text:
# Medium Modification of the Proton Form Factor

## 1 Introduction

The standard nuclear-physics model describes nuclei as clusters of protons and neutrons held together by a strong force mediated by meson exchange. The success of the nuclear shell model demonstrates that this approximation has been highly effective. A recent example is the very good description of the differential cross section and left-right asymmetry in the 16O$`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction gao00  with a fully relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation (RDWIA).

However, protons and neutrons are not the fundamental entities of the underlying theory, quantum chromodynamics. At nuclear densities of about 0.17 nucleons/fm3, nucleon wave functions have significant overlap. In the chiral limit, one expects nucleons to lose their identity altogether and nuclei to make a transition to a quark-gluon plasma. For that reason, one may expect that, for some observables, the free-nucleon approximation is a highly uneconomical approach. The use of medium-modified nucleons as quasiparticles might be a better choice. To demonstrate that the interpretation of the experimental data is more efficient in terms of medium modifications of nucleon form factors, it is required to have excellent control of the inherent many-body effects, such as meson-exchange currents (MEC) and isobar configurations (IC). In addition, when probing nuclear structure, one has to deal with final-state interactions (FSI).

In unpolarized A$`(e,e^{}p)`$ experiments involving light- and medium-mass nuclei, deviations were observed in the longitudinal/transverse character of the nuclear response compared with the free-proton case steen ; ulmer ; reffay . Below the two-nucleon-emission threshold, these deviations were originally interpreted as changes in the nucleon form factors within the nuclear medium. However, strong-interaction effects on the ejected proton (final-state interactions) later also succeeded in explaining the observed effect cohen . Still, tantalizing hints of medium effects remain for unpolarized longitudinal/transverse separations in the 4He(e,ep)3H reaction Ma89 ; Du93 .

A reaction which is believed to have minimal sensitivity to reaction-mechanism effects is polarization transfer in quasielastic nucleon knockout (see, e.g., Laget94 ). The polarization-transfer observables are sensitive to the properties of the nucleon in the nuclear medium, including possible modification of the nucleon form factor and/or spinor. This can be seen from free electron-nucleon scattering, where the ratio of the electric to magnetic Sachs form factors, $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$, is given by Ar81 :

$$\frac{G_E}{G_M}=\frac{P_x^{}}{P_z^{}}\frac{E_e+E_e^{}}{2m_p}\mathrm{tan}(\theta _e/2).$$
(1)
Here, $`P_x^{}`$ and $`P_z^{}`$ are the transferred polarizations, transverse and longitudinal to the proton momentum (see Dipc ). The beam energy is $`E_e`$, the energy (angle) of the scattered electron is $`E_e^{}`$ ($`\theta _e`$), and $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. This relation was used to extract $`G_E/G_M`$ for the proton (most recently in Jones00 ; Gayou01 ; Gayou02 ).

In the following, the results of recent 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H experiments to study the proton knock-out process will be discussed. In these experiments 4He was chosen as target because of its high density and relatively simple structure, which allows for RDWIA and microscopic calculations. The kinematics of these experiments, quasielastic scattering at low missing momentum with symmetry about the three-momentum-transfer direction, minimize conventional many-body effects, as will be demonstrated below.

## 2 Experiments

The first 4He polarization-transfer measurement was performed at the Mainz microtron (MAMI) at a four-momentum squared $`Q^2=0.4`$ (GeV/c)2 mainz4he . More recently these measurements were extended to $`Q^2`$ = 0.5, 1.0, 1.6, and 2.6 (GeV/c)2 in experiment E93-049 at Jefferson Lab Hall A e93-049 ; str02 . Since these experiments were designed to detect differences between the in-medium polarizations compared to the free values, both 4He and 1H targets were employed (due to beam-time constraints, only 4He data were acquired at $`Q^2=2.6`$ (GeV/c)2). The induced polarization, $`P_y`$, was also measured in the JLab experiment str02 .

In each experiment, two high-resolution spectrometers were used, one to detect the scattered electron and one to detect the recoiling proton. The latter was equipped with a focal-plane polarimeter (FPP). The proton-recoil-polarization observables were extracted by means of the maximum-likelihood technique, utilizing the azimuthal distribution of protons scattered off the graphite analyzer in the FPP.

The results of the measurements are expressed in terms of the polarization-transfer double ratio, in which the helium polarization ratio is normalized to the hydrogen polarization ratio measured in the identical setting:

$$R=\frac{(P_x^{}/P_z^{})_{{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}}}{(P_x^{}/P_z^{})_{{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{H}}}.$$
(2)
As a cross-check, the hydrogen results were also used to extract the free-proton form-factor ratio $`G_E/G_M`$, which was found to be in excellent agreement with previous data Jones00 ; Gayou01 .

Nearly all systematic uncertainties cancel in $`R`$: the polarization-transfer observables are to first order independent of instrumental asymmetries in the FPP, and their ratio is independent of the electron-beam polarization and carbon analyzing power. Small systematic uncertainties are predominantly due to uncertainties in the spin transport through the proton spectrometer.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the results for $`R`$ at $`Q^2`$ = 1.0 (GeV/c)2 as a function of missing momentum. The five data points correspond to five bins in the acceptance within the single experimental setting. Negative values of missing momentum correspond to the recoiling nuclei having a momentum component antiparallel to the direction of the three-momentum transfer.

The data are compared with several calculations, which were averaged over the experimental acceptance. In the relativistic calculations by the Madrid group Ud98 , the Coulomb gauge and the current operator $`cc1`$ Fo83  were used. The dotted line is a result of a calculation in plane-wave impulse approximation (RPWIA). This calculation predicts $`R1`$ at $`p_m=0`$. It overpredicts the data by about 10%, although the missing-mass distribution of the data is reasonably well described. The relativistic distorted-wave impulse approximation (RDWIA) gives a smaller value of $`R`$ ($`3`$%) than the RPWIA but still overpredicts the data (solid curve). The calculation uses the MRW optical potential of McNeil83 . The main difference in the results between this full calculation and the RPWIA is due to the enhancement of the negative energy components of the relativistic bound and scattered proton wave functions. This can be demonstrated by projecting the wave functions over positive-energy states (dash-dotted curve) resulting in essentially the same polarization-transfer ratio as given by RPWIA. Also, a Glauber calculation by the Gent group Ry99 ; debruynephd  (long-dashed line) is unable to account for the data.

The induced polarization $`P_y`$ in the $`(e,e^{}\stackrel{}{p})`$ reaction is identically zero, in the absence of FSI effects (in the one-photon-exchange approximation). This observable thus constitutes a stringent test of various FSI calculations. Figure 2 shows the results, corrected for (small) false asymmetries, as a function of $`Q^2`$. One sees that the induced polarizations are small for all measured $`Q^2`$ values.

The dashed and dot-dashed curves constitute RDWIA calculations by the Madrid group Ud98  with the MRW McNeil83  and RLF Horowitz85  relativistic optical potentials. For the induced-polarization case, the RDWIA curves do not depend on the nucleon form-factor model chosen in the calculations. Figure 2 confirms the expected smallness of the induced polarizations, and seems to indicate a reasonable agreement with the RDWIA calculation.

However, due to the relatively large systematic uncertainties caused by possible false asymmetries in the FPP, the test is not conclusive. A far more detailed study of the induced polarization can be made with data expected from JLab experiment E03-104 e03-104 .

## 4 Discussion

The disagreement between the data and the RDWIA calculations for the polarization double ratio $`R`$ is puzzling, since, as mentioned earlier, these relativistic calculations provide good descriptions of, e.g., the induced polarizations measured at Bates in the 12C($`e,e^{}\stackrel{}{p}`$) reaction woo98  and of $`A_{TL}`$ in 16O($`e,e^{}p`$) as previously measured at JLab gao00 . To find a possible explanation for that disagreement, a detailed study of model dependencies was performed.

First, the model input in the calculations of the Madrid group was studied. Figure 3(a) shows again the $`Q^2=1.0`$ (GeV/c)2 polarization-transfer double-ratio data. The hatched area indicates the range of different RDWIA calculations. For these calculations, various bound-state wave functions, current operators ($`cc1`$ and $`cc2`$), and optical potentials were chosen. The optical potentials include the MRW folding parameters McNeil83  and the RLF folding parameters Horowitz85 . The latter are valid only up to $`T_{\mathrm{lab}}400`$ MeV, and thus are already beyond its regime of validity for $`Q^2`$ of 1.0 (GeV/c)2. Different optical potentials were constructed for each parameter set based upon the experimental 3H density, based upon a simple Woods-Saxon density for 3H with the same root-mean-square radius as the experimental one, and, finally, one with an 30% increased root-mean-square radius, resulting in an unrealistic potential. Different parametrizations of the free-nucleon form factors were also used. To a very good approximation, the ratio $`R`$ is independent of such variations, if the same parametrization is used in the 4He and 1H calculations. It is evident from Fig. 3(a) that there is hardly any sensitivity in the polarization-transfer ratio at low missing momentum (within the models examined) to the different and partly extreme choices of optical potential, one-body current operator, and bound-state wave function.

