. Therefore we assume that the scattered intensity is from colloids only. Under these conditions, our measurements probe the structure and dynamics of the particles alone.

The static structure factor was measured with the procedure described in Moussaïd and Pusey (1999). First, the total average intensities, $`I_B`$ and $`I_G`$, and the intercept, $`\beta ^2\beta _{MS}^2=g^{(2)}(q,0)1`$, of a concentrated sample of interest were measured at different scattering vectors $`q`$. The sample was rotated continuously during the measurement to ensure ensemble average. Since the rotation only changes the time-dependence of $`g^{(2)}(q,\tau )`$, the intercept and average intensity were not affected. It was found that it was necessary to average measurements at different height in the sample for non-ergodic samples to reduce random noise from the finite number of speckles sampled. Then the same measurements were made on a dilute suspension of known $`\varphi `$ to obtain the single-particle form factor. The volume fraction of this dilute sample was $`\varphi _{\mathrm{dil}}=0.01`$, small enough that multiple scattering can be ignored, so that the measured intercept contains only the instrument related factor: $`\beta ^2=g_{\mathrm{dil}}^{(2)}(q,0)1`$, which was the same as that in the measurement of the concentrated sample.

The static structure factor is the ratio of singly-scattered intensity per particle from the concentrated sample to that from the dilute sample: $`S(q)=(I^S/\varphi )/(I_{dil}/\varphi _{dil})`$. This was calculated by taking into account multiple scattering and attenuation of light through the sample:

$$S(q)=\frac{\varphi _{dil}}{\varphi }\frac{\sqrt{T_{B,dil}T_{G,dil}}}{\sqrt{T_BT_G}}\frac{\sqrt{I_BI_G\beta ^2\beta _{MS}^2}}{\sqrt{I_{B,dil}I_{G,dil}\beta ^2}},$$
(4)
where $`T`$ is the transmission coefficient of the sample, and subscripts $`B,G`$ are for blue and green light respectively.

Dynamic light scattering aims to measure the dynamic structure factor (DSF), $`f(q,\tau )`$. This can be extracted from normalizing the ICF using Eq. 2:

$$f(q,\tau )=\sqrt{\frac{g^{(2)}(q,\tau )1}{g^{(2)}(q,0)1}}.$$
(5)
However, since most of our samples were either non-ergodic or had very slow relaxation times, the time-averaged ICF only measured fluctuations in a small subspace of the whole configuration space. Explicit ensemble averaging was therefore required, and was performed by two methods. For short times ($`10^7\text{s}<\tau <20\text{s}`$), brute-force ensemble averaging was done. Several hundred (typically between 500-865) of time-averaged ICF’s, $`g_t^{(2)}(q,\tau )`$, and associated scattered intensities, $`I_{Bt}`$ and $`I_{Gt}`$, were measured, each for a duration of 40-60 s. Between each measurement, the sample was rotated by a small angle to a different position so that each time-averaged ICF sampled a different Fourier component. The ensemble-averaged ICF was then constructed as:

$$g^{(2)}(q,\tau )=\frac{I_{Bt}I_{Gt}g_t^{(2)}(q,\tau )}{I_{Bt}I_{Gt}}.$$
(6)
For longer times ($`\tau >1`$ s), echo DLS was used. Details will be given elsewhere Pham et al. . It essentially involves ensemble averaging by rotating the sample continuously at a constant speed and correlating the intensities at a small range of delay times around exact multiples, $`\tau nT`$, of the rotation period, $`T`$, where the correlation function shows ‘echo’ peaks. The rotation decorrelates the ICF very quickly at small $`\tau `$. However, after a whole number of revolutions, the sample comes back to the same orientation and the ICF recovers to a value that is dependent only on the dynamics of the particles in the sample over that period of time. This gives rise to peaks in the ICF at $`\tau =nT`$. The maxima of these peaks follow the ensemble-averaged dynamics of the sample because the obtained ICF is an average over thousands of independent speckles per revolution. We also correct for imperfections in the rotation using the area under each echo instead of the echo maximum Pham et al. . The corrected ICF at $`\tau _n=nT`$ was calculated from the measured ICF $`g_m^{(2)}(q,\tau )`$ as:

$$g^{(2)}(q,\tau _n)=\frac{A(\tau _n)}{A(\tau _0)}\left[g_m^{(2)}(q,0)1\right]+1,$$
(7)
where $`A(\tau _n)`$ is the area under the echo around $`\tau _n=nT`$, $`A(\tau _n)=(g_m^{(2)}(q,\tau )1)𝑑\tau `$. The DSF was then obtained from corrected ICF in the usual way from Eq. 5.

We used echo DLS to measure dynamics in the range $`\tau =110^4`$ seconds. Since the rotation used introduces slightly different alignment in the DLS setup (hence different $`\beta ^2`$), the resulting intercepts are different from those obtained by brute-force ensemble averaging. Therefore we scaled the intercept of the echo DLS results by an arbitrary factor (in the range of 1–2) so that the resulting DSF from both methods matched in the region of overlap.

## III Results and discussion

### III.1 Phase diagram

The equilibrium phase diagrams of colloid-polymer mixtures at different values of $`\xi `$ are well known Ilett et al. (1995). The non-equilibrium behavior of systems with $`\xi 0.1`$ at low volume fractions ($`\varphi <0.2`$) has been studied before Poon et al. (1995, 1999). Here we concentrate on the higher volume fraction region ($`\varphi 0.3`$).

Many samples were prepared in a range of compositions of interest. After being homogenized by prolonged tumbling, samples were left undisturbed for observation. Because the sizes of colloidal particles are similar to wavelengths of visible light, colloidal crystals can be seen with the naked eye as iridescent specks.

Our observations are shown in Fig. 1. (These observations have been presented and briefly discussed before Poon et al. (2003).) In agreement with equilibrium theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992) for systems with short-range attraction, we observed an expansion of the fluid-crystal coexistence region upon increasing polymer concentration (diamonds). To the left of this region is a stable fluid phase (triangles) and to the right is the fully crystalline phase (inverted triangles). These observations also agree with previous experiments on similar systems Ilett et al. (1995).

However, samples with very high colloid volume fractions and/or polymer concentrations (filled circles, squares and crosses) failed to crystallize for weeks to months even though equilibrium statistical mechanics predicts either fluid-crystal coexistence or full crystallinity. Samples with high colloid volume fractions and low polymer concentrations (circles in Fig. 1) showed all the characteristics of hard-sphere colloidal glass Pusey and van Megen (1986). Weeks after homogenization and left undisturbed, sedimentation showed its effect: very thin layers at the top of the samples developed heterogeneous crystals due to the boundary effect of the meniscus and gravity. Samples denoted by squares in Fig. 1, with high polymer concentration and moderate colloid volume fraction, showed signs of transient gels. They collapse under gravity after some ‘latency time’ as observed previously in similar systems Poon et al. (1995, 1999). However, the amount of collapse decreased and transient time increased dramatically in higher volume fraction samples. For concentrated samples with colloid volume fraction above 0.55, it took more than 4 weeks to see tiny collapses of less than half a millimeter at the very top of the meniscus. These collapses were distinguished from normal sedimentation by their characteristic sharp and non-flat boundary between the collapsed material and a clear supernatant. No crystallization was observed in these samples however long they were left undisturbed. Interestingly, for non-crystallizing samples with very high colloid volume fraction and polymer concentration (crosses), characteristics of both hard-sphere glass and transient gels were present. After 4–8 weeks, tiny collapses were seen, and also a thin layer of crystal phase appeared just under the collapsing boundary.

Consider a sequence of samples of similar colloid volume fraction and increasing attraction, for example samples A-H in Fig. 1 with $`\varphi 0.6`$. According to thermodynamic equilibrium theory, all these samples should crystallize Lekkerkerker et al. (1992). Sample A without polymer was a glass. Sample B with a small amount of polymer was also a glass as no homogeneous crystallization was observed for 4 weeks and only heterogeneously nucleated crystals at the meniscus were observed after 13 days. However, sample C with $`1.4\text{mg cm}^1`$ of polymer completely crystallized in 1 day. This means the glass transition line has moved to higher $`\varphi `$. Failure to crystallize was seen again for samples with polymer concentration above $`2.5\text{mg cm}^1`$ (samples F,G,H). The behavior of all the samples in this region taken together show that the line of failure to crystallize had a re-entrant shape.

In pure hard-spheres, crystallization ceases at essentially the same volume fraction as where $`f(q,\mathrm{})`$ first becomes non-zero, i.e. at the glass transition Pusey and van Megen (1986); van Megen and Underwood (1994). If this coincidence still holds for attractive hard-spheres systems, then we have observed a re-entrant glass transition in hard spheres with short-range attraction.

Previous studies of sticky hard spheres by MCT Dawson et al. (2001); Bergenholtz et al. (2003) and computer simulation Pham et al. (2002); Puertas et al. (2002) suggest that the re-entrant behavior is due to two different mechanisms of glassy arrest. The heuristic picture is as follows. In the ‘repulsion-dominated’ hard-sphere glass, particles are caged by their neighbors at high enough volume fraction. Short-range attraction clusters the particles of the cage and opens up holes, ultimately melting the glass. However, increasing the attraction further leads to an ‘attraction-dominated’ glass where particles stick to their neighbors with long-lived bonds. In this terminology, samples A and B are repulsive glasses and F-H are attractive glasses. Samples I–K must lie in the region where these two types of glass merge as they show characteristics of both types, with further evidence in the dynamics shown in section III.3. The next sections, with results from light scattering, will give insights into the structure and dynamics of these glasses, and the nature of the re-entrant transition between them.

