text:
# Computing a Turing-Incomputable Problem from Quantum Computing

## 1 Introduction

In general terms, a quantum computation model is built based on a physical referent which determines the mathematical and computational characteristics of the quantum algorithms built on such model. These algorithms, in turn, determine the kinds of problems that can be solved under the quantum computation model.

The first quantum computation model considered as a hypercomputation model was the one proposed by Tien D. Kieu  having the following characteristics: (i) Physical referent: quantum harmonic oscillator, (ii) Turing-incomputable problem that solves: Hilbert’s tenth problem.

This article presents the construction of a hypercomputation model named *Infinite Square Well Hypercomputation Model (ISWHM)*. This model is based on the one proposed by Kieu, but we have selected the infinite square well instead of the quantum harmonic oscillator as the physical referent. This change conveys a change in the Turing-incomputable problem to solve, and instead of solving Hilbert’s tenth problem it solves a problem equivalent to it. A simulation of its behavior is carried out for the proposed model and problem. Besides, it is demonstrated that ISWHM is a universal quantum computation model.

## 2 Hypercomputation

While the idea of an *absolute computability*, detached from logical, mathematical, physical or biological theories is hard to support nowadays, the idea of a *relative computability* has progressively gained supporters, as shown by the establishment of an academic community around the topic (www.hypercomputation.net).

The term ‘hypercomputer’ or ‘hypermachine’ denotes any data processing device (theoretical, potencially realizable or that can be implemented) capable of carrying out tasks that cannot be performed by a Turing machine . A hypermachine, also capable of simulating a universal Turing machine is called a super-(Turing machine), otherwise it is called a non-(Turing machine) .

At first glance, we could think that the possibility of a hypercomputation model would be a refutation of the widely accepted Church-Turing thesis, which identifies the *naturally calculable* functions with the Turing-computable functions. But actually the existence of hypercomputation models refute the $`M`$ thesis, which identifies the functions *calculable by a machine* with the Turing-computable functions . On the other hand, notwithstanding the proliferation of theoretical hypercomputation models , the possibility of the *real* construction of a hypermachine keeps being controversial and under analysis.

## 3 The Turing-Incomputable Problem

The demonstration that ISWHM is a hypercomputation model will be done by demonstrating that it can solve an Turing-incomputable problem.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be the set of non-negative integers, $`\mathrm{}`$ the set of the whole numbers, $`\mathrm{}^+`$ the set of the positive integers, and $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$ the set of the perfect square numbers. A Diophantine equation is one of the form

$$D(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=0,$$
(1)
where $`D`$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients. In present terminology, Hilbert’s tenth problem may be paraphrased as: Given a Diophantine equation of type (1), we should build a procedure to determine whether or not this equation has a solution in $`\mathrm{}`$. From the concluding results gotten by Matiyasevich, we know that, in the general case, this problem is algorithmically insolvable or more precisely, it is Turing-incomputable.

Having into account that any non-negative integer number may be expressed as the addition of the squares of four integer numbers (the four squares theorem, due to Lagrange), and that any system of a finite number of Diophantine equations has a solution in $`\mathrm{}`$, if and only if a certain Diophantine equation associated to the system has a solution in $`\mathrm{}`$; the Hilbert’s tenth problem may be reduced to search a solution in $`\mathrm{}`$ .

Due to the Hamiltonian operator (2) used in the description of ISWHM, the decision problem associated with this model of computation consists in determining whether or not a Diophantine equation kind (1) has a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$. However, this problem is equivalent to determining whether or not the Diophantine equations system

$$D(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=0,x_1=y_1^2,\mathrm{}x_k=y_k^2,$$

has a solution in $`\mathrm{}`$, and this problem is equivalent to Hilbert’s tenth problem. Therefore, the decision problem associated with ISWHM is a Turing-incomputable one.