Next, the effect of channel coupling on $`R`$ for the 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H reaction was estimated. Recently Kelly Kelly99  investigated the sensitivity of recoil-polarization observables in $`A(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})B`$ reactions to channel coupling in final-state interactions (for 12C and 16O). In these studies it was found that polarization-transfer observables for proton knockout with modest missing momentum appear to be quite insensitive to details of the final-state interaction, including channel coupling. Following the approach of Kelly Kelly99 , the effect of channel coupling was estimated for the 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H reaction by calculating the relative difference between the polarization transfer ratio with and without channel coupling. Couplings between the proton $`1s_{1/2}`$ and neutron $`1s_{1/2}`$ states were considered. Figure 3(b) shows the results for a four-momentum transfer of $`Q^2=1.0`$ (GeV/c)2. The effect is minimal, and on average is of the order of 1% – 2%.

Finally, the effects of two-body interactions were considered. Available model calculations indicate that these contributions are smallest in quasielastic, parallel kinematics and at low missing momentum; the kinematics of the experiments discussed here. In a recent work, the Pavia group has studied meson-exchange currents in a relativistic model for electromagnetic one-nucleon emission Meucci02  (for 12C and 16O). Meucci has provided us with similar calculations for 4He; these results are shown in Fig. 3(c) for $`Q^2=1.0`$ (GeV/c)2 as relative differences with respect to the one-body $`cc1`$ calculation. The horizontally hatched band covers the range of calculations with three different one-body currents ($`cc1`$, $`cc2`$, $`cc3`$). The calculations confirm that, at low missing momentum, ambiguities due to the choice of the 1-body current ($`cc1`$, $`cc2`$, $`cc3`$) are small, of the order of 3%. The inclusion of the two-body current in the form of the seagull diagram with one-pion exchange (diagonally hatched band) has an asymmetric effect on the polarization ratio about $`𝐩_m=0`$; the effect of MEC is also small. It reduces the polarization transfer ratio by about 2% on average. In addition, these calculations predict the effect of MEC to decrease with increasing four-momentum transfer (not shown).

Also the results of the microscopic calculations of Laget Laget94  for $`Q^2=0.4`$ (GeV/c)2 and 0.5 (GeV/c)2 were found to be nearly identical to the RPWIA results (see Fig. 5) indicating that reaction mechanisms like MEC, IC, or charge exchange do not contribute significantly to $`R`$ in the present kinematics.

Does the present failure of state-of-the-art calculations to describe $`R`$ indicates a breakdown of standard meson-nucleon calculations? Probably not. It is likely that more complete and more complicated many-body calculations eventually will account for the data. Similarly, the observed cross-section scaling in deuteron photodisintegration at high energies (see e.g. Gilman ) does not “prove” a breakdown of meson-nucleon calculations, but rather indicates the onset of a regime where quark-gluon-inspired models may give a more effective basis for the interpretation of the data. In the same way, the observed reduction of $`R`$ in the 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H reaction motivates the use of a new approach in the interpretation of the data.

Indeed, a calculation by Lu et al. Lu98 , using a quark-meson-coupling (QMC) model, suggests a measurable deviation from the free-space form-factor ratio over the $`Q^2`$ range 0.0 $`<Q^2<`$ 2.5 (GeV/c)2. Note that the calculation is consistent with present constraints on possible medium modifications for both the electric form factor (from the Coulomb Sum Rule, with Q2 $`<`$ 0.5 (GeV/c)2 Jo95 ; Mo01 ; Ca02 ), and the magnetic form factor (from a $`y`$-scaling analysis Si88 , for Q2 $`>`$ 1 (GeV/c)2), and limits on the scaling of nucleon magnetic moments in nuclei Richter . Similar measurable effects have been calculated in the light-front-constituent quark model of Frank et al. Fr96 . Recently, Yakshiev et al. Ya02  investigated possible modifications to the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleons in the 4He nucleus in the framework of a modified Skyrme model, up to $`Q^2`$ = 0.6 (GeV/c)2. Furthermore, the group of Miller is presently studying medium effects in the framework of a chiral soliton model for the proton MilPC .

However, the notion of medium modification of single-particle properties like, e.g., the electromagnetic form factors of a nucleon, in a nuclear environment is a purely theoretical concept ArenPC . Thus, distinguishing possible changes in the spatial structure of nucleons embedded in a nucleus from more conventional many-body effects is only possible within the context of a model; presently the RDWIA calculation of the Madrid group.

The RDWIA results are brought into excellent agreement with the data by replacing the free-nucleon form factor with a density dependent, medium-modified form factor based on the QMC model Lu98  (solid curve in Fig. 4).

A summary of all available 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H data mainz4he ; str02  is shown in Fig. 5 along with different acceptance-averaged calculations. The polarization-transfer double ratio is plotted as a function of $`Q^2`$. In order not to obscure the result by small kinematical differences between the individual 1H and 4He measurements, data and calculations are shown with $`R_{\mathrm{PWIA}}`$ as a baseline. The Mainz data point at $`Q^2`$ = 0.4 (GeV/c)2 closely coincides with the more recent results at $`Q^2`$ = 0.5 (GeV/c)2 of JLab.

On average, the RPWIA calculation (baseline) overestimates the data by $``$ 10%. The dotted line shows the results of the full nonrelativistic model of the Gent group Ry99 ; debruynephd . The full calculation, including two-body currents, of Laget Laget94  is only available for the lower two $`Q^2`$ values (dash-dotted). Both calculations are comparable to the results of RPWIA. The RDWIA calculation (dashed curve) gives a slightly smaller value of $`R`$ but still overpredicts the data.

The inclusion of medium-modified form factors as predicted by Lu et al. Lu98  into the RDWIA calculation gives a significantly improved agreement with data, with the exception of the datum at $`Q^2=1.6`$ (GeV/c)2 ($`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 1.3 for the five data points), in contrast to the use of free form factors ($`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 2.2). All calculations by the Madrid group Ud98  use the Coulomb gauge, the $`cc1`$ current operator as defined in Fo83 , and the MRW optical potential of McNeil83 . The $`cc2`$ current operator gives higher values of $`R`$, worsening agreement with the data. As discussed above, various choices for, spinor distortions, current operators, and relativistic corrections affect the theoretical predictions by $``$ 3%, and presently cannot explain the disagreement between the data and the RDWIA calculations.

Also shown in Fig. 5 are the projected data points at $`Q^2=0.8`$ (GeV/c)2 and 1.3 (GeV/c)2 for the newly approved JLab experiment E03-104 e03-104 . This experiment will reduce the statistical uncertainties in the double polarization ratio at each $`Q^2`$ by over a factor of two compared to the previous measurements. These two $`Q^2`$ values were selected since they lie in a region where theoretical calculations are expected to be reliable. This measurement will provide one of the most stringent tests to date of the applicability of conventional meson-nucleon calculations.

Any medium modification of bound-nucleon form factors carries implications for the nuclear EMC effect MilPC . For example strong constraints are placed on models of the nuclear EMC effect by model-independent relations derived on the basis of quark-hadron duality, which relate the medium modification of the electromagnetic form factors to the modification of the deep-inelastic structure function of a bound proton Mel02 .

## 5 Summary

Polarization transfer in the quasielastic $`(e,e^{}p)`$ reaction is sensitive to possible medium modifications of the bound-nucleon form factor, while at the same time largely insensitive to other reaction mechanisms. The 4He$`(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}\stackrel{}{p})^3`$H polarization-transfer double-ratio data are not well described by modern relativistic RDWIA calculations using free nucleons as quasiparticles. The data can be efficiently described if medium-modified nucleons are used in the calculations. However, the evidence from the present data is still limited. New high-precision data expected from JLab Hall A should provide a more stringent test of conventional meson-nucleon calculations.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE–FG02–95ER40901. Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) operates the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE–AC05–84ER40150.


format: text

text:
# Coulomb proximity decay: A clock for measuring the particle emission time scale

\]On leave from Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia

## Abstract

A new method to examine the time scale of particle emission from hot nuclei is explored. Excited projectile-like and target-like fragments decay as they separate following a peripheral heavy-ion collision. Their mutual Coulomb influence results in an anisotropic angular distribution of emitted particles, providing a measure of the particle emission time scale. Predictions of a schematic evaporation model are presented and compared to experimental data.

While the decay of an isolated nucleus is well described by a statistical emission processEricson (1960), the decay in the presence of an external inhomogeneous field has only recently been consideredBotvina et al. (1999). Neutron stars with strong gravitational fields and heavy-ion collisions with strong Coulomb fields are environments in which such non-isolated decay may occur. In this Letter, we consider the Coulomb influence on the decay of a hot nucleus formed in a heavy-ion collision. For a nucleus at modest excitation (E/A$``$2 MeV), statistical model calculations predict decay on a relatively fast time scale, $`t`$$``$100 fm/cCharity (2000). Directly measuring such short lifetimes is difficultHilscher and Rossner (1992) and is presently limited to a few approaches: two-fragment correlationsTrockel et al. (1987); Cornell et al. (1995); Beaulieu et al. (2001) and near scission particle emissionJ.Hinde et al. (1992). While two-particle correlations measure the time between successive emissions, and work at high excitation, near scission emission is restricted to relatively low excitation and the long time scale associated with fission. Other approaches such as the crystal blocking technique are sensitive to even longer time scales Goldenbaum et al. (1999). We describe a new approach to measuring the time scale of particle emission from hot nuclei, namely the angular anisotropy associated with Coulomb proximity decay.