### III.2 Static structure factor

We measured the static SSFs of the samples whose symbols are circled in Fig. 1. Note that samples C–E were measured as metastable fluids, i.e. before any crystal nucleation took place. Consider first the results for a sequence of samples (A–H) with $`\varphi 0.6`$, Fig. 2. These samples span the re-entrant glass transition line where the crystallization behavior showed dramatic changes. However, no re-entrant behavior can be seen in the SSF. Instead, there are only gradual changes upon increasing the attractive interaction. These gradual changes have been predicted by theory Dawson et al. (2001), and observed before in other experimental systems Eckert and Bartsch (2003).

The most obvious and most easily quantifiable changes are in the height and position of the main peak. Broadly speaking, and taking experimental uncertainties into account, the peak reduces in height and shifts to higher $`q`$ when the attraction is increased (inset Fig. 2(a)). In detail, the peak position, $`q^{}`$, remains constant (at $`q^{}R3.8`$, samples A–D) until just before we enter the attractive glass region (sample E), whereupon it increases by $`5\%`$ to reach another constant value ($`q^{}R4`$, samples F–H). These samples have approximately constant $`\varphi `$ (in fact it decreases slightly from A to H, Fig. 1). The increase in $`q^{}`$ is the result of a significant fraction of neighboring particles becoming trapped in each others’ narrow depletion potential well when the attractive glass forms. Quantitatively, a 5% increase in $`q^{}`$ corresponds to a 15% increase in the local packing fraction, from 0.6 to 0.69; the latter is the random close packing volume fraction for our system (measured by spinning down a sample of known $`\varphi `$). In other words, the nearest particles in the attractive glass are practically touching.

The clustering of particles at constant volume necessarily implies that the average number of nearest neighbors should decrease, and that ‘holes’ are opened up to render the structure more inhomogeneous on the spatial scale of a few particles. The former is reflected in the decrease in $`S(q^{})`$. Significantly, upon increasing the attraction from zero, the decrease in the peak height starts at the point of the melting of the repulsive glass, and continues until we enter the attractive glass region, whereupon the peak height remains constant (inset Fig. 2(a)).

The increased heterogeneity is reflected in a rise in the SSF at low $`q`$, Fig. 2(b). The smallest $`q`$ we have studied was $`q_{\text{min}}R=1.50`$, corresponding to a length scale of about 4 particle radii. The value of $`S(q_{\text{min}})`$ increases nearly exponentially with the polymer concentration between samples A–E (inset Fig. 2(b)), and thereafter remains constant. The increased density fluctuations at this length scale corresponds to the opening up of ‘holes’ due to particle clustering.

Note that all three features considered, $`q^{}`$, $`S(q^{})`$ and $`S(q_{\text{min}})`$, remain virtually constant for all three attractive glass samples, F–H. Once particles drop into each others’ narrow attractive potential wells, any further structural changes will be hard to resolve. We shall see, however, that the dynamics continues measurably to evolve from sample F to sample H: in this regime of almost-touching nearest neighbors, a very small change in the structure has very large dynamic consequences.

All the qualitative features we observed in the evolution of the SSFs for samples A–H are also seen in the SSFs for samples I–K at the higher volume fraction of $`\varphi 0.64`$, Fig. 3. However, the effects are significantly less obvious, largely because the range of polymer concentration is now much smaller and $`\varphi `$ is higher. At low $`q`$, the values of $`S(q_{\text{min}})`$ are lower than those of similar polymer concentration but lower $`\varphi `$ (C–E) (Fig. 2(b)). This is because at higher volume fraction, a tight local clustering of some particles does not create so much room elsewhere — there is less space for developing heterogeneities.

### III.3 Dynamic structure factor

Our goal is to study how the polymer-induced depletion attraction affects the particle dynamics. But the presence of the polymer influences the dynamics in another, essentially trivial, manner — by increasing the effective viscosity of the medium in which the particles diffuse from that of the pure solvent, $`\eta _0`$, to that of a polymer solution, $`\eta _r\eta _0`$ at concentration $`c_p^{\text{free}}`$. To determine $`\eta _r`$, we measured the viscosity of pure polymer solutions with a miniature suspended-level viscometer, Fig. 4, and used a quadratic fit to the data to obtain $`\eta _r`$ for our samples. The value of $`c_p^{\text{free}}`$in each sample was estimated from $`c_p`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\xi `$ using an approximate expression based on scaled-particle theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992).

The rate of dynamical decay at wave vector $`q`$ depends on the length scale being probed; in dilute systems it scales as $`q^2`$. Thus, in order to compare the dynamics of different samples at different wave vectors, and to highlight the effects of the attraction, we scaled the delay time variable of the DSFs by the relative viscosity $`\eta _r`$ and the dimensionless wave vector $`(qR)^2`$, so that DSF is presented as a function of the ‘scaled time’ $`(qR)^2\tau /\eta _r`$. Note that for the lowest $`q`$ studied, the scaled time is very close to the real time, while at the highest $`q`$, it is increased by about an order of magnitude.

We found aging Bouchaud (2000) in all non-crystallizing samples. The dynamics slowed down with the ‘waiting time’ — the time interval between the cessation of tumbling and the beginning of measurements, Fig. 5. It is known that the hard-sphere glass ages van Megen et al. (1998). We found that the rate of aging in different glasses were different and that its effects were complex. Repulsive glasses aged only in the first day or two, after which they did not evolve within the time window of the measurements. Attractive glasses, on the other hand, showed different dynamics with age for up to 10 days. Aging is complicated enough to be the subject of a separate study and was not investigated systematically in this work. To eliminate as much as possible aging effects on dynamical results within practical limits of waiting time, we present DSFs of glassy samples with age between 1 and 4 days. The dynamics of crystallizing samples (C–E) were measured while they were in the metastable state well before the appearance of crystallization. Below we first show results of different samples at the same $`q`$, then at different $`q`$ for the same sample.

#### III.3.1 Constant scattering vectors, variable compositions

The DSFs of samples A–H at $`qR=1.50`$, Fig. 6, clearly evolve non-monotonically with increasing polymer concentration and show re-entrant behavior. Briefly, samples A and B are non-ergodic within our time window, while samples C–E are ergodic (their DSFs decay completely to zero), and samples F–G become non-ergodic again.

In detail, the DSF of sample A, a pure hard-sphere glass, shows a plateau at $`f_A(q,\mathrm{})0.7`$, corresponding to particles getting ‘stuck’ in their nearest-neighbor cages. This can be compared with previous work van Megen and Underwood (1994); van Megen et al. (1991). Note that in doing so, it is important to compare samples with the same density relative to random close packing: i.e. the same $`(\varphi _{\mathrm{rcp}}\varphi )/\varphi _{\mathrm{rcp}}`$, since $`\varphi _{\mathrm{rcp}}`$ differs according to the polydispersity of the colloids Schaert and Sillescu (1994).

With a small amount of polymer added to the hard-sphere glass, sample B shows the same qualitative dynamics. Quantitatively, however, the height of the plateau is lower, $`f(q,\mathrm{})=0.62`$. This indicates that particles in B are not as restricted as in A, i.e. the cage is loosened by the attractive interaction, but still remains closed in our time window.

The DSF of sample C decayed completely in (a ‘scaled time’ of) about 1000 seconds, as did those for the other crystallizing samples D and E. It is interesting to note that the DSFs of these three samples slow down upon increasing polymer concentration but all reach zero at about the same scaled time. The DSF of sample C shows the remnant of a plateau at a scaled time of $``$ 10 s. The DSFs for samples D and E exhibit a very stretched single decay, rather than a two-stepped process. This is unusual behavior for a fluid at volume fraction $`\varphi 0.6`$ (at least at first sight).

The intermediate, $`\beta `$, and long-time, $`\alpha `$, decay in a dense hard-sphere fluid are attributed to particles ‘rattling’ in their local neighbor cages, and escaping from these cages, respectively van Megen and Underwood (1994). Attraction hinders the ‘rattling’ by trapping particles in potential wells, but accelerates the cage opening by clustering. At some polymer concentration (or attraction strength), the two time scales coincide. If at this point the attraction alone is not enough to trap the system in an non-ergodic state, we will observe the melting of the repulsive glass into an ergodic fluid dominated by attraction. This is the case for sample C, where the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ decays are barely distinguishable in the DSF. At higher polymer concentrations, the cage concept is no longer appropriate for describing the particle dynamics — for it to be valid, a particle has to ‘rattle’ many times in a cage before it opens. Note that this is a distinctive feature of dense fluids with short-range attraction. In a dense fluid with long-range attraction, the effective potential well experienced by any particle due to its neighbors is essentially flat. This adds a (negative) constant to the free energy, so the phase behavior Widom (1967) and dynamics of the system are still controlled by repulsion (or, equivalently, entropy).

Note that the shape of the DSF of sample C at $`qR=1.50`$ is similar to that shown in curve 2, Fig. 11 of Dawson et al. (2001). This DSF was calculated at $`qR=2.1`$ for a sample in the re-entrant portion of the state diagram in a system that just shows a glass-glass transition and an A3 point. Recent calculations for colloid-polymer mixtures Bergenholtz et al. (2003) suggests that our system, with $`\xi 0.09`$, should show exactly these features.