## 4 The Physical Referent

The energy levels $`E_n`$, for a particle with mass $`m`$ in a infinite square well with length $`L`$, are given by

$$E_n=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2mL^2}n^2.$$

These energy levels are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian operator of the system denoted by $`H`$, for which correspond as eigenvectors the states denoted by the kets $`|n`$, where $`n\mathrm{}^+`$. The Hilbert space for the infinite square well, denoted $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}`$, is infinite dimensional, and its orthonormal and complete canonical base is the countably infinite set $`\{|n\}_{n\mathrm{}^+}`$. In such base, $`H`$ is diagonal and has the following form

$$H|n=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2mL^2}n^2|n.$$
(2)
If matrix $`M`$ is defined as

$$M=\frac{2mL^2}{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}H,$$

then (2) may be written

$$M|n=n^2|n.$$
(3)
Equation (3) implies that matrix $`M`$ has a diagonal form in its canonical base $`\{|n\}_{n\mathrm{}^+}`$ and its components are the $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$ numbers. This canonical base satisfies the following completeness and orthonormality conditions

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|nn|=\mathrm{𝟙},n|m=\delta _{n,m},$$

where $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ is the identity matrix in Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}`$.

With this mathematical description of the infinite square well we may proceed to the extension of Kieu’s model from the quantum harmonic oscillator towards the infinite square well thus to obtain the ISWHM.

## 5 The Algorithm

If we have a Diophantine equation of type (1), the strategy to determine whether or not it has a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$, inspired in the strategy followed by Kieu, consists in translating equation $`D`$ in $`k`$ variables into a codifying Hamiltonian operator $`H_D`$ represented by a countably infinite dimensional matrix which acts in Hilbert space $`H_\mathrm{c}^k=\underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{H_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{}H_\mathrm{c}}}`$, and then restate the problem in terms of the $`H_D`$ properties .

Particularly, each of the $`k`$ variables is substituted in $`D`$ by the operator $`M`$ given by (3) and we obtain the Hamiltonian $`H_D`$ given by

$$H_D=D(M_1,M_2,\mathrm{},M_k)^2,$$

and therefore, equation $`D`$ has at least a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$, if and only if the eigenvalue $`E_0`$ associated to the $`H_D`$ fundamental state is zero.

The problem of determining the $`E_0`$ eigenvalue may be solved by the application of the adiabatic theorem, as Kieu does in the harmonic oscillator case. For this doing a universal interaction Hamiltonian operator $`H_\mathrm{I}`$ (valid for all Diophantine equations) is introduced, which describes an operator that acts in Hilbert space $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}^k`$ and has a eigenvector known in such a space that corresponds to the zero eigenvalue.

The Hamiltonian operator $`H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)`$ that results from the convex overlapping of $`H_D`$ and $`H_\mathrm{I}`$, with adiabatic parameter $`t/T`$ has the form

$$H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)=(1t/T)H_\mathrm{I}+(t/T)H_D,$$

where $`T`$ is the total time of the adiabatic evolution and $`t[0,T]`$. The Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)`$ determines the solution of the Schrödinger discretized equation given by

$$\psi (t+\delta t)=\left(\frac{1\frac{i}{2}H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)\delta t}{1+\frac{i}{2}H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)\delta t}\right)\psi (t),$$
(4)
where $`\delta t`$ is the time step.

For a Diophantine equation $`D(x)=0`$, based on (4) the algorithm for ISWHM to determine whether or not it has a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$, has as inputs and outputs the ones indicated in Fig. 1, where for $`\psi (t)=_nc_n(t)|n`$:

1. $`P_n(t)=\left|c_n(t)\right|^2`$ represents the probabilities of the quantum states $`|n`$ for a time $`t`$.
2. $`<n^2(t)>=_nP_n(t)n^2`$ represents the expected value of the square random variable $`n`$ that codifies the value of the unknown $`x`$ in the equation $`D(x)=0`$.
3. $`E_0(t)`$ represents the spectral flow of the eigenvalue associated to the fundamental state of the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)`$.