For light fragments, Coulomb proximity decay has previously been used to explain the correlation between relative velocities of the decay products and their relative orientationCharity et al. (2001) in terms of tidal forcesCharity et al. (1992). For heavy projectile-like fragments, from in-plane angular distributions, the time between successive binary splittingsCasini et al. (1993); Durand et al. (1995) has been deduced. In this analysis, we report for the first time on the influence of the external field on the probability for binary decay and the resulting angular distribution of emitted particles. Peripheral collision of two intermediate energy (E/A = 20-100 MeV) heavy-ions results in excited projectile-like and target-like fragments (PLF and TLF respectively) which de-excite as they separate with particle emission modified by their mutual Coulomb interaction. For a fixed separation distance between the PLF and TLF, and an asymmetric split of the PLF, emission of the smaller nucleus towards the TLF is favored due to the reduced Coulomb interaction between the three bodiesBotvina et al. (1999, 2001). During the split, while the center-of-mass of the TLF-PLF system does not change, the center-of-mass of the PLF decay products can fluctuate. Although the influence of the external Coulomb field on the instantaneous breakup of a highly excited PLF has been reportedBotvina et al. (1999, 2001), we now examine the proximity influence on successive binary emissions and the resulting ’clock’ of statistical emission.

To examine the main features of Coulomb proximity decay we have constructed a model in which the PLF with (Z,A), characterized by a spin (J) and excitation (E/A), moves away from the TLF with a velocity, V. For simplicity, the TLF is represented by a point source which does not undergo decay. Starting at an initial separation distance, the de-excitation of the PLF via sequential binary decays of light particles ($`n`$, Z$``$2) and heavy clusters (up to 18O) is calculated using a Weisskopf approachWeisskopf (1937). In this modelBotvina et al. (1987), the decay width for the emission of a particle $`j`$ in the excited state $`i`$ from a nucleus $`(Z,A)`$ is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^i=_0^{E_{AZ}^{}B_jϵ_j^{(i)}}\frac{\mu _jg_j^{(i)}}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}\sigma _j(E)\frac{\rho _f(E_{CN}^{}B_jE)}{\rho _{CN}(E_{CN}^{})}E𝑑E$$
(1)
Here $`ϵ_j^{(i)}(i=0,1,\mathrm{},n)`$ is taken for the ground and all particle-stable excited states of the fragment $`j`$, and $`g_j^{(i)}=(2s_j^{(i)}+1)`$ is the spin degeneracy factor of the $`i`$-th excited state, $`\mu _j`$ and $`B_j`$ are corresponding reduced mass and separation energy, $`E_{CN}^{}`$ is the excitation energy of the initial compound nucleus (PLF), and $`E`$ is the kinetic energy of an emitted particle in the center-of-mass of the emitting system. The level densities of the initial compound $`(A,Z)`$ and final $`(A_f,Z_f)`$ residual nuclei, $`\rho _{CN}`$ and $`\rho _f`$ are calculated using the Fermi-gas formula $`\rho (E)exp\left(2\sqrt{aE}\right)`$ with the level density parameter $`a0.125A`$MeV-1. In the present work we have parametrized the cross-section as $`\sigma _j(E)=\pi R_{fj}^2(1U_c/E)`$, where $`U_c`$ is the Coulomb barrier for fragment emission and $`R_{fj}`$=$`R_f`$+$`R_j`$, $`R_f`$=$`r_nA_f^{1/3}`$, $`R_j`$=$`r_nA_j^{1/3}`$, with $`r_n=1.5`$fm.

We modified this model by taking into account the influence of the external Coulomb field on the decay width. The daughter residue and emitted fragment are assumed to be touching spheres and are placed within a sphere of radius $`R_j+R_f`$ with center located at the center-of-mass of the decaying parent (PLF) nucleus. The decay configuration within the sphere is impacted by the change in the Coulomb energy of the three-body system:

$$U_c=\frac{Z_fZ_j}{R_{fj}}+\frac{Z_{TLF}Z_j}{R_{TLFj}}+\frac{Z_{TLF}Z_f}{R_{TLFf}}\frac{Z_{TLF}Z}{R_{TLFCN}}$$
(2)
where $`Z_{TLF}`$ is the charge of the TLF, and $`R_{TLFj}`$, $`R_{TLFf}`$, $`R_{TLFCN}`$ are distances from the TLF to the emitted particle, residual nucleus and compound nucleus, respectively. The probability of fragment emission can be found by averaging eq. (1) over all coordinates of fragments. Since the Coulomb barrier is lower when the smaller fragment is emitted in the direction of the TLF, the resulting fragment emission is anisotropic in the PLF frame. The angular momentum of the PLF was included using a standard approach Botvina et al. (2001); Charity et al. (1988).

The full width for evaporation is determined by summing up all emission channels: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^i`$. The mean time for an emission step is given by $`\tau =\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The PLF is assumed to have a lifetime, $`t`$, with a distribution $`exp(t/\tau )`$. Until the decay occurs, the PLF, TLF, and all charged particles propagate along Coulomb trajectories. Successive binary emissions, conserving energy and momentum, are calculated until the excitation energy is below the particle emission threshold.

For the results presented we assumed the PLF had Z=38, A=90 and was located at an initial distance of 30 fm from the TLF with spin J=10$`\mathrm{}`$ or J=40$`\mathrm{}`$. This distance is compatible with an equilibration time of $``$100 fm/c following the collision in agreement with dynamical simulationsBondorf et al. (1995). The TLF was assumed to be a point source with Z=42, A=114, V=0.2728c relative to the PLF and interacted via the Coulomb interaction.

Displayed in Fig. 1 is the influence of the Coulomb proximity effect on the de-excitation of the PLF with J= 10$`\mathrm{}`$ . The decay of an isolated PLF, not subject to the Coulomb proximity effect, is presented as a reference. The essentially identical behavior in both $``$EPLF∗$``$ and $``$APLF∗$``$ as a function of time for both the isolated and proximity cases, indicates that for these initial conditions, the average rate of particle emission is comparable. For smaller initial PLF-TLF distances or larger TLF atomic number, however, the proximity influence can alter the particle emission rate as compared to the isolated case. The rapid de-excitation of the PLF is clearly evident for $`t`$$``$250 fm/c, corresponding to a PLF-TLF distance of $``$70fm. Associated with the rapid decrease in excitation of the PLF is the corresponding decrease in the mass of the PLF, (Fig. 1b). For an initial excitation of E/A= 4 MeV, by $`t`$=250 fm/c approximately 25% of the mass of the PLF has been emitted.

Although the average excitation of the PLF at a given time, under these assumptions, is not appreciably affected by the Coulomb proximity, the angular distribution of emitted particles is impacted by the Coulomb field of the target, as shown in Fig. 2 for $`\alpha `$ particles (E/A = 2 and 4 MeV and J = 10$`\mathrm{}`$). For all cases, the angular distribution is peaked near cos($`\theta `$)=-1, corresponding to emission in the direction of the TLF. For the conditions calculated, emission towards the TLF, i.e. cos($`\theta `$)$``$-1.0, is enhanced in yield by a factor of 2 relative to cos($`\theta `$)$``$0. To understand better the behavior of proximity emission we have selected on decays that occur at a distance $``$70 fm (i.e. $``$250 fm/c) and refer to these decays as early decays. Decays which occur at larger distances experience a negligible influence of the TLF Coulomb field and are referred to as late decays. While the late decays (dotted line) exhibit a symmetric and relatively isotropic distribution, the pronounced peak in the total angular distribution is associated with the early decays (dashed line) which are focused towards the TLF by the proximity Coulomb effect. The magnitude of the asymmetry for these early decays, can be assessed, to first order, by comparing the yield at cos($`\theta `$)=-1 to cos($`\theta `$)=+1. At E/A=2 MeV an asymmetry of $``$4 is observed.

The impact of the Coulomb proximity effect on the kinetic energy spectra of emitted particles is also shown in Fig. 2. In this figure, it is evident that, as expectedHuizenga et al. (1989), the tail of the $`\alpha `$ particle kinetic energy distribution is preferentially populated by early emissions (dashed line). From the angular distributions presented in Fig. 2 it is clear that these emissions occur in the proximity of the TLF. Comparison of Fig. 2b and 2d shows that with increasing excitation, late emission (dotted line) provides an increasing contribution to the region of the Coulomb peak. For $`\alpha `$ with E$``$25 MeV, the magnitude of the increase for the late emission is $``$6%. This result is understandable as with increasing excitation, an increasing amount of excitation energy remains at a PLF-TLF distance of 70 fm where the proximity effect is significantly reduced. The energy-angle correlations introduced by the Coulomb proximity effect present interesting opportunities in studying the de-excitation cascade of a hot nucleus. The angular asymmetry of $`\alpha `$ particles resulting from proximity emission is related to the time spent by the PLF in the vicinity of the TLF and thus forms a ’clock’ of the statistical emission time.