The DSFs of samples F–H are, once more, non-ergodic in our time window: they do not decay completely even after $`10^4`$ seconds. Simple extrapolation indicates that it would take these DSFs at least $`10^6`$ seconds to reach zero. The DSFs of samples G and H show points of inflection; that for sample H is clearer and occurs at $`f=0.995`$ — a very high value compared to the plateaus in hard-sphere glasses. These high points of inflection can be associated with dynamics originating from particles rattling in very narrow attractive potential wells.

At other wave vectors, Figs. 7 and 8, the DSFs behave in a similar way, namely relatively low plateaus in the repulsive glasses A and B, complete decay in the metastable fluids C–E, and extremely slow dynamics in the attractive glasses F–H, with very high points of inflection in G and H. Note, however, that at the peak of the corresponding SSFs, the DSFs for samples C–E are barely distinguishable (Fig. 7).

The plateaus in the DSFs of the repulsive glasses can be used as a measure of $`f(q,\mathrm{})`$, the non-ergodicity parameter. An estimate of this quantity for the attractive glasses is more problematic, partly due to significant aging in our time window. To proceed, we use the value of $`f`$ at the point of inflection as a surrogate; we call this the ‘measured’ $`f(q,\mathrm{})f^{(M)}(q,\mathrm{})`$. The evolution of $`f^{(M)}(q,\mathrm{})`$ with increasing polymer concentration (samples A–H) is shown in Fig. 9. The non-ergodicity parameter decreases slightly when moving from A to B, away from the hard-sphere glass. When attraction melts the repulsive glass, $`f^{(M)}(q,\mathrm{})=0`$ for samples C–E (not shown). Sample F did not crystallize and showed non-ergodic dynamics up to $`10^4`$ seconds but did not exhibit any discernible point of inflection in its dynamics. Samples G and H had extremely high non-ergodicity parameters of nearly 1. A ‘jump’ in $`f(q,\mathrm{})`$ when moving from repulsive to attractive glass was predicted by MCT (Fig. 7 in Dawson et al. (2001)).

The evolution of the short-time dynamics of the whole sequence of samples is also interesting. Fig. 10 shows the short-time behavior of the DSFs for A–H at large length scale, $`qR=1.50`$, where experimental noise is lowest. Note the very small vertical interval, 1.000 to 0.997, spanned in this figure; thus only the first 0.3% of the decays of the DSFs are being analyzed. The DSFs of repulsive glasses A and B possessed relatively long linear parts, corresponding to the first term in $`\tau `$ in the expression derived from the Smoluchowski (many-particle diffusion) equation Pusey (1991): $`f(q,\tau )=1\frac{D_0H(q)}{\eta _rS(q)}q^2\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$, where $`D_0`$ is the free-particle diffusion constant in pure solvent (with no polymer) $`D_0=k_BT/6\pi \eta _0R`$, and $`H(q)`$ is the hydrodynamic factor. This linear regime of the DSFs indicates that at short time, individual particles still diffuse freely without the influence from direct interaction with their neighbors. The change in limiting slope as $`\tau 0`$, or the short-time diffusion coefficient $`D_s(q)=D_0H(q)/S(q)`$, can be almost entirely explained by the change in $`S(q)`$ (Fig. 11), including the strong decrease on entering the attractive glass regime. What is more interesting is that the dynamics depart from free diffusion progressively earlier upon increasing attraction (Fig. 10). In fact, for the attractive glasses F–H, the particles are confined so tightly by the attractive potential wells that the DSFs display non-linearity almost immediately (cf. also insets to Figs. 68).

Moving to the (shorter) sequence of samples at the higher volume fraction of $`\varphi 0.64`$ and closer to the intersection of the two glass transition lines, samples I–K in Fig. 1, we see the emergence of remarkably stretched-out, extremely slow dynamics. Consider first the data at $`qR=1.50`$, Fig. 12. In terms of short-time dynamics (inset, Fig. 12), samples I and J are comparable to samples C and D, while sample K shows a behavior intermediate between those of samples E and F. At intermediate times, the decay is linear with respect to the logarithm of the scaled time. Thereafter there is an incipient plateau at $`f0.7`$ in sample I, reminiscent of the plateau in repulsive glasses A and B, before a further decay, but never beyond $`0.62`$ in our time window. There is no incipient plateau for the other two samples. Note that the DSF of sample I shows aspects of the behavior of repulsion-dominated glasses (long time) and a fluid dominated by short-range attraction (short time). The two regimes are ‘bridged’ by a stretched log-time decay.

At the peak of the SSF, Fig. 13, sample I behaves in a similar way at short to intermediate times, while there is no incipient plateau at long times. Samples J and K develop an incipient plateau as high as $`0.993`$ (inset Fig. 13) before turning over to decay more rapidly in logarithmic time.

The fact that these samples show extremely stretched out dynamics, logarithmic in time, suggests that they are very close to the A3 critical point predicted by MCT, where the repulsive and attractive glasses become indistinguishable Fabbian et al. (1999); Dawson et al. (2001); Sciortino et al. . In particular, the shape of the DSF of sample I at $`qR=1.5`$ is comparable to curve 3 in Fig. 11 of Dawson et al. (2001), calculated at $`qR=2.1`$ for a sample on the repulsive glass transition line very close to where it intersects the attractive glass transition line for a system that just shows an A3 singularity. This is not inconsistent with the position of sample I on the state diagram, Fig. 1, of our system at $`\xi 0.09`$ Bergenholtz et al. (2003).

Heuristically, we may begin to make sense of log-time decays as follows. At high enough volume fraction, the average distance between neighboring particles will decrease to a value such that they are always well within the attraction range of each other 111In our system the estimated distance between particles for samples I–K ($`\varphi =0.64`$) from random close pack ($`\varphi _{rcp}=0.69`$) is $`(\varphi _{rcp}/\varphi )^{1/3}=1.031+\xi /3`$, where the attractive potential is half of the maximum depth.. If the attraction is strong enough, the restriction of particle movement due to the neighbor cage and the restriction caused by bonding between particles take place simultaneously at all times. This competition between two opposite mechanisms may lead to a broad distribution of decay times and therefore a very stretched out DSF 222Formally, a $`\tau ^1`$ distribution of decay times gives a decay linear in $`\mathrm{log}\tau `$. Limitations in our data mean, however, that we cannot use them to back out the actual decay-time distribution in our samples..

#### III.3.2 Constant compositions, variable scattering vectors

In this section, we show for completeness the dynamics of each sample at different scattering vectors in Figs. 1417. The change of DSFs with $`q`$ in repulsive glasses A and B are in agreement with previous work van Megen et al. (1991); van Megen and Underwood (1994). Other samples show the general trend that the dynamics become slower at scattering vectors with higher $`S(q)`$. The only exception concerns the intermediate-time dynamics of the attractive glasses F–H (insets, Fig. 16). The significance of the rather complicated $`q`$-dependence of the intermediate-time dynamics of these samples is not clear. Nor do we know of any detailed calculations to date that can throw light on this issue.

The systematic $`q`$-dependent data shown in Figs. 1417 allow us to investigate the $`q`$-dependence of the measured non-ergodicity parameter, $`f^{(M)}(q,\mathrm{})`$, in detail. The measured non-ergodicity parameters of glassy samples A, B, G and H are shown as a function of scattering vector $`q`$ in Fig. 18. The data for repulsive glasses A and B vary essentially with the static structure factor, as observed in hard-sphere glasses van Megen et al. (1991). Attractive glass G and H on the other hand showed extremely high measured non-ergodicity parameters that hardly vary with $`q`$. This agrees with predictions by MCT (c.f. Fig. 8 in Dawson et al. (2001)).

## IV Conclusion

We have studied a dense system of hard-sphere colloids with a short-range inter-particle attraction induced by the depletion effect of added non-adsorbing polymer. The observed crystallization behavior as well as particle dynamics studied by DLS reveal a re-entrant glass transition. With little attraction, the system at high enough volume fraction is ‘stuck’ in a repulsive glassy state where the arrest is due to caging by neighboring particles. Our data support the suggestion Bergenholtz and Fuchs (1999b) that attraction causes particles to cluster, thus opening up holes in the cages and melting the glass. At the same time, the attraction slows down the particle dynamics. We found that the repulsive glass melts when the characteristic time of the attraction-dominated particle dynamics becomes comparable to that of cage opening. The resulting ergodic fluid shows a distinctive dynamical feature: despite the fluid’s high density, its DSF does not show distinct $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ relaxation processes. Increasing the attraction further leads to different kind of arrest where the strong attraction between particles create long-lived bonds and prevent structural rearrangement, giving rise to an attraction-dominated glass. Detailed light scattering has been used to probe the effect of attraction on both structure and dynamics.

Qualitatively, this scenario agrees well with predictions from MCT calculations (with those reported in Bergenholtz et al. (2003) being closest to the present experimental system). In particular, we observed very slow, log-time dynamics in the DSFs in the region where the two glass transition lines are expected to meet. Quantitatively, however, our results stand as a challenge to MCT (or any other theory): the detailed calculations needed for direct quantitative comparison have not, to our knowledge, been performed.