According to the characteristics of the Hamiltonian $`H_\mathrm{A}(t/T)`$, only a finite adiabatic evolution $`T`$ time is necessary to obtain a state $`|n_0`$ which has a high probability to be the fundamental state of $`H_D`$ . The $`|n_0`$ state is observed from the emergence of a dominant probability in the set of probabilities $`P_n(T)`$. Once the $`|n_0`$ state is obtained, its eigenvalue $`E_0(T)`$ is determined. If $`E_0(T)=0`$, the Diophantine equation $`D(x)=0`$ has a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$ and it is given by the value $`<n^2(T)>`$. On the other hand, if $`E_0(T)0`$, then the equation $`D(x)=0`$ doesn’t have a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$. The above description should be generalized for a Diophantine equation of $`k`$ variables.

## 6 The Simulation

The idea is to simulate the algorithm described in Fig. 1 in such a way that the realization of the adiabatic theorem for a big but finite $`T`$ time is observed. Since the algorithm operates upon a infinite dimensional Hilbert space, it is necessary to operate upon a truncated finite dimensional space to obtain the numeric solutions indicated by (4). The truncation level $`P`$ means that we operate upon a space which canonical base is given by $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},|P\}`$.

For the carried out simulations, $`\psi (0)`$ is assumed as uniform and normalized, $`H_\mathrm{I}`$ is obtained from the matrix of ones, and $`\delta t=1`$. Concretely, we carried out the simulation for the following simple Diophantine equations

$`x16`$ $`=0,`$ (5)
$`x7`$ $`=0,`$ (6)
$`(x+1)(y+2)`$ $`=12,`$ (7)
where (5) has a unique solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$, (6) doesn’t have a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$ and (7) has a unique solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}\times \mathrm{}^{+2}`$.

For (5), with $`T2000`$ and $`P=6`$, it was determined that it had a solution. Figure 2 points that rapidly $`(t15)`$ the state $`|n_0=|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ is the candidate to be the fundamental state $`H_D`$. Figure 2 indicates that this state effectively has the energy eigenvalue $`E_0=0`$, and Fig. 2 shows that the solution is given by $`x=16`$.

For (6), Fig. 3 indicates that the probability that the state $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ be the fundamental state of $`H_D`$ can be approximated to $`1`$ as much as we want. However, Fig. 3 points that $`E_00`$, therefore, (6) doesn’t have a solution in $`\mathrm{}^{+2}`$.

For (7), Fig. 4 shows that the state $`|n_0,m_0=|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2`$ tends to be the fundamental state, when $`T=1000`$ and $`P=2`$, and Fig. 4 shows the contour curves for the codifying variables $`n`$ and $`m`$ at three different time moments. Figure 4 indicates that the equation solution is given by $`x=1`$ and $`y=4`$, supported by the fact that the spectral flow of eigenvalue $`E_0(t)`$ is similar to the one illustrated in Fig. 2.

## 7 The Universality

The universality of a quantum computation model, that is, its capability to carry out any operation that is carried out by a Turing machine, is established by its capability to generate a set of quantum gates, such that any unitary transformation $`U(2^n)`$, that is, any quantum gate that operates upon $`n`$-qubits, can be approximated with sufficient exactness by a quantum circuit that is only made of a finite number of gates of this set.

Henceforth, we will use the convention of superindexes over the operators (quantum gates) and over the states (qubits). This superindex will denote the dimension of Hilbert space upon which the operators act or upon which the states are defined.