Another interesting aspect of the Coulomb proximity effect is that different emitted particles are sensitive to different portions of the de-excitation cascade. Depicted in Fig. 3 is the dependence of emission probability on time for p,d,t,$`\alpha `$ and 7Li for E = 4 MeV and J=10$`\mathrm{}`$. While the emission time distributions exhibited of $`\alpha `$ particles, for example is relatively flat decreasing by only a factor of 3 over the time interval displayed, other particles e.g. t, 7Li exhibit steeper distributions. In the case of both t and 7Li, a decrease of more than one order of magnitude is observed. This behavior can be understood in terms of the Coulomb barrier and binding energy relative to the available excitation of the PLF. Particles such as 7Li therefore sample the earliest portion of the de-excitation cascade and thus exhibit an enhanced sensitivity to proximity emission. Comparison of the angular asymmetry of particles with different sensitivities can therefore provide multiple ’clocks’ which probe the statistical decay of a hot nucleus. Naturally, the Coulomb field of a particle emitted early also influences subsequent emissions. Consequently, this work represents the first step towards a theory of interacting sequential decays. As such it represents a significant departure from Bohr’s independence hypothesis that is traditionally invoked.

In order to examine whether the asymmetries predicted by this schematic model are manifested in experimental data with comparable magnitude, we have compared the model predictions to data from the reaction 114Cd + 92Mo at E/A=50 MeV. In this experiment, detection of a PLF (15$``$Z$``$46) at very forward angles (2.1$``$$`\theta _{lab}`$$``$4.2) together with measurement of the associated charged particles emitted at larger angles (7$``$$`\theta _{lab}`$$``$58) allow us to focus on particles emitted from the PLFYanez et al. (2003). The invariant cross-section map shown in Fig. 4, exhibits an essentially circular ridge of yield centered on the PLF velocity. This ridge has a radius corresponding to the Coulomb repulsion between the emitted $`\alpha `$ and PLF residue suggesting that $`\alpha `$ particles along this ridge are associated with emission from the PLF. Selecting $`\alpha `$ particles on the ridge does not ensure statistical emission as dynamical processes may also contribute at the most backward anglesBocage et al. (2000). Also evident in Fig. 4 is a peak at V=-4 cm/ns and V=2 cm/ns, attributable to mid-velocity emissionPlagnol et al. (2000); Gingras et al. (2002) that represents a background for the statistical component considered.

In Fig. 5a the angular distribution of $`\alpha `$ particles with Eα$``$22 MeV, i.e. along the ridge in Fig. 4, is displayed normalized to the yield at $`\theta `$=90. The data are backward peaked with an enhancement of a factor of $``$2. The observed $`\alpha `$ particle yield at forward angles, cos($`\theta `$)$``$0.65, and very backward angles, cos($`\theta `$)$``$-0.9, is supressed due to the finite acceptance of the experimental setup. We have corrected for the mid-velocity emission contribution to the yield with Eα$``$22 MeV by examining the kinetic energy distributions in the PLF frame selected on emission angle, as indicated by the representative arrows in Fig. 5. For cos($`\theta `$)$``$-0.7 this contribution is negligible while for more backward angles a correction of upto 25$`\%`$ is observed. The excitation deduced by calorimetry, using forward emission and assuming isotropy, for the data shown in Fig 4 and 5 is $``$2.3 MeV/AYanez et al. (2003). The measured angular distribution is reasonably described by the model presented with E/A = 4 MeV. The discrepancy between the experimentally deduced excitation and the initial excitation used in the model can be understood by the rapid cooling evident in Fig. 1. Inclusion of angular momentum at this excitation results in a more peaked angular distribution for cos($`\theta `$)$``$-0.7.

The kinetic energy spectrum of $`\alpha `$ particles emitted in the forward direction is shown in Fig 5b. The experimental distribution is remarkably well described by the model, despite its simplicity. Increased angular momentum acts to broaden the peak of the distribution, as well as slightly extend the high energy tail of the distribution. While the exponential slope of the kinetic energy spectrum is somewhat better described by the 10$`\mathrm{}`$ case, the width of the Coulomb peak is better described by the 40$`\mathrm{}`$ case, perhaps suggesting that the experimental data is intermediate between these two cases, in agreement with the angular distributions shown in Fig. 5a.

In summary, we have explored how Coulomb proximity decay can impact the statistical binary decay of a hot nucleus. As PLF and TLF separate following a peripheral heavy-ion collision,. while the emission rate of particles from the PLF may be essentially unaffected, the angular distribution of emitted particles shows a pronounced effect. Emission of particles as the PLF and TLF separate occurs preferentially in the direction of the TLF resulting in an asymmetric angular distribution that reflects the amount of emission occuring in the vicinity of the TLF. This angular asymmetry for different emitted particles together with their associated kinetic energy spectra provides a clock of the emission timescale. Experimental data exhibit an asymmetry of comparable magnitude suggesting the applicability of this technique. Both the sensitivity of this clock and the deconvolution of dynamically emitted mid-rapidity particles can be assessed by modifying the magnitude of the external field by changing the target, modifying the velocity with which the PLF and TLF separate by changing the incident energy, or altering the excitation of the PLF by selecting different velocity dissipationYanez et al. (2003).

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the staff at MSU-NSCL for providing the high quality beams which made this experiment possible. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under DE-FG02-92ER40714 (IU), DE-FG02-87ER-40316 (WU) and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-95-28844 (MSU).


text:
# Mechanism of Luminescence Ring Pattern Formation in Quantum Well Structures: Optically-Induced In-Plane Charge Separation

About a year ago, two independent experiments1, 2, imaging indirect exciton luminescence from doped double quantum wells under applied bias and optical excitation, reported a very intriguing observation: under certain experimental conditions, the exciton luminescence exhibits a ring pattern with a dark region in between the center excitation spot and the luminescent ring that can extend more than a millimeter from the center spot. Initial speculations on the origin of this emission pattern included supersonic ballistic transport of excitons due to their dipole-dipole repulsion and Bose superfluidity of excitons. In this paper we show that the ring effect is also observed in single quantum well structures, where only direct excitons exist. More importantly, we find that these experimental results are quantitatively explained by a novel coupled 2D electron-hole plasma dynamics, namely, photoinduced in-plane charge separation. This charge separation explains extremely long luminescence times that may be more than a microsecond for the ring — orders of magnitude longer than the emission lifetime of the excitons in the center spot. This method of continuously creating excitons may result in a highly dense exciton gas which is also well thermalized with the lattice (since the particles can cool over the very long luminescence time after their hot optical creation), thus opening up opportunities for a detailed study of quantum statistics. The in-plane separation of the charges into positive and negative regions, with a sharp interface between them is an interesting new example of nonequilibrium dynamics and pattern formation.

Butov et. al. 1 and Snoke et. al. 2 independently studied the emission from a modulation doped double quantum well (QW) structures under optical excitation from a tightly focused laser beam. When voltage is applied in the growth direction, emission is observed from indirect excitons — bound states of a single electron in one QW with a single hole in the other. Imaging the spatial distribution of this emission reveals a surprising pattern: in addition to the expected emission at the excitation spot, an emission ring is seen at large radial distances, with a dark region in between the center spot and the ring. The radius of the ring emission depends on the excitation power. An example of such an emission pattern is shown in Figure 1a. This striking effect calls for a consistent explanation of its underlying physical origin, which is the main purpose of this paper. Initial speculations based on various exciton transport mechanisms and macroscopically coherent excitonic effects are inconsistent with many experimental results 3. It is obvious that there is transport of particles from the excitation spot to the remote ring over macroscopic distances. However, in order to understand this effect, there are a few key questions one needs to address: (a) what types of particles or quasi-particles are being transported through the dark region to the ring location and what is the role of excitons in the transport and in the emission compared to that of free carriers? (b) what is the driving force for this unique transport?

One of the first key clues for solving this problem is our observation that identical ring patterns are also seen in single quantum well structures (see below), as opposed to the double QW structures studied in the initial reports 1, 2. In our structure, there are only direct excitons (bound states of a single electron and a single hole in the same QW), which implies that the effect does not depend on the specific characteristics of indirect excitons (such as long lifetimes) as was suggested previously. Another important clue can be found in the observed excitation energy threshold of the ring formation as shown in Figure 1b: the ring easily forms only with photoexcitation energies which are above the AlGaAs barrier bandgap energy. This implies that the photogenerated hot carriers are a crucial ingredients in the ring formation and that the effect depends on the structure as a whole and not only on the local QW region. Since it is known that in modulation doped structures, optical excitation above the barriers can lead to depletion of electrons 4, it is interesting to ask whether the mechanism responsible for the ring formation has to do with such optical depletion.