A detailed comparison between experiment and theory faces a number of non-trivial problems. First and foremost, since calculated and measured glass transition thresholds differ, choices exist as to what constitute ‘corresponding state points’ for the purpose of making the comparison. In the case of pure hard spheres, where $`\varphi _g^{\mathrm{MCT}}0.52`$ and $`\varphi _g^{\mathrm{expt}}0.58`$, it is accepted practice to compare measurements and calculations at the same relative volume fraction $`(\varphi \varphi _g)/\varphi _g`$ van Megen and Underwood (1994). The situation is more complex in a colloid-polymer mixture, since a state point is now specified by the densities of both components. The predicted glass transition lines show quantitative disagreement with experiments over the whole composition plane (cf. Fig. 1 in Pham et al. (2002)). To compare calculated and measured SSFs and DSFs, a protocol for identifying ‘corresponding state points’ is needed.

Secondly, the attractive interaction between two particles is always specified directly as a potential energy in calculations. The corresponding experimental variable is the polymer concentration in the free volume, $`c_p^{\text{free}}`$. This is currently guessed at using an uncontrolled and untested approximation based on scaled-particle theory Lekkerkerker et al. (1992), and is likely to lead to large systematic errors in systems with high colloid volume fractions. Thirdly, the marked and complex aging behavior of the attractive glasses complicates the definition of a non-ergodic state for the purposes of comparing with MCT. Despite these potential difficulties, however, our data suggest that it may be worthwhile performing a series of calculations at fixed $`\varphi `$ and increasing attraction crossing the re-entrant gap in between the repulsive and attractive glass transition lines for a system of hard spheres interacting with something like an Asakura-Oosawa potential Bergenholtz et al. (2003).

Finally, it is clear that attractive and repulsive glasses show qualitative distinct aging behavior. Classical MCT does not predict aging, but it is a generic feature of experimental glasses of all kinds Bouchaud (2000). A number of theoretical approaches are emerging, and simulation is a valuable tool. It is probable that further study of this phenomenon in our model colloid-polymer mixture should throw significant light on this intriguing (and generic) phenomenon Zacarelli et al. .

###### Acknowledgements.

KNP is funded by an UK ORS award and the University of Edinburgh. Partial financial support for experimental equipment came from EPSRC grant GR/M92560. We thank Matthias Fuchs, Michael Cates, Antonio Puertas, Johan Bergenholtz and Francesco Sciortino for illuminating discussions during various stages of this work, and Michael Cates also for commenting on the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Can homogeneous extra dimensions be stabilized during matter domination?

## 1 Introduction

The idea that our world may consist of more than four space-time dimensions, with extra spatial dimensions compactified on some small scale, goes back to Nordström, Kaluza and Klein . One of the main motivations for these and subsequent works was the hope for a possible unification of all interactions (see e.g.  for a nice review on Kaluza-Klein theories). Recent years have seen a great revival of interest in extra-dimensional scenarios, most notably due to the influence of string theory. For a review on different models with extra dimensions see for example  and references therein.

An important testing ground for theories involving extra dimensions is cosmology. A generic prediction of these theories is that (some of) the fundamental coupling constants vary with the volume of the internal space. However, the strong cosmological constraints on the allowed variation of these ’constants’ (see for example ) require the extra space to be not only compactified, but also stabilized, at a time no later than big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). One of the main tasks is therefore to find a dynamical explanation for this. Of course, one should also be able to reproduce standard cosmology for late times. An interesting idea is furthermore the possibility of a dark matter candidate arising from such theories .

Recently, the stability properties of so-called universal extra dimensions  have been investigated in the absence of any explicit stabilization mechanism. It was shown that while static extra dimensions arise naturally during radiation domination, for matter domination there are no solutions that reproduce standard cosmology . Here, we will consider a much more general setup, including not only the case of universal extra dimensions, and take into account a wide range of available stabilization mechanisms for homogeneous extra dimensions. We find that the problems with a matter dominated universe as encountered before seem to be generic: none of the mechanisms considered can account for stable extra dimensions and a standard cosmological evolution of ordinary space during an era of matter domination. For previous work on the dynamical evolution and stability properties of homogenous extra dimensions see e.g.  and references therein.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we give a brief introduction to cosmology with homogeneous extra dimensions and how to get the Friedmann-like equations that describe the evolution of the higher-dimensional metric. Section 3 reviews the general form of the stabilization mechanisms considered, including concrete examples, and Section 4 shows that while standard cosmology during radiation domination is thereby achieved easily, none of these mechanisms work for matter domination. An alternative way to investigate higher-dimensional theories is to dimensionally reduce the action and then to perfom a conformal transformation in order to recover (in the present context) ordinary four-dimensional general relativity plus a scalar field. In Section 5 we review this procedure and show explicitly that these two approaches are equivalent and lead to the same predictions. Finally, Section 6 concludes.

## 2 Cosmology with homogeneous extra dimensions

In the following we shall consider a ($`4+n`$) \- dimensional spacetime of the form $`F^4\times K`$, with $`F^4`$ the observed Friedmann solution and $`K`$ a compact $`n`$-dimensional manifold. Our sign conventions are those of . We adopt coordinates $`X^A`$, $`A=0,1,\mathrm{},3+n`$ with

$$x^\mu X^\mu (\mu =0,1,2,3)\text{and}x^iX^i(i=1,2,3)$$
(1)
being the coordinates for ordinary four-dimensional spacetime and three-dimensional space (3D) respectively, and

$$y^pX^{3+p}(p=1,\mathrm{},n),$$
(2)
the coordinates for the extra dimensions. Einstein’s field equations are given by

$$R_{AB}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{AB}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{AB}=\kappa ^2T_{AB},$$
(3)
where the coupling constant $`\kappa ^2`$ is related to its four-dimensional analogue $`\overline{\kappa }^2`$ via the $`n`$-dimensional volume $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ of the compact space $`K`$:

$$\kappa ^2=\stackrel{~}{V}\overline{\kappa }^2.$$
(4)
To describe the evolution of the higher-dimensional universe it is natural to assume a metric with *two* time-dependent scale factors $`a(t)`$ and $`b(t)`$ :

$$g_{AB}X^AX^B=t^2+a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}x^ix^j+b^2(t)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{pq}y^py^q,$$
(5)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{pq}`$ are maximally symmetric metrics in three and $`n`$ dimensions, respectively. Spatial curvature is thus parametrized in the usual way by $`k_a=1,0,1`$ in ordinary and $`k_b=1,0,1`$ in the compactified space. This choice of metric is certainly not the most general one but it clearly illustrates the difficulties of stabilization during matter domination. Taking the compact space to be an Einstein space does not change our results. For a thorough analysis of models with anisotropic homogeneous extra dimensions, see  and references therein.

The choice of the metric determines the form of the energy-momentum tensor to be

$$T_{00}=\rho ,T_{ij}=p_a\gamma _{ij},T_{3+p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}+q}=p_b\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{pq},$$
(6)
which describes a homogeneous but in general anisotropic perfect fluid in its rest frame. The non-zero components of the field equations (3) are then given by111 These expressions become equivalent to those in  via the trivial rescaling $`k_b\frac{2}{n1}k_b`$.

$`3\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_a}{a^2}}\right]+3n{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_b}{b^2}}\right]=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa ^2\rho ,`$ (7)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_a}{a^2}}+2n{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}+n{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_b}{b^2}}\right]=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2p_a,`$ (8)
$`3{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+3\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_a}{a^2}}\right]+3(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}+(n1){\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{b}}{b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{b}}{b}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_b}{b^2}}\right]`$
$`=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2p_b,`$ (9)
where a dot denotes differentiation with respect to cosmic time $`t`$. For later convenience, we will not use (9) but instead

$$\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{b}}{b}+(n1)\left[\left(\frac{\dot{b}}{b}\right)^2+\frac{k_b}{b^2}\right]=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n+2}+\frac{\kappa ^2}{n+2}\left(\rho 3p_a+2p_b\right),$$
(10)
which is a linear combination of equations (7 \- 9).

The energy density can be related to the pressures by the equations of state $`p_a=w_a\rho `$ and $`p_b=w_b\rho `$. From conservation of energy $`T_{0;A}^A=0`$ it then follows that

$$\frac{\dot{\rho }}{\rho }=3(1+w_a)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}n(1+w_b)\frac{\dot{b}}{b}.$$
(11)
For constant $`w_a`$, $`w_b`$ this can be integrated to

$$\rho =\rho _0a^{3(1+w_a)}b^{n(1+w_b)}.$$
(12)
## 3 Compactification and stabilization of extra dimensions

We do not directly observe any extra dimensions, so we expect the space $`K`$ to be compactified on some small scale. (For a non-compactified approach see, e.g. .) Furthermore, from (4), any time-variation of $`b`$ would lead to a time-dependent (four-dimensional) gravitational coupling ’constant’. As there are tight constraints on such a behaviour, the size of the compact space should be stabilized already at an early stage of the cosmological evolution, i.e. no later than BBN. One usually assumes that both of these requirements can be attained dynamically by introducing background fields. Since their role is to separate ordinary space from the extra dimensions they typically contribute an effective action of the form

$$S^{\mathrm{bg}}=^{4+n}X\sqrt{g}W(b)$$
(13)
to the theory . Even in the simple case of

$$W(b)b^m,$$
(14)
one may thereby describe the stabilizing effect of gauge-fields wrapped around two extra dimensions ($`m=4`$)  and the generalization of this to the Freund-Rubin mechanism ($`m=2n`$) , or Casimir energy of massless fields ($`m=n+4`$) . Examples that can not be described by the simple form (14) but still fit into the general scheme (13) include for example the Casimir energy of massive fields in orbifold theories  or scenarios where several different mechanisms contribute to $`S^{\mathrm{bg}}`$.

The energy-momentum tensor corresponding to the action (13) can be computed from

$$\delta S^{\mathrm{bg}}=\frac{1}{2}^{4+n}X\sqrt{g}T_{AB}^{\mathrm{bg}}\delta g^{AB}$$
(15)
and takes the form

$$T_{00}^{\mathrm{bg}}=\rho ^{\mathrm{bg}},T_{ij}^{\mathrm{bg}}=p_a^{\mathrm{bg}}\gamma _{ij},T_{3+p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}+q}^{\mathrm{bg}}=p_b^{\mathrm{bg}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{pq},$$
(16)
with

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{bg}}=p_a^{\mathrm{bg}}=W(b)$$
(17)
and

$$p_b^{\mathrm{bg}}=W(b)+\frac{b}{n}W^{}(b).$$
(18)
## 4 Recovering standard cosmology

Let us assume that a stabilization mechanism due to background fields is at work, i.e. $`b(t)=b_0`$ is constant at late times. Since these fields also contribute to the energy-momentum tensor, we replace $`\rho \rho +\rho ^{\mathrm{bg}}`$ and $`p_{a,b}p_{a,b}+p_{a,b}^{\mathrm{bg}}`$ in the field equations (7 \- 9). All contributions to the energy-momentum tensor that are not due to background fields or a cosmological constant are then given by $`\rho `$ and $`p_{a,b}`$, and equations (7 \- 8) reduce to the standard Friedmann equations with an effective four-dimensional cosmological constant

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n+2}+\frac{\kappa ^2}{n+2}\left[2W(b_0)+b_0W^{}(b_0)\right].$$
(19)
(Note that $`\kappa ^2\rho =\overline{\kappa }^2\overline{\rho }`$, where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the four-dimensional energy density; in the same way $`\kappa ^2p_a=\overline{\kappa }^2\overline{p}`$.) It now just remains to check, whether the remaining equation (10) is consistent:

$$(n+2)(n1)\frac{k_b}{b_0^2}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\kappa ^2\left[W(b_0)\frac{b_0}{n}W^{}(b_0)\right]+\kappa ^2\left(\rho 3p_a+2p_b\right).$$
(20)
For an era where the energy momentum tensor is dominated by usual four-dimensional radiation, the last term vanishes since $`\rho =3p_a`$ and $`p_b=0`$. This should be the case after compactification and stabilization has taken place and we have $`a1/Tb`$. Then, for any given $`W`$ and $`b_0`$, equation (20) can be satisfied by fine-tuning the value of the higher-dimensional cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Requiring furthermore that the effective four-dimensional cosmological constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ given by (19) is negligible during radiation domination, corresponds to $`b_0`$ being a stationary point of

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(b)W(b)\frac{n(n1)}{2\kappa ^2}\frac{k_b}{b^2},$$
(21)
i.e. $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}(b_0)=0`$. In that way standard cosmological evolution is reproduced during radiation domination, without a cosmological constant. If $`b_0`$ is a local *minimum* of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(b)`$ the solution is also stable against small perturbations .

However, (20) can only be satisfied if 222 This constraint also appears in . Here, however, it applies to the components of the energy-momentum tensor *after* the contributions from the stabilization mechanism have been subtracted.

$$\rho 3p_a+2p_b=const,$$
(22)
and it is hard to see how this can possibly be the case if the energy-momentum tensor is not dominated by four-dimensional radiation. For example, throughout most of its evolution the universe has been dominated by non-relativistic matter with negligible pressure $`p_a\rho `$. The only way to get static extra dimensions during such an epoch would be to have

$$p_b=\frac{1}{2}\rho +const.$$
(23)
Since $`\rho `$ is the *total* energy density, such an equation of state seems highly contrived and we will not consider it further. A hint at what it might correspond to is given by .

Of course, condition (22) is obviously satisfied if the energy density and the pressures are constant in time. Recent type Ia supernovae observations  strongly suggest that the presently dominating energy component has negative pressure and this may well be due to a cosmological constant, which is characterized by constant energy density and pressure. However, such a vacuum energy is negligible up until relatively recently and can thus not solve the problems with a long period of matter domination.

## 5 Dimensional reduction

So far, we have directly discussed the field equations (3). A complementary way of studying multi-dimensional theories is to dimensionally reduce the action by integrating out the internal dimensions and then perform a Weyl scaling. To be more precise, one starts from the action,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}^{4+n}X\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }2\kappa ^2_{\mathrm{matter}}\right),$$
(24)
and assumes a metric of a slightly more general kind than (5):

$$g_{AB}X^AX^B=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu +b^2(x^\mu )\stackrel{~}{g}_{pq}y^py^q,$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{pq}`$ depends on the internal coordinates $`y^p`$ only. Decomposing the curvature scalar $`R`$, integrating out the extra dimensions and discarding all total divergences gives

$$S=\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}{2\kappa ^2}^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}b^n\left(\overline{R}+b^2\stackrel{~}{R}+n(n1)b^2_\mu b^\mu b2\mathrm{\Lambda }2\kappa ^2_{\mathrm{matter}}\right),$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}=^ny\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ while $`\overline{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ are the curvature scalars constructed from $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{pq}`$, respectively. For $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{pq}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{pq}`$ one gets $`\stackrel{~}{R}=n(n1)k_b`$.

The next step is to put the gravitational part of this action in standard Einstein-Hilbert form by performing a Weyl transformation to a new metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=b^n\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. Introducing $`\widehat{\kappa }^2=\kappa ^2/\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{\frac{n(n+2)}{2\widehat{\kappa }^2}}\mathrm{ln}b`$ then results in four-dimensional gravity plus a scalar field,

$$S=^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(\frac{1}{2\widehat{\kappa }^2}\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$
(27)
with an effective potential

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)k_b}{2\widehat{\kappa }^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(n+2)\widehat{\kappa }^2}{n}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\widehat{\kappa }^2}}+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{\mathrm{matter}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2n\widehat{\kappa }^2}{n+2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\right).`$ (28)
The fact that the four-dimensional gravitational coupling constant $`\widehat{\kappa }^2`$ above differs from the one in (4) and (26) is an artifact of the conformal transformation.

The theories described by (24) and (27) are completely equivalent, i.e. they result in the same equations of motion. For the scalar field in (27), for example, one has

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Phi }=V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}_\mu \sqrt{\widehat{g}}^\mu `$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. In order to compare this with the results of the previous sections, we restrict ourselves to the metric (5) and write the higher-dimensional matter part in perfect fluid form $`_{\mathrm{matter}}=\rho =\rho _0a^{3(1+w_a)}b^{n(1+w_b)}`$. One may now verify that (29) gives exactly (10), from which all previous results follow.333 It is, however, important to keep in mind that after the conformal transformation the independent variables of $`_{\mathrm{matter}}`$ are no longer $`a`$ and $`b`$ but $`\widehat{a}=b^{\frac{n}{2}}a`$ and $`b`$ (appropriately expressed in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$). The $`b`$-dependence of $`\rho `$ thus changes from $`\rho b^{n(1+w_b)}`$ to $`\rho b^{\frac{n}{2}(1+3w_a2w_b)}`$.

The equation of motion (29) for the scalar field thus provides a convenient way to look for static solutions of the scale factor $`b`$. Since the spatial derivatives vanish, such solutions must obey

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })=0,$$
(30)
and if the extremal point of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a minimum, one furthermore expects these solutions to be stable. However, caution must be taken as to which metric one regards as physical, i.e. whether $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ or $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is taken to have FRW-form and thus how the matter part couples to the scale factors. Another important point to notice is that $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is time-dependent through its dependence on $`_{\mathrm{matter}}`$. So even if there existed a minimum for the effective potential at all times of the cosmological evolution, its value would still be expected to vary during transition periods such as from radiation to matter domination. The scale factor $`b`$ would then no longer stay constant but be driven towards the new minimum according to (29).

## 6 Conclusions

One of the main quests of higher-dimensional cosmology is to understand the special role of the extra dimensions compared to the evolution of ordinary three-dimensional space. Strong observational constraints on the variation of coupling constants require, in particular, that the extra dimensions are effectively stabilized no later than BBN. Such a stabilization is usually achieved by introducing background fields, typically the same fields that are supposed to be responsible for the compactification of the internal space. A wide range of these mechanisms can be expressed in a phenomenological way by adding a term of the form (13) to the action. This term only depends on the size of the extra dimensions, which is what one would expect since its role is to separate ordinary three-space from the internal space. Concrete examples of mechanisms fitting into this scheme include those described in .

By analysing the higher-dimensional field equations or, equivalently, the equations of motion for the dimensionally reduced theory, it can be seen that this general setup provides the possibility of having static extra dimensions and a standard cosmological evolution of ordinary three-space – at the cost of fine-tuning the higher-dimensional cosmological constant. However, this result holds only if the universe is either dominated by radiation or a constant energy-momentum tensor. For a matter-dominated universe no static solutions are available and thus this setup cannot be used to explain the stability of the extra dimensions during the whole evolution of the universe.