It is then sensible to obtain further insight into the above mentioned questions by performing careful spectroscopic studies. The lineshapes, linewidths, and energies of the emission from the center spot and the ring are very good local probes of the carrier density distributions in the QW plane. In particular, excitonic emission lines characteristic of low densities should be significantly narrower, more symmetric, and blue shifted compared to emission resulting from recombination of free electron-hole plasmas of high densities 5.

Figure 2a-c show the ring pattern from our single well sample at various different excitation powers. As shown in more detail in Figure 3a, the ring radius grows (sublinearly) with increasing excitation power above a certain critical threshold for ring creation. Figure 2g-i show the center spot and ring PL spectra corresponding to Figure 2a-c. The detailed behavior of the spectral linewidth and energy as a function of excitation power is shown in Figure 3b-c for both the center spot and the ring. From Figure 3b-c, we see the following trend: At low excitation power, there is no ring and the emission of the center spot is broad, asymmetric, and red shifted (see also Figure 2g), which would be characteristic of emission from a region with a high density of dissociated charge carriers (an electron-hole plasma). As the power is increased towards the critical power for ring creation, the linewidth of the central spot narrows by a factor of two, becomes more symmetric (not shown), and less red shifted compared to the central spot at lower density. Since the line is symmetric and narrow, we believe this to be the natural emission of a gas of excitons. At excitation powers just above the critical power for ring creation, the spectra of both the ring and the central spot remain narrow and symmetric, and remain roughly at the same energy (see also Figure 2h). As the power is further increased and the radius of the ring grows, the spectrum of the central spot red shifts, broadens, and becomes asymmetric (see also fig 2i), indicative of a gas of dissociated carriers again. In contrast, the spectrum of the ring remains nearly constant: unshifted, symmetric, and narrow, indicative of a gas of excitons. Finally, Figure 3d plots the peak PL intensities as a function of power. The center spot emission increases with power, except for a sudden drop around the threshold for ring creation. The ring intensity, on the other hand, drops with increasing power (and corresponding increasing radius).

We now try to construct a consistent physical picture to account for all of our experimental results. Figure 4a shows a schematic description of the relevant processes associated with above-the-barrier photoexcitation, under an applied bias in the growth direction. Without photoexcitation, a 2D electron gas is present in the QW due to the modulation doping of the sample (this is likely to be true even for the samples of Ref. 1 when under bias). Applying bias will change the electron density in the QW and generate a leakage current. When hot electrons and holes are photogenerated by the laser, as shown by the red and blue dots in Figure 4a, they can either drift under the applied bias to the contacts or cool down through phonon-carrier or carrier-carrier scattering, and consequently get trapped in the QW (red and blue open circles). However, the trapping rate of holes is expected to be larger than that of the electrons. This can be attributed to several factors: First, the hole has a much smaller drift velocity (mobility) than the electron, by a factor of 10-20 6, so it takes longer for the hole to drift away from the QW, and thus it has a higher probability of scattering into the QW. Secondly, the phonon scattering time of the holes is much shorter than that of the electrons 7. This results in the hot holes cooling faster (and drifting slower). As a consequence, there is an excess of photogenerated holes that end up trapped in the QW. These holes will recombine with the electron gas in the QW, thus depleting it. The degree of depletion depends on the photogeneration rate compared to the leakage rate from the contacts which can replenish the electron density. With high enough excitation power, the electron gas can be almost completely depleted, leaving a population of trapped cold holes instead. Since the illumination area is small, the optically induced depletion of electrons and the accumulation of the holes in the QW plane is local. As a result, close to the center spot, there will be a puddle of holes, surrounded by a sea of electrons. Due to diffusion, the holes tend to spread outwards, while the electrons will flow inwards. This process is schematically shown in Figure 4b. In steady state, the holes and electrons are spatially separated in the plane of the QW, perpendicular to the applied electric field, forming a sharp (nominally circular) boundary which extends to a radius larger than that of the excitation spot. Since electrons and holes can only recombine where they meet, a sharp luminescence ring will form at the boundary between the two regions of opposite charges.

With this physical picture, the dynamics of the carriers in the QW plane can be described using the following coupled rate equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{hot}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{hot}^e^2n_{hot}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{hot}}{\tau _{cool}^e}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{hot}}{\tau _{drift}^e}}+Af(r)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{hot}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{hot}^h^2p_{hot}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{hot}}{\tau _{cool}^h}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{hot}}{\tau _{drift}^h}}+Af(r)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{cold}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{cold}^e^2n_{cold}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_{hot}}{\tau _{cool}^e}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{cold}n_{eq}}{\tau _{leak}^e}}\xi n_{cold}p_{cold}`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{cold}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{cold}^h^2p_{cold}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{hot}}{\tau _{cool}^h}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{cold}}{\tau _{leak}^h}}\xi n_{cold}p_{cold}`$ (4)
The first two equations describe the dynamics of the density distributions of hot electrons $`n_{hot}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and hot holes $`p_{hot}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in the plane. Here, the first term on the right hand side of these equations allows the hot electrons and holes to diffuse with diffusion constants $`D_{hot}^e`$ and $`D_{hot}^h`$ (the $`^2`$ are derivatives in the in-plane directions only). The next two terms on the right hand side allow the hot electrons and hot holes to cool with characteristic times $`\tau _{cool}^e`$ and $`\tau _{cool}^h`$ respectively or to drift to the contacts with times $`\tau _{drift}^e`$ and $`\tau _{drift}^h`$. Finally, we have added the source term $`Af(r)`$ which creates hot electrons and holes from photons. Here, $`f(r)`$ is the normalized excitation beam profile and $`A`$ is the total absorbed photon flux (each absorbed photon generates one electron and one hole).

Similarly, the third and fourth equations describe the dynamics of the density distributions of cold electrons $`n_{cold}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and cold holes $`p_{cold}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in the plane. Again, the first term on the right hand side allows the cold electrons and holes to diffuse with diffusion constants $`D_{cold}^e`$ and $`D_{cold}^h`$. The second term on the right hand side generates cold carriers from any hot carriers that are cooled down. The third term on the right hand side allows the cold electrons and cold holes to leak to or from the contacts with rates $`\tau _{leak}^e`$ and $`\tau _{leak}^h`$ respectively, in a way that tries to bring the densities back to the (equilibrium) densities of the dark state ($`n_{eq}`$ for electrons, and zero for holes). Finally, the last term on the right hand side represents the recombination of cold electrons and cold holes, where $`\xi `$ is the electron-hole capture (or collision time) coefficient. Note that we have written this term as being proportional to the product $`n_{cold}p_{cold}`$ which assumes that the rate limiting step in recombination is the rate for the electron and the hole to find each other and form a pair, i.e., we have assumed that once an electron-hole pair is formed, it will recombine immediately. Note also that the intensity of emission is given by the number of electrons and holes that recombine and hence the spatial profile of emission is given by the spatial dependence of the product $`n_{cold}p_{cold}`$.

Although there are many parameters in this model, all of them are known or can at least be estimated. A detailed discussion of all these parameters is given in the methods section below. Further simplification of these equations can be made by neglecting the diffusion of hot carriers in the plane. This is a reasonable assumption because in-plane diffusion is typically much slower than the drifting and cooling processes. Under these assumptions, the equations for the hot carriers can be solved exactly. This reduces the problem to a set of only two coupled rate equations for the cold carriers (see methods section below).

The steady state solutions of the model are presented in Figure 5 for the set of parameters discussed in the methods section below at an excitation power level where a ring is formed. The laser intensity profile is shown in by the black dotted line. The in-plane cold electron and hole density distribution profiles are shown by the red and blue lines, respectively. Consistent with our qualitative picture, the model predicts that both the electron depletion region and the puddle of holes are larger than the excitation spot due to the diffusion processes. The olive line shows the emission profile, which is just the product of the cold electron and cold hole densities. The emission ring appears at the sharp boundary between the electron sea and the hole puddle. The calculated emission patterns corresponding to the experimental conditions of Figure 2a-c are plotted in Figure 2d-f. There is a good agreement between the experiment and calculation except for the experimental asymmetry of the ring with respect to the center spot. We attribute the asymmetry of the ring to a gradient of barrier width, which for simplicity is not taken into account in our model. As the barrier width changes there will be corresponding changes in $`n_{eq}`$ causing the ring radius to locally vary.

In order to check the validity and consistency of our model, we compare its predictions to our spectroscopic experimental findings in Figure 3. First, as the excitation power is increased above a threshold, the electron depletion region and the area of the hole puddle increase. This pushes the ring out and away from the center spot. This behavior is well reproduced by the model, as seen in Figure 3e. The second crucial test of our physical picture is its ability to explain the puzzling dependence on excitation power of the linewidth and energy of the PL of the center spot. It is well known that the emission linewidth of a 2D electron-hole gas is a measure of the holes and electron Fermi energies which are determined by their corresponding densities ($`n_{cold}`$ and $`p_{cold}`$). Figure 3f shows the calculated linewidth ($`\gamma `$) assuming a quasi-degenerate 2D electron-hole gas, and is given by $`\gamma =E_f^e+E_f^h=\pi \mathrm{}^2(n_e/m_e+n_h/m_h)`$. Here, $`E_f^e`$ and $`E_f^h`$ are the electron and hole Fermi energies, and $`m_e`$ and $`m_h`$ are the electron and hole effective masses, respectively. The energy shift due to bandgap renormalization also depends on $`n_{cold}`$ and $`p_{cold}`$: the larger the total carrier density, the larger the emission red-shift due to carrier-carrier correlations. Following Ref. 8, 9, the bandgap renormalization is approximated by $`E_{BGR}=E_0\eta (n_{cold}+p_{cold})^{1/3}`$, with $`\eta `$ a fit parameter, and is plotted in Figure 3g. Here, $`E_0`$ is the QW transition energy (at zero density) and $`\eta `$ is a fitting parameter. Both the calculated linewidth and energy shift agree well with the experimental results. Finally, Figure 3g plots the calculated peak intensity of the center spot and ring PL as a function of power. As with the previous dependencies, it agrees well with the experimental behavior shown in Figure 3d.

In addition to the above described quantitative agreement of the experiment and the model, it is also very easy to understand how the qualitative trends come about. At low excitation power, we do not generate enough cold holes to substantially deplete the existing cold electron density (estimated to be $`10^{11}cm^2`$ from PL linewidth). Thus, we should see PL corresponding to recombination in the presence of a high density of free charge carriers which should be broad, red-shifted, and asymmetric, as we indeed observe (see Figure 2g). Increasing excitation power, the depletion of electrons becomes more significant, leading to a reduction of the excess electron density with only a small increase of holes. This lower density leads to a decrease in linewidth and a smaller red-shift of the center spot. As the power is further increased, the center spot is completely depleted of electrons and the ring starts to appear. At this point, the total carrier density at the center is around $`2\times 10^{10}cm^2`$, and correspondingly the spectral lines are narrower and less redshifted (see Figure 2h). Increasing the power still further will start to build up a large hole density in the center spot. The increase in charge carriers in the center spot then reverses the previous trend making the central spot once again broad, asymmetric, and redshifted (see Figure 2i). In contrast, the total carrier density at the ring (estimated to be $`2\times 10^{10}cm^2`$) remains nearly independent of the excitation power, and therefore no change in its linewidth and energy position is observed. At this low density, the emission from the ring appears excitonic.

The ability of our model to describe the various experimental results strongly supports the validity of the physical picture presented above. The agreement of the experiment and theory is impressive — particularly given the very crude nature of the theoretical model. Furthermore, the qualitative trends of the model are quite independent of the precise values of the input parameters.

We are now in a good position to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this paper. According to our model, the particles that are being transported are free carriers and no additional excitonic transport mechanism is necessary in order to explain our experimental data. Nonetheless, it seems that the ring emission is due to excitonic recombination (as is the center spot for excitation powers close to the threshold power for ring creation). The actual thermodynamic state of the exciton gas in the ring remains a very interesting open question. It was hypothesized in Refs. 1, 2 that the exciton gas is statistically degenerate. This is not excluded by our model (see also the discussion below). In fact, our model predicts a carrier density of $`2\times 10^{10}cm^2`$, which is of the order of the Kosterlitz-Thouless 2D transition density to a superfluid state at T=2K. (The data of Figure 2 and 3, however, are performed at higher temperatures). As for the driving force, diffusion of free carriers seems to sufficiently account for the observed effects. At first glance, it might seem that the carrier-carrier Coulomb interaction should play an important role. However, since the distance of the GaAs n+ conducting layers from the 2D gas layer is very small, any long range Coulomb interactions will be screened out, although plasmons can still propagate, which may be important for understanding the short time behavior reported in Ref. 3. Furthermore, the Coulomb term may be important in understanding the pattern formation which occurs at very low temperatures, reported in Ref. 1. In particular, below T=1.8K, the luminescence ring breaks into a periodic bead-like structures, which could possibly be understood as pattern formation arising from competition between repulsion of like charges and attraction of opposite charges.

While our model explains the experiments described here and in Ref. 2, 3 quite well, there are few points left unresolved. First, the observed saturation of the center spot linewidth and energy shift at very high excitation powers cannot be reproduced by our simple model. At such high powers, other effects not included in our model, such as heating and charge buildup, can become significant. Furthermore, the model can only partially account for the results in Ref. 1. For example, neither our experiments nor our model calculations show any clear evidence of the inner ring seen by Butov et. al. which may be related to the inability of excitons to recombine until they have cooled to energies within the light-cone1.

Another point worth mentioning is the dependence of the ring PL spatial sharpness with temperature. The model predicts that the ring width increases with increasing particle capture time, which also agrees with the observation that the ring broadens as the temperature is raised. (In the methods section we describe how the particle capture time is estimated). However, other parameters, such as the time constants, may also be temperature dependent making quantitative comparisons difficult at this stage.

A very intriguing prediction of the model is that the macroscopic charge separation and therefore the ring emission persists for an extremely long time compared to the center spot lifetime after the laser excitation is turned off. This behavior is shown in Figure 6, where the ring lifetime is longer than $`1\mu s`$. In comparison, the center spot decays after less than $`1ns`$. While the center spot lifetime is determined by the free carrier recombination time, the ring lifetime is determined by a slow carrier diffusion, which is driven by the carrier density gradients in the plane. This long lifetime of the ring is consistent with time-resolved measurements presented in Ref. 2, which reported a ring PL lifetime longer than $`260ns`$. This long lifetime suggests that excitons being formed in the ring should be well thermalized because the carriers should have had plenty of time to cool over the long time from their hot optical creation. We suggest that this should be a very good method of forming cold excitons, opening up opportunities for studying their quantum statistics at low temperatures.

Methods

With the above mentioned approximation that diffusion of hot carriers can be neglected, in steady state the reduced set of couple equations are simply Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 where $`n_{hot}/\tau _{cool}^e=C_eAf(r)`$ and $`p_{hot}/\tau _{cool}^h=C_hAf(r)`$ with $`C_{e(h)}=1/(1+\tau _{cool}^{e(h)}/\tau _{drift}^{e(h)})`$. The ratio between the hot carrier cooling time and drifting time, $`C_e(h)`$, can be estimated by comparing the experimentally measured light induced electric current to the number of photogenerated hot carriers, which is determined by the number of photons absorbed in the QW structure. We use $`C_e0.2`$ and $`C_h1`$. We use a gaussian beam profile ($`f(r)`$) to describe our excitation spot with a beam diameter of $`60\mu m`$ FWHM. The typical photon flux absorbed is $`2\times 10^5ns^1\mu m^2`$. $`\xi `$, the capture coefficient, is estimated by a simple, classical free electron-hole Coulomb capture model. In this model, a charged carrier is assumed to be captured by an opposite charge if its thermal kinetic energy is smaller than the coulomb attraction. This model results in a capture cross section of $`\sigma =\frac{e^2}{6\pi \epsilon kT}`$. $`\xi `$ is then given by $`\sigma v_{th}/d=\frac{e^4}{36\pi \epsilon ^2d}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\mu ^{}k^3T^3}}`$ where $`v_{th}`$ is the thermal velocity of the carrier, $`\mu ^{}`$ is the reduced electron-hole effective mass, and $`d`$ is the thickness of the QW. The electron-hole pair capture time is typically much longer than the recombination time at all the experimental carrier densities. For example, at a carrier density of $`10^{11}`$, the capture time is 1ns. Therefore, the assumption that $`\xi `$ is limited by the capture time is well justified. Although this calculation is quite crude, the calculated capture time is also consistent with the luminescence rise time of the center spot which was measured to be $`1ns`$ 2. The diffusion coefficient for the electrons is calculated from the measured electron mobility of the structure to be $`D_e=20\mu m^2/ns`$ and that of the holes is then inferred to be $`D_h=D_em_e/m_h=5\mu m^2/ns`$. The leakage time $`\tau _{leak}`$ is taken to be on the order of $`10\mu s`$, and $`n_{eq}=10^{11}/cm^2`$.

Acknowledgement

This work has been partially supported by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. We thank Phil Platzman, Girsh Blumberg, Nikolai Zhitenev, Rafi de Picciotto, Chandra Varma and Peter Littlewood for helpful discussions.

Competing interests statement

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S. H. S. (email: shsimon@lucent.com)


text:
# On the continuum limit of gauge-fixed compact 𝑈(1) lattice gauge theory

## Introduction

Although quantum field theories were first formulated on the lattice regulator to investigate the nonperturbative properties of Quantum Chromodynamics, the lattice regulator can be useful in general to study nonperturbative behavior of any field theory, in particular the theories involving nonasymptotically-free couplings. In this paper, we have looked at Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) which on the lattice can be formulated in terms of compact group-valued gauge fields in the usual Wilson approach, or in terms of noncompact gauge fields as in the continuum. The noncompact formulation does not allow any nonperturbative behavior in the pure gauge sector (it does show nonperturbative behavior only in the presence of fermions). However, the compact formulation allows for self-interaction of gauge fields on the lattice regulator and hence it is interesting to study its phase structure and possible continuum limits. Obviously for it to be a viable regularization, the lattice theory must have a weak coupling continuum limit that would produce free photons in the pure gauge sector. Once it has the expected weak coupling continuum limit, one is interested in finding a continuum limit with possible nonperturbative properties.