The only possibility to get homogeneous static extra dimensions compatible with standard cosmology is therefore to invent stabilization mechanisms that – in contrast to (13) – not only depend on the size of the extra dimensions but, for example, also on the total energy density $`\rho `$. Indeed, allowing for interaction terms between the background fields and the matter Langrangian, that is precisely what one would expect. Such a dependence on a second time-varying quantity would introduce additional time-dependent terms in the analogue of (20) and thus in principle allow for static solutions for a suitably chosen $`W(b,\rho )`$. In such a scenario, however, the minima of the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are still expected to depend on the dominant contribution to the energy density and the size of the extra dimensions should therefore change during transition periods like for example from radiation to matter domination.

Finally, we would like to stress that this article considers homogeneous cosmologies. In brane world scenarios for example, there may be other stabilization mechanisms at hand that naturally fulfil the constraint (22) – see for example  for a corresponding suggestion. For the reasons given above, however, a variation of the size of the extra dimensions should be expected for *all* models that allow for changing equations of state in the bulk.

We are grateful to Michael Gustafsson, Lars Bergström and Stefan Hofmann for helpful discussions and careful reading of the manuscript.

## References


text:
# 1 Running of the weak mixing angle in the Standard Model, calculated in the (MS)̄ scheme. Shown are results from atomic parity violation [], NuTeV [], and the 𝑍 pole []. E158 [] is a currently running experiment at SLAC, and the error bar shown is the E158 proposal goal. Figure courtesy of J. Erler, A. Kurylov, and M.J. Ramsey-Musolf [].

Qweak: A Precision Measurement of the
Proton’s Weak Charge

Gregory S. Mitchell, for the Qweak Collaboration

Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA

## Abstract

The Qweak experiment at Jefferson Lab aims to make a 4% measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry in elastic scattering at very low $`Q^2`$ of a longitudinally polarized electron beam on a proton target. The experiment will measure the weak charge of the proton, and thus the weak mixing angle at low energy scale, providing a precision test of the Standard Model. Since the value of the weak mixing angle is approximately 1/4, the weak charge of the proton $`Q_w^p=14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ is suppressed in the Standard Model, making it especially sensitive to the value of the mixing angle and also to possible new physics. The experiment is approved to run at JLab, and the construction plan calls for the hardware to be ready to install in Hall C in 2007. The experiment will be a 2200 hour measurement, employing: an 80% polarized, 180 $`\mu `$A, 1.2 GeV electron beam; a 35 cm liquid hydrogen target; and a toroidal magnet to focus electrons scattered at 9, a small forward angle corresponding to $`Q^2`$ = 0.03 (GeV/c)2. With these kinematics the systematic uncertainties from hadronic processes are strongly suppressed. To obtain the necessary statistics the experiment must run at an event rate of over 6 GHz. This requires current mode detection of the scattered electrons, which will be achieved with synthetic quartz C̆erenkov detectors. A tracking system will be used in a low-rate counting mode to determine average $`Q^2`$ and the dilution factor of background events. The theoretical context of the experiment and the status of its design are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

There are strong theoretical reasons to expect that the Standard Model is a low-energy effective theory of some more fundamental description of nature. To identify new physics, one method is to observe directly new particles and interactions at large energy scale. Alternatively, an indirect search can be made at low energy, where a precision measurement may observe small effects due to the new physics.

The Qweak experiment  at Jefferson Lab (JLab) will make such a precision measurement of the asymmetry between cross-sections for positive and negative helicity electrons in polarized elastic electron-proton scattering. The asymmetry violates parity, and arises from the interference of electromagnetic and weak amplitudes (photon and $`Z`$ boson exchange). At this low energy scale, the asymmetry is a measure of the weak charge of the proton, $`\mathrm{Q}_w^p`$, which is the strength of the weak vector coupling of the $`Z`$ boson to the proton. In the limit of small scattering angle and small momentum transfer ($`Q^20`$), the asymmetry is given by :

$$\frac{\sigma _+\sigma _{}}{\sigma _++\sigma _{}}=[\frac{G_F}{4\pi \alpha \sqrt{2}}][Q^2\mathrm{Q}_w^p+Q^4B(Q^2)]0.3\mathrm{ppm}\mathrm{at}Q^2=0.03\mathrm{GeV}^2$$

where $`B(Q^2)`$ is a contribution from electromagnetic and weak form factors. To lowest order, the weak charge is $`\mathrm{Q}_w^p=14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$, where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w0.23`$ is the weak mixing angle. The goal of the Qweak experiment is a 4% measurement of $`\mathrm{Q}_w^p`$, which corresponds to a 0.3% measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$.

The weak mixing angle is the single most important parameter of the Standard Model. The Qweak experiment will be a low-energy measurement of the weak mixing angle, which is a test of the Standard Model running of the angle . As shown in Fig. 1 the value of the weak mixing angle is predicted to change (in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme) by $`4\%`$ from the energy scale of the $`Z`$ pole (where a decade of precision measurements has been made at high energy colliders at SLAC and CERN ) to the low energy scale of Qweak. With a 0.3% measurement of the weak mixing angle, the Qweak experiment will make a $`10\sigma `$ verification of this effect.

Weak charge and mixing angle results can also be obtained in other types of experiments. In atomic parity violation experiments , weak charge values are complicated to extract due to atomic structure and many-body nuclear effects (see, for example ). The NuTeV experiment  at Fermilab has seen evidence of a non-Standard Model value for the weak mixing angle at a lower energy scale than the $`Z`$ pole, but its result is sensitive to choice of parton distributions and radiative corrections. A currently running experiment at SLAC, E158 , is measuring parity violation in electron-electron scattering, and is complementary to Qweak in its sensitivity to different types of new physics (for example: SUSY, leptoquarks, $`Z^{}`$ boson, R-parity violation, …) . The scientific impact of the Qweak experiment will be: a direct measurement of the proton’s weak charge in a simple system; a theoretically clean method of measuring precisely the weak mixing angle at low energy scale, a relatively unexplored regime of the Standard Model; and a possible unambiguous indication of new physics.

THE QWEAK EXPERIMENT

An illustration of the conceptual design of the Qweak experiment is shown in Fig. 2. The experiment consists of scattering of a longitudinally polarized 1.2 GeV electron beam by a 35 cm liquid hydrogen target. Elastically scattered electrons at $`9\pm 2`$ degrees are selected by a collimation system, and the electrons are focused by a large toroidal magnet onto a set of eight synthetic quartz C̆erenkov detectors. At the average experimental momentum transfer of $`Q^2=0.03\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ the expected Qweak asymmetry is small, -0.3 parts per million (ppm). The expected event rate for scattered electrons of $`6`$ GHz (760 MHz per detector octant) precludes counting the individual events. Instead, the experiment will use current mode detection and low noise front end electronics.

A tracking system will be used with the beam current reduced by four orders of magnitude, allowing individual events to be observed. This will enable both a measurement of the dilution of the C̆erenkov detector signal by background and a precise determination of the average $`Q^2`$. The tracking system components will rotate to cover all octants, and will include the following three sets of detectors: a gas electron multiplier as a front vertex detector; wire chambers near the magnet entrance as a measure of scattering angle; and, at the focal plane, vertical drift chambers to allow mapping of the analog response of the C̆erenkov system, and large scintillators as a charged particle trigger.

To extract the physics of interest for Qweak requires an extrapolation to low $`Q^2`$ of hadronic form factors, $`B(Q^2)`$ above, which will be the dominant systematic error for the experiment at 2%. These form factors will contribute approximately one third of the experimental asymmetry. They are known with reasonable precision at higher $`Q^2`$, and are suppressed by a factor of $`Q^2`$ with respect to the weak charge contribution for Qweak. Other experiments completed or underway at JLab (G0, HAPPEX, HAPPEX II), Bates at MIT (SAMPLE), and MAMI at Mainz (A4), will be used to constrain these form factors. If necessary, in the future the Qweak collaboration could pursue an independent measure of $`B(Q^2)`$ by running at a $`Q^2`$ different from 0.03 GeV2.

Precision beam polarimetry is required in order to have a polarization contribution to systematic error of less than 1.5%, and a Compton polarimeter will be constructed in JLab Hall C. Radiative corrections for the polarized $`ep`$ scattering process at these kinematics have been calculated and are known with a precision of 0.8% .