It is well known that compact formulation of U(1) gauge theory (with or without fermions) on the lattice has at least two different phases: a weak coupling phase (with usual QED-like properties on the regulator) called the Coulomb phase and a strong coupling confining phase which resembles QCD (again on the lattice regulator) in many ways - existence of gauge balls, confinement, nonzero chiral condensate, appearance of Goldstone bosons etc. To remove the regulator, there ought to be a continuous phase transition in the intermediate region. Numerical studies have found the existence of such a phase transition , but the order of the phase transition is generally accepted as first order.

A continuum limit from the confinement phase sustaining the properties of the confinement phase would imply a hitherto unknown continuum abelian gauge theory which is likely to correspond to a non-trivial fixed point.

As far as continuum limits from the Coulomb phase is concerned, one would have to imagine that the critical manifold (obtained by appropriately expanding the parameter space) is not too far away from the weak coupling region since perturbative results on lattice match excellently with our familiar continuum QED. However, the lack of a continuum limit for compact lattice QED in the weak coupling region means that the issue of triviality (existence of Landau poles etc.) cannot really be answererd in a genuine (nonperturbative) way.

With the addition of a nonminimal plaquette term in the gauge action , there is new evidence that the Coulomb-confinement transition in the pure gauge theory is first order . Only with inclusion of fermions (with a four fermion interaction ), there is indication of a continuous phase transition.

In this paper we make an exploratory study of possible continuum limits of a compact lattice formulation of pure U(1) gauge theory using a different regularization in 4 space-time dimensions. We also probe the pure gauge theory by quenched staggered fermions which have U(1)-charge. This regularization of lattice U(1) theory was originally devised to ‘tame’ the ‘rough gauge’ problem of lattice chiral gauge theories . Because of the gauge-invariant measure and the lack of gauge-invariance of the lattice chiral gauge theories, the longitudinal gauge degrees of freedom (lgdof) couple nonperturbatively to the physical degrees of freedom. To decouple the lgdof which are radially frozen scalar fields, a nonperturbative gauge fixing scheme (corresponding to a local renormalizable covariant gauge fixing in the naive continuum limit) for the compact U(1) gauge fields was proposed . A key feature of this gauge fixing scheme is that the gauge fixing term is not the exact square of the expression used in the gauge fixing condition and as a result not BRST-invariant (as required by Neuberger’s theorem  for compact gauge fixing). It has, in addition, appropriate irrelevant terms to make the perturbative vacuum $`U_{\mu x}=1`$ unique. Because the gauge fixing term obviously breaks gauge invariance, one needs to add counterterms to restore manifest gauge symmetry.

The parameter space of this regularization of compact U(1) theory now includes the gauge coupling, the coefficient of the gauge fixing term and the coefficients of the counterterms. In this extended parameter space it has been shown  that for a weak gauge coupling ($`g=0.6`$) there exists a continuous phase transition at which the U(1) gauge symmetry is restored and the continuum theory of free photons emerge. In this study, determination of the phase diagram and the critical region as extensively as possible is very important because we are dealing with a gauge-noninvariant theory in general and it is necessary to have freedom along the critical manifold so that irrelevant parameters can be appropriately tuned to restore gauge invariance (protecting the theory from a violation of unitarity).

Scanning a wide range of all the three parameters, in the pure gauge theory we have found phase transitions between a phase with broken rotational symmetry (FMD phase) and one with rotational symmetry (FM phase). The FM-FMD transition is the place where the gauge symmetry gets restored. To recover Lorentz invariance in the continuum, the FM-FMD transition needs to be approached from the FM side.

Probing the pure gauge theory with quenched U(1)-charged fermions, we have also found evidence for a chiral transition for large gauge couplings although in this exploratory study we could assess its approximate location in a limited region of the parameter space. We have looked for chiral condensates only near the FM-FMD transition, because this is where the gauge symmetry is restored.

From our numerical evidence we expect that the chiral phase transition intersects the FM-FMD phase transition at the tricritical line where the order of the FM-FMD transition changes. The region of the FM-FMD transition where the chiral condensate is nonzero seems to be first order. The intersection region of the chiral and the FM-FMD transitions thus seems to be the only candidate where a continuum limit with nonperturbative properties may be achieved.

A preliminary account of our work can be found in .

## The Regularization

The action for the compact gauge-fixed U(1) theory , where the ghosts are free and decoupled, is:

$$S[U]=S_g[U]+S_{gf}[U]+S_{ct}[U].$$
(1)
$`S_g`$ is the usual Wilson plaquette action,

$$S_G=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{x\mu <\nu }{}\left(1\mathrm{Re}U_{\mu \nu x}\right)$$
(2)
where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling and $`U_{\mu x}`$ is the group valued U(1) gauge field.

$`S_{gf}`$ is the BRST-noninvariant compact gauge fixing term,

$$S_{gf}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\left(\underset{xyz}{}\mathrm{}(U)_{xy}\mathrm{}(U)_{yz}\underset{x}{}B_x^2\right)$$
(3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is the coefficient of the gauge fixing term, $`\mathrm{}(U)`$ is the covariant lattice Laplacian and

$$B_x=\underset{\mu }{}\left(\frac{𝒜_{\mu ,x\mu }+𝒜_{\mu x}}{2}\right)^2,$$
(4)
where $`𝒜_{\mu x}=\mathrm{Im}U_{\mu x}`$. As mentioned in the Introduction, $`S_{gf}`$ is not just a naive transcription of the continuum covariant gauge fixing term, it has in addition appropriate irrelevant terms. This makes the action have an unique absolute minimum at $`U_{\mu x}=1`$, validating weak coupling perturbation theory around $`g=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\mathrm{}`$ and in the naive continuum limit reduces to $`1/2\xi d^4x(_\mu A_\mu )^2`$ with $`\xi =1/(2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }g^2)`$.

Validity of weak coupling perturbation theory together with perturbative renormalizability helps to determine the form of the counter terms to be present in $`S_{ct}`$. It turns out that the most important gauge counterterm is the dimension-two counterterm, namely the gauge field mass counterterm given by,

$$S_{ct}=\kappa \underset{\mu x}{}\left(U_{\mu x}+U_{\mu x}^{}\right).$$
(5)
In the pure bosonic theory there are possible marginal counterterms including derivatives. However, in the investigation of the gauge-fixed theory as given, the dimension-two counterterm has been mostly considered, because it alone could lead to a continuous phase transition that recovers the gauge symmetry. It was argued that the marginal counterterms would not possibly create new universality classes for the continuum theory corresponding to large $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ (for a discussion on other counterterms, please see ).

Our philosophy here has been an usual one, i.e. to take a lattice theory given by (1) having the expected weak coupling results, and then try and find out the strong coupling properties of the same theory.

Information about the phase diagram of the model can be obtained in the constant field approximation, first by expanding the link field $`U_{\mu x}=\mathrm{exp}igA_{\mu x}`$ around $`U_{\mu x}=1`$ and then requiring the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$ to be constant (thus all the terms containing derivatives of $`A_\mu `$ vanish). Since the WCPT is defined around $`U_{\mu x}=1`$, the classical potential $`V_{cl}`$ is the leading order approximation of the effective potential and is given by,

$`V_{cl}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \left[g^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}A_\mu ^2+\mathrm{}\right]+`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{2\xi }}\left[\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}A_\mu ^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}A_\mu ^4\right)+\mathrm{}\right].`$
where the dots represent terms of higher order in $`g^2`$. Since the perturbation theory is defined around $`g=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\mathrm{}`$, the classical potential is expected to be reliable at least for the region of large $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$.

From (6) it follows that for $`\kappa >0`$, the gauge boson mass is nonzero and $`V_{cl}`$ has a minimum at $`A_\mu =0`$. The region $`\kappa >0`$ therefore is a phase with broken gauge symmetry – the FM phase.

For $`\kappa <0`$, the minimum of $`V_{cl}`$ shifts to a nonzero value:

$$A_\mu =\pm \left(\frac{\xi |\kappa |}{3g^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mu $$

implying an unusual phase with broken rotational symmetry in addition to the broken gauge symmetry – we call it the directional ferromagnetic phase (FMD) .

For $`\kappa =0\kappa _c`$ the minimum of $`V_{cl}`$ is at $`A_\mu =0`$ and at the same time the gauge boson mass vanishes, thus gauge symmetry is restored which signals a continuous phase transition or criticality.

For large enough $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ the presence of the $`A_\mu ^6`$ term in the gauge fixing action (3) produces a continuous phase transition FM$``$FMD at which the gauge boson mass scales to zero and hence the gauge symmetry is restored. The continuum limit now can be taken by approaching FM-FMD transition from within FM phase.