The Qweak physics proposal was approved by the January 2002 JLab PAC with an ‘A’ scientific rating, and Qweak has become an important new thrust of the JLab scientific program. The experiment presented a successful technical design review in January 2003. The Qweak experiment will proceed in two stages: a statistics limited run with a low power target to achieve an 8% or better result on the asymmetry in 2007, followed by a run of 2200 hours at 180 $`\mu `$A to achieve a 4% result. The absolute limits of the technique are under study. This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

The Qweak Collaboration:
D.S. Armstrong1, T.D. Averett1, J. Birchall2, J.D. Bowman3, R.D. Carlini4, S. Chattopadhyay4, C.A. Davis5, J. Doornbos5, J.A. Dunne6, R. Ent4, J. Erler7, W.R. Falk2, J.M. Finn1, T.A. Forest8, D.J. Gaskell4, K.H. Grimm1, C. Hagner9, F.W. Hersman10, M. Holtrop10, K. Johnston8, R.T. Jones11, K. Joo11, C. Keppel12, E. Korkmaz13, S. Kowalski14, L. Lee2, A. Lung4, D. Mack4, S. Majewski4, G.S. Mitchell3, H. Mkrtchyan15, N. Morgan9, A.K. Opper16, S.A. Page2, S.I. Penttila3, M. Pitt9, M. Poelker4, T. Porcelli13, W.D. Ramsay2, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf17, J. Roche4, N. Simicevic8, G.R. Smith4, R. Suleiman14, S. Taylor14, W.T.H. van Oers2, S.B. Wells8, W.S. Wilburn3, S.A. Wood4, C. Zorn4

1College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
2University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
3Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
4Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory, Newport News, Virginia 23606
5TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A3
6Mississippi State University, Mississippi 39762
7Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 04510 México D.F., México
8Louisiana Technical University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272
9Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
10University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824
11University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269
12Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia 23668
13University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9
14Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
15Yerevan Physics Institute, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia
16Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701
17California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125


text:
# Fragmentation functions of mesons in the Field-Feynman model

## 1 Introduction

The productions of mesons are under investigations in various processes nowadays, therefore the fragmentation functions of mesons are among the useful basic quantities in high energy physics studies. A complete knowledge of the quark to meson fragmentation functions with detailed flavor structure is needed and will be more useful. In previous studies, the fragmentation functions of mesons are usually obtained from experimental data on $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation process PDG . However, the situation has now been changed because the HERMES collaboration has published results of charge separated data for $`\pi ^\pm `$ production on the proton target HERMES . By combining the HERMES data on semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS) $`\pi ^\pm `$-production with the singlet fragmentation function $`D_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\pi ^+}`$, which is well determined from $`e^+e^{}`$ data, Kretzer, Leader, and Christova KLC  obtained a complete set of fragmentation functions of the pion: $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$, without specific assumption about relation between favored and unfavored transitions, such as $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=(1z)D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ in K00  and $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=(1z)^nD_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ (with n=2,3,4) in MSY . The Kretzer-Leader-Christova (KLC) parametrization results of the experimental data are:

$$D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)=0.689z^{1.039}(1z)^{1.241},$$
(1)
$$D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=0.217z^{1.805}(1z)^{2.037},$$
(2)
$$D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)=0.164z^{1.927}(1z)^{2.886}.$$
(3)
Although the evolution behaviors can be calculated perturbatively, the actual form of the fragmentation functions is non-perturbative. Therefore the fragmentation functions are helpful to elucidate the fundamental features of hadronization. The pioneering analysis by Field and Feynman FF ; Field  provides a simple and lucid picture to understand the fragmentation for a quark into mesons based on a recursive principle, and has stimulated more sophisticated models like the string fragmentation model, implemented in Monte Carlo generation programs PDG , as in the Lund model Lund . The Field-Feynman model is successful to parameterize the fragmentation functions of the pion and kaon with only two parameters. However, no distinction between $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ was made in the original model FF , for the sake to reduce independent parameters. With the recent progress of clear distinction between $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$, it becomes mature and necessary to consider the flavor structure of the unfavored fragmentation functions of mesons in the Field-Feynman model. The purpose of this paper is, for the first time, to make a distinction between $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ in the Field-Feynman model. It will be shown that this can be realized by adopting the flavor dependent parameters for the excitation of sea quark-antiquark pairs by the initial quarks. We will find that the obtained analytical results for $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$ with only three parameters, are compatible with the recent KLC parametrization Eqs. (1-3) based on experimental results. We will also extend the same framework to the fragmentation functions of the kaon, and show that we can distinguish between $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_u^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$, and $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$ without introducing any additional parameters. Thus the predictions can be tested by future experiments on the fragmentation functions of the kaon.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we present a brief review of the Field-Feynman recursive model for the quark to meson fragmentation functions, and make a distinction between the parameters that can introduce the difference between $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$. In Sec. 3, we adjust the parameters based on the KLC parametrization and the experimental results. We present the analytical results of $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$, and compare them with the experimental results. In Sec. 4, we extend the framework to the fragmentation functions of the kaon, and make predictions of the four different fragmentation functions $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_u^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$, and $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$. Finally, we present a summary in Sec. 5.

## 2 A brief review of the recursive model

The Field-Feynman model FF  of the meson fragmentation is on the basis of a recursive principle, as can be illustrated in Fig. 1. The model ansatz is based on the idea that an incoming quark “$`A`$” combines with an antiquark “$`\overline{B}`$” from a quark-antiquark pair “$`B\overline{B}`$” which is produced from the color field excited by the incoming quark “$`A`$”. Then the meson “$`A\overline{B}`$” is constructed, and is ranked as 1st primary meson. The remaining quark “$`B`$” goes on the same way as the quark “$`A`$”, and combines with “$`\overline{C}`$” from a quark-antiquark pair “$`C\overline{C}`$” which is excited by the quark “$`B`$”. It constructs the primary meson “$`B\overline{C}`$”, ranked as 2nd primary meson. Then the remaining quark “$`C`$” goes on the same way in the remaining cascade.

With $`f(\eta )\mathrm{d}\eta `$ denoting the probability that the first rank 1 meson leaves a fractional momentum $`\eta `$ to the remaining cascade, the function $`f(\eta )`$ is normalized by

$$_0^1f(z)dz=1.$$
(4)
Then let $`F(z)\mathrm{d}z`$ be the probability of finding a meson (independent of rank) with fractional momentum $`z`$ within $`\mathrm{d}z`$ in a quark jet. So $`F(z)`$ can be written by the recursive principle

$$F(z)=f(1z)+_0^1\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\eta }f(\eta )F(\frac{z}{\eta }).$$
(5)
The first term comes from the ranked 1 primary meson. The second term calculates the probability of the production of a higher rank meson recursively. Field and Feynman FF  found a solution for the above integral equation with

$$zF(z)=f(1z),$$
(6)
by choosing

$$f(z)(d+1)z^d.$$
(7)
With $`\beta _{ij}`$ being the probability of finding the $`q_j\overline{q}_j`$ pair in the quark sea excited by the initial quark $`i`$, the normalization condition imposes that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}\beta _{ij}=1.$$
(8)
Here, we add an $`i`$ index which does not appear in the original model, and we will find that it is useful. The modification of this model is based on the difference between $`\beta _{uu}`$ and $`\beta _{su}`$, which were assumed to be the same in the original Field-Feynman model for the sake to reduce independent parameters. The original model predicts no distinction between $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$ and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$, and the results in KLC  show that this is not the realistic situation. Adopting SU(2) symmetry between $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks

$$\beta _{iu}=\beta _{id}\beta _i,$$
(9)
we get

$$\beta _{is}=12\beta _i.$$
(10)
For an initial quark of flavor $`q`$, the mean number of fragmented mesons with configuration $`a\overline{b}`$ at $`z`$ is given, in analogy of Eq. (5), by

$$P_q^{a\overline{b}}(z)=\delta _{aq}\beta _{qb}f(1z)+_z^1\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\eta }f(\eta )\beta _{qc}P_c^{a\overline{b}}(z/\eta ).$$
(11)
The mean number of meson states averaged over all quarks is

$$P_{<q>}^{a\overline{b}}(z)=\underset{c}{}\beta _{qc}P_{qc}^{a\overline{b}}(z),$$
(12)
so that

$$P_{<q>}^{a\overline{b}}(z)=\beta _{qa}\beta _{qb}f(1z)+_z^1\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta }{\eta }f(\eta )\beta _{qc}P_{<c>}^{a\overline{b}}(z/\eta ).$$
(13)
Comparing with Eq. (5), one yields

$$P_{<q>}^{a\overline{b}}(z)=\beta _{qa}\beta _{qb}F(z).$$
(14)
Substituting it back into Eq. (13), one yields

$$P_q^{a\overline{b}}(z)=\delta _{aq}\beta _{qb}f(1z)+\beta _{qa}\beta _{qb}\overline{F}(z),$$
(15)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{F}(z)\hfill & F(z)f(1z)=(\frac{1}{z}1)f(1z)\hfill \\ & =(d+1)z^1(1z)^{d+1}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The fragmentation function is

$$D_q^h(z)=\underset{ab}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a\overline{b}}^hP_q^{a\overline{b}}(z),$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a\overline{b}}^h`$ is the probability of a meson $`h`$ with configuration $`a\overline{b}`$. For example, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{u\overline{d}}^{\pi ^+}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{u\overline{u}}^{\pi ^0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{d\overline{d}}^{\pi ^0}=1/2`$. Combining Eqs. (11) and (13), we obtain

$$D_q^h(z)=A_q^hf(1z)+B_q^h\overline{F}(z),$$
(18)
where

$$A_q^h=\underset{b}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q\overline{b}}^h\beta _{qb},$$
(19)
$$B_q^h=\underset{a,b}{}\beta _{qa}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a\overline{b}}^h\beta _{qb}.$$
(20)
Then the fragmentation functions of $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$ can be written as

$$D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)=\beta _uf(1z)+(\beta _u)^2\overline{F}(z),$$
(21)
$$D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=(\beta _u)^2\overline{F}(z),$$
(22)
$$D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)=(\beta _{su})^2\overline{F}(z)=(\beta _s)^2\overline{F}(z),$$
(23)
here we adopt the notation $`\beta _s=\beta _{su}`$.