## Numerical Simulation and Results

To obtain the phase diagram of the gauge-fixed pure $`U(1)`$ theory, given by the action (1), in $`(\kappa ,\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$ -plane for fixed values of the gauge coupling $`g`$, we defined the following observables (for a $`L^4`$-lattice):

$`E_P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6L^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu <\nu }{}}\mathrm{Re}U_{\mu \nu x}`$ (7)
$`E_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\mathrm{Re}U_{\mu x}`$ (8)
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{Im}U_{\mu x}\right)^2}.`$ (9)
$`E_P`$ and $`E_\kappa `$ are not order parameters but they signal phase transitions by sharp changes. We expect $`E_\kappa 0`$ in the broken symmetric phases FM and FMD and $`E_\kappa 0`$ in the symmetric (PM) phase. Besides, $`E_\kappa `$ is expected to be continuous at a continuous phase transition (infinite slope in the infinite volume limit) and show a discrete jump at a first order transition . The true order parameter is $`V`$ which allows us to distinguish the FMD phase (where $`V0`$) from the other phases where $`V0`$.

The Monte Carlo simulations were done with a 4-hit Metropolis algorithm on a variety of lattice sizes from $`4^4`$ to $`16^4`$, although investigations were mostly done on $`10^4`$ lattices. The phase diagram was explored in $`(\kappa ,\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$-plane at gauge couplings $`g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3}`$ and 1.4 over a range of 0.30 to -2.30 for $`\kappa `$ and 0.00 to 1.00 for $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. The autocorrelation length for all observables was less than 10 for $`10^4`$ lattices and each expectation value was calculated from about a thousand independent configurations.

Figure 1 collectively shows the phase diagram in $`(\kappa ,\stackrel{~}{\kappa })`$-plane for the different gauge couplings. The diagram looks qualitatively the same for all gauge couplings. For zero or small values of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, there is a FM-PM transition. The FM-FMD transition which ensures recovery of the gauge symmetry is obtained at larger finite values of the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. As seen from the figure, the FM-FMD transition can be approached by tuning just one parameter, namely, $`\kappa `$ for given values of $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$.

The phase diagram and behavior of the theory at $`g=0.6`$ was investigated before . We have reconfirmed the results of  and for reasons of clarity fig.1 does not include the data for $`g=0.6`$. At weaker gauge couplings $`g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.6},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.0}`$ the FM-FMD transition (the dotted lines roughly parallel to the $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$-axis) appears to be continuous. On the other hand, for stronger gauge couplings $`g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3}`$ and also $`g=1.4`$ (although not shown in fig.1) this transition is first order for smaller values of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ and is continuous for larger values of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. The critical value of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ at which the order changes shifts to larger values with increasing gauge coupling. In this exploratory study we have not determined the precise value of the above mentioned critical $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ for the whole range of gauge couplings investigated.

The order of the FM-FMD phase transition is inferred from the change of $`E_\kappa `$ with $`\kappa `$. A $`E_\kappa `$ versus $`\kappa `$ plot is shown here only for a stronger gauge coupling, discussed next.

Figure 2 which depicts the nature of change of $`E_\kappa `$ versus $`\kappa `$ across the FM-FMD transition at $`g=1.3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.4`$ for (a) $`10^4`$ and (b) $`16^4`$ lattices, shows a discrete jump, implying a first order transition. Although the figure is presented only for $`g=1.3`$, our observation is that at $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0.4`$ and $`g1.1`$ the FM-FMD transition seems to be first order, whereas for $`g<1.1`$ and any $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ (large enough to accomodate a FM-FMD transition) this transition is continuous.

At large gauge couplings ($`g1.1`$), when we increase the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, however, the discrete jump of $`E_\kappa `$, as $`\kappa `$ changes across the FM-FMD transition, disappears. This is clearly shown in fig.3 for $`g=1.3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.8`$ for (a) $`10^4`$ and (b) $`16^4`$ lattices. This actually would indicate a revival of a continuous FM-FMD transition at these couplings. From our experience it is reasonable to expect that for a larger gauge coupling, the transition would still remain continuous if $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is made large enough.

Clearly there is a huge qualitative difference between figs.2 and 3 in the nature of change of $`E_\kappa `$ versus $`\kappa `$ across the FM-FMD transition. Please note that the scales of the figs. 2(a) and 3(a), which show data for only the $`10^4`$ lattices, are exactly the same. In addition, although the figs. 2 and 3 are shown only for $`10^4`$ and $`16^4`$ lattices, we have actually looked at all the observables on lattices from $`4^4`$ all the way upto $`16^4`$, and we have seen that the qualitative difference discussed above gets only more pronounced at larger lattices. At $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.4`$, as shown in figs. 2(a) and (b), the discrete jump of $`E_\kappa `$ gets distinctly sharper on the $`16^4`$ lattice. On the other hand, at $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.8`$ as shown in fig. 3(a), $`E_\kappa `$ is quite continuous across the FM-FMD transition on $`10^4`$ lattices. Even a fine resolution of data points separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa =0.001`$ does not show any discontinuity. As we go to $`16^4`$ lattices as shown in fig. 3(b), we critically investigate only the region around the transition (which obviously shifts a little with the change of lattice size) and absolutely no discontinuity is found with our resolution. In addition, a hint of a S-shape around the transition is visible which promises to evolve into an inflexion with infinite slope at the transition in the thermodynamic limit.

We have probed the gauge-fixed pure gauge system by quenched staggered fermions with U(1) charge by measuring the chiral condensate

$$\overline{\chi }\chi _{m_0}=\frac{1}{L^4}\underset{x}{}M_{xx}^1$$
(10)
as a function of vanishing fermionic bare mass $`m_0`$. $`M`$ is the fermion matrix. The chiral condensates are computed with the Gaussian noise estimator method . Anti-periodic boundary condition in one direction is employed.

Figure 4 shows quenched chiral condensates near the FM-FMD transition (remaining in the FM phase) obtained on $`10^4`$ lattice for different gauge couplings as a function of staggered fermion bare mass $`m_0`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.4`$. Figure 4 clearly indicates that for weaker gauge couplings ($`g<1.1`$) the chiral condensates vanish in the chiral limit. For stronger gauge couplings ($`g>1.1`$) the chiral condensates are clearly not zero in the chiral limit. The dotted lines in fig. 4 (and in fig. 5 to follow) are only to guide the eye. It is to be noted that at $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0.4`$ as $`g`$ changes from below 1.1 to above, the FM-FMD transition changes from continuous to first order (see fig.2).

Figure 5 also shows chiral condensates near the FM-FMD transition again as function of the bare fermion mass but this time for different values of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$. Here we observe, interestingly, that for $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0.8`$ and large gauge coupling ($`g=1.3`$) the chiral condensates tend to vanish in the chiral limit. It is to be noted again that at $`g=1.3`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ changes from roughly below 0.8 to above, the FM-FMD transition changes from first order to continuous.

The above discussion strongly suggests that inclusion of fermions here leads to a chiral phase transition that intersects the FM-FMD phase transition. For a fixed $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ there is chiral transition as $`g`$ is changed, and for a fixed $`g`$ the chiral transition shows up as $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is changed (the third parameter $`\kappa `$ is used to stay on the FM-FMD transition). A similar phenomenon occurs for the order of the FM-FMD transition with respect to changes in $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$.

There is no chiral condensate in regions where we can take a continuum limit in the pure gauge theory (which is the expected perturbative result). On the other hand, chiral condensates appear where there is no continuum limit for the pure gauge theory.

The tricritical point (or line in the 3 dimensional parameter space) where the FM-FMD transition changes its order seems to be the likely place where the chiral transition intersects the FM-FMD transition. The tricritical line is therefore the only candidate where there is a possibility of a continuum limit with nonperturbative properties like the chiral condendsate.

## Conclusion

With the particular regularization of compact pure U(1) gauge theory with an extended parameter space, we have shown that there is clearly a continuum limit for the whole range of the bare gauge coupling $`g`$. Evidence of a continuum limit in other regularizations of a compact lattice U(1) gauge theory is either absent, inconclusive  or dependent on inclusion of fermionic interactions .

Given the long history of speculation about a confining strong coupling U(1) gauge theory and related issues of non-triviality, we have probed the pure gauge system by quenched staggered fermions and found a clear evidence for a chiral phase transition. However, the region with a nonzero chiral condensate does not allow a continuum limit. The continuum limit in the pure gauge theory is only attained with no chiral condensate. This is consistent with perturbative expectations.

We have found reasonable evidence to expect that the tricritical line at which the the order of the FM-FMD phase transition changes in the pure gauge theory, coincides with the line where the chiral phase transition intersects the FM-FMD transition. This line is the only candidate for a possible continuum limit with nonperturbative properties like chiral condensates.

The authors thank M. Golterman and P.B. Pal for reading the manuscript and comments. This work is funded by a project under the DAE. One of the authors (SB) acknowledges the support of the U.S. Dept. of Energy under grant no. DE-FG02-93ER-40762.