In the original Field-Feynman model, the parameters $`\beta _u`$ and $`\beta _s`$ are identical: $`\beta _u=\beta _s`$. This means that the effect of producing quark-antiquark pairs excited by the incident $`s`$ or $`u`$ quark is assumed to be the same. This leads to the result of $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$. Indeed, the effect due to the quark mass in the hadronization process strictly speaking cannot be ignored. In other words, the excitation of a quark-antiquark pair by incident quarks with different masses will be different. This can be taken into account by introducing $`\beta _u\beta _s`$, and thus obtain $`D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$. That is, we take into account the difference in the excitation of quark-antiquark pairs by the initial light-flavor ($`u`$ or $`d`$) and strange ($`s`$) quarks. Here, $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is still assumed, $`\beta _{qu}=\beta _{qd}=\beta _q`$.

## 3 The fragmentation functions of the pion

From (21) and (22), two relations can be obtained

$$D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)/D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)=\frac{\beta _u(1/z1)}{(1\beta _u+\beta _u/z)},$$
(24)
$$D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=\beta _uf(1z).$$
(25)
The first relation is independent of $`f(z)`$, so that it is useful to set the parameter $`\beta _u`$. The parametrization results KLC  of $`D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ are used to adjust the parameters. We try to set the value of $`\beta _u`$ by plotting $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)/D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ for the analytical result in this work and the parametrization result by KLC, as shown in Fig. 2. We find that $`\beta _u=0.46`$ in the domain of $`z(0.3,1)`$. We also adopt the option of $`\beta _u=0.4`$, which was used in the original model FF , as a comparison. Then plotting the function $`D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ in this work and in the KLC parametrization, we can get $`d=1.45`$ with $`\beta _u=0.46`$, as shown in Fig. 3. It is surprising that we can get compatible curves by only adjusting the parameters $`\beta _u`$ and $`d`$ at $`z>0.3`$, as $`f(z)=(d+1)z^d`$ is only an assumption in the original model. There is no general reason for this choice except for the feasibility of solving the integral equation (5) in an exact way. And now, at some degree, the KLC parametrization results extracted from experimental results without any assumption about favored and unfavored transitions, support the Field-Feyman assumption of $`f(z)`$ as quite right in the domain of $`z(0.3,1)`$. Substituting $`\beta _u=0.46`$ and $`d=1.45`$ into (21) and (22), we get the analytical results of $`D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$,

$$D_u^{\pi ^+}(z)=1.127(0.54+0.46/z)(1z)^{1.45},$$
(26)
$$D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)=0.51842z^1(1z)^{2.45}.$$
(27)
We compare the analytical results of (26) and (27) with the experimental results in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. It is obvious that the analytical results of (26) and (27) can well explain the experimental results, especially in the domain of $`z(0.3,1)`$.

We now look at the unfavored fragmentation function $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$, which was predicted to be the same as the unfavored fragmentation function $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ in the original model. We present the experimental results of $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ and the analytic result (23) of this work in Fig. 6, with the value of $`\beta _s`$ adjusted to be $`0.38`$. That means that $`38\%`$ quark-antiquark pairs in the color field excited by an $`s`$ quark are the light-flavor $`u\overline{u}`$ or $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs. Whereas there are $`46\%`$ $`u\overline{u}`$ or $`d\overline{d}`$ quark-antiquark pairs excited by a light-flavor $`u`$ or $`d`$ quark. We should notice that $`\beta _{ss}\beta _{us}`$, as $`\beta _{ss}=12\beta _{su}=12\beta _s=0.24`$ is the fraction of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs excited by an $`s`$ quark, whereas $`\beta _{us}=12\beta _{uu}=12\beta _u=0.08`$ is the fraction of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs excited by a $`u`$ or $`d`$ quark. This is quite reasonable, considering that there should be more fraction of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs excited by an $`s`$ quark than that by a light-flavor ($`u`$ or $`d`$) quark. Therefore we have

$$D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)=0.35378z^1(1z)^{2.45}.$$
(28)
If we choose $`\beta _s=0.46`$, $`D_s^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ is identical to $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$, and we return back to the original model.

We present in Fig. 7 our analytical results for a complete set of fragmentation functions of the pion with distinction between $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$, and compare them with the KLC parametrization results. We find that the two sets of fragmentation functions are compatible with each other, especially at $`z>0.3`$. Considering that a large uncertainty may exist in the parametrization of the unfavored fragmentation function $`D_d^{\pi ^+}(z)`$ at small $`z`$, we may consider the analytical results in this work as an alternative set of fragmentation functions for possible applications, for example, to check the sensitivity on different fragmentation functions in the predictions of various pion fragmentation processes MSY .

One notices from Figs. 2 and 3 that the analytical results differ by those obtained by KLC in the small $`z`$ region, as also happens for the analytical results and the experimental data in Figs. 4 and 5. This feature is easy to be understood, as the sea content of the meson has not been taken into account in the Field-Feynman model. The small $`z`$ behaviors of the fragmentation functions are also influenced by the sea quark-antiquark pairs inside the meson MSSY . Thus it is necessary to consider this aspect if one wishes to describe the small $`z`$ behaviors of fragmentation functions with a more reasonable picture.

## 4 The fragmentation functions of the kaon

We now apply the same framework to the fragmentation functions of the kaon. Following the same procedures, we can get

$$D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)=\beta _sf(1z)+\beta _s(12\beta _s)\overline{F}(z),$$
(29)
$$D_u^{K^+}(z)=(12\beta _u)f(1z)+\beta _u(12\beta _u)\overline{F}(z),$$
(30)
$$D_s^{K^+}(z)=\beta _s(12\beta _s)\overline{F}(z),$$
(31)
$$D_d^{K^+}(z)=D_{\overline{u}}^{K^+}(z)=D_{\overline{d}}^{K^+}(z)=\beta _u(12\beta _u)\overline{F}(z),$$
(32)
where $`\beta _s=\beta _{su}`$, $`\beta _u=\beta _{uu}`$, and $`\beta _{qs}=12\beta _q`$.

With the parameters $`\beta _u=0.46`$, $`\beta _s=0.38`$, and $`d=1.45`$ being the same as for the pion, we get a complete set of fragmentation functions of the kaon

$$D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)=0.931(0.76+0.24/z)(1z)^{1.45},$$
(33)
$$D_u^{K^+}(z)=0.196(0.54+0.46/z)(1z)^{1.45},$$
(34)
$$D_s^{K^+}(z)=0.22344z^1(1z)^{2.45},$$
(35)
$$D_d^{K^+}(z)=0.09016z^1(1z)^{2.45}.$$
(36)
These analytical results of the fragmentation functions of the kaon are plotted in Fig. 8 with four independent curves: $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_u^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$, and $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$. There should be only three independent curves without the difference between $`\beta _u`$ and $`\beta _s`$, e.g., $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$ equals to $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$ as in the original model. In principle, the flavor structure of the kaon fragmentation functions is more complicated than that of the pion, as revealed by the Field-Feynman model. However, some available parametrizations BKKK ; BKKK0 ; DK1 ; KKP  usually make only distinction between the favored fragmentation functions, which are related to the valence quarks of the kaon, and the unfavored fragmentation functions, which are related to the light-flavor sea quarks of the kaon.

The effect of introducing $`\beta _s\beta _u`$ might be small in the fragmentation functions of the pion, but it is amplified in the fragmentation functions of the kaon. It does not only introduce the difference between the unfavored fragmentation functions $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$ and $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$, but also causes modification to the favored fragmentation functions $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$. In Fig. 9, we plot the ratio of the favored fragmentation functions: $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)/D_u^{K^+}(z)`$. The curve with $`\beta _s=0.42`$ is adopted as an alternative option for comparison, and the effect of $`\beta _s`$ on the unfavored fragmentation function is illustrated in Fig. 10. The curve with $`\beta _s=0.46`$ is the result in the original model, where $`\beta _s=\beta _u=0.46`$. Therefore we notice a significant modification to the favored fragmentation function $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$ in comparison with that in the original model. We also plot the prediction of the unfavored fragmentation function $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$, and find that it differs from $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$ significantly. These predictions can be tested by future experiments, such as the semi-inclusive kaon productions in deep inelastic scattering by the HERMES collaboration and the CLAS collaboration et al.. The parameters used in this work can be also constrained by further detailed studies, or the framework should be extended to more general situation with more sophisticated aspects taken into account.

## 5 Summary

In summary, we analyzed the fragmentation functions of both the pion and kaon in the Field-Feynman recursive model with significant modification. By taking into account the difference between the excitation of sea quark-antiquark pairs by the initial light-flavor ($`u`$ or $`d`$) and strange ($`s`$) quarks, we can distinguish between $`D_u^{\pi ^+}`$, $`D_d^{\pi ^+}`$, and $`D_s^{\pi ^+}`$ in the Field-Feynman model with only three parameters. The analytical results obtained are compatible with available empirical results, and can be served as an alternative set of completed fragmentation functions of the pion. We also extended the same framework to the kaon, and provided a new set of fragmentation functions of the kaon with clear distinction between $`D_{\overline{s}}^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_u^{K^+}(z)`$, $`D_s^{K^+}(z)`$, and $`D_d^{K^+}(z)`$. Thus this work provides the fragmentation functions of the pion and kaon with a same set of only three parameters. The predictions can be tested by future experiments on the fragmentation functions of the pion and kaon.

Acknowledgments: This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 10025523 and 90103007.