To demonstrate the universality of the ISWHM it is necessary and sufficient to construct three quantum gates: the controlled-NOT gate $`C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4`$, the phase gate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2`$ and Hadamard gate $`H_{\mathrm{ad}}^2`$ . For gates $`C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2`$, its matrix representation and the transformation carried out upon the base states of Hilbert space on which they act, are given by

$$C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}^4& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}^4,\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}^4& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}^4,\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4,\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^4}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}\end{array}\right),$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^2& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^2,\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^2& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2}{}e^{i\pi /4}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
In systems whose Hamiltonian operators are independent from the time, as it is the case of the infinite square well, the states of the system evolve according to the solution of Schrödinger equation of stationary states

$$|\psi (t)=U(t)|\psi (0)=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}Ht}|\psi (0),$$
(10)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system defined in (2), $`U(t)`$ is the evolution unitary operator and $`|\psi (0)=|n^{\mathrm{}}`$ is considered for the eigenstates of the infinite square well Hamiltonian. The $`U(t)`$ matrix elements are given by

$$U_{np}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\mathrm{}\pi ^2n^2t}{2mL^2}\right)\delta _{np},$$
(11)
where $`\delta _{np}`$ is Kronecker delta.

From different choices of the $`t`$ parameter in (11), and different qubits coding, it is possible to find the evolutions corresponding to each of the mentioned quantum gates.

In order to build the phase gate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in the ISWHM, based on the normalized eigenvectors of the phase gate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^2`$ (9), we carry out a coding of the canonical base $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^2,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^2\}`$ for a $`1`$-qubit in the canonical base $`\{|n^{\mathrm{}}\}_{n\mathrm{}^+}`$, given by

$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^2`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^2`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}.`$
According to (11) and for the time $`t=\frac{2mL^2}{\mathrm{}\pi ^2}\varphi `$, where $`\varphi [\pi ,\pi )`$, we obtain a quantum gate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )`$ whose components are given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{np}^{\mathrm{}}(\varphi )=\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi \right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi (n^21)\right)\right]\delta _{np},$$
(12)
where term $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi \right)`$ hasn’t physical meaning.

With (12) it is possible to control, at least theoretically, the ISWHM, until the implementation of the transformation that accounts for the phase gate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^{\mathrm{}}`$, given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^{\mathrm{}}& =\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}(\pi /12)\hfill \\ & =U\left(\frac{2mL^2}{\mathrm{}\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\pi }{12}\right)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^{\mathrm{}}}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\pi /4}^{\mathrm{}}}{}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, in order to build the $`C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ gate in the ISWHM, based on the normalized eigenvectors of the $`C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^2`$ gate (8), we code the base

$$\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}^4,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}^4,\frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4}{\sqrt{2}}\}$$

for a $`2`$-qubit in the canonical base $`\{|n^{\mathrm{}}\}_{n\mathrm{}^+}`$ by means of

$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}^4`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}^4`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}^4|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ $`\stackrel{codification}{}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}}}.`$
According to (11), in $`t=\frac{2mL^2}{\mathrm{}\pi }`$ we obtain the $`C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ gate given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}& =U\left(\frac{2mL^2}{\mathrm{}\pi ^2}\right),\hfill \\ \\ \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}}& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ \hfill |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}^{\mathrm{}}& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}}{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}^{\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}}& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}}& \stackrel{C_{\mathrm{NOT}}^{\mathrm{}}}{}\frac{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}^{\mathrm{}}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\sqrt{2}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In a similar fashion, the $`H_{\mathrm{ad}}^{\mathrm{}}`$ gate is built in the ISWHM by making a coding of the $`\{|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^2,|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^2\}`$ base in the $`\{|n^{\mathrm{}}\}_{n\mathrm{}^+}`$ base, from the normalized eigenvectors of the $`H_{\mathrm{ad}}^2`$ Hadamard gate, and by selecting an adequate value of the $`t`$ parameter in (11).

Although from a theoretical point of view we got the universality of the ISWHM, this model doesn’t turn out to be adequate from its physical implementation point of view due to the realization of the mentioned quantum gates in different times and due to the change in the coding of the base of the qubits for each gate.

## 8 Conclusions

It is quite surprising that a quantum computation model over such a *simple* physical referent like the infinite square well have hypercomputation characteristics as it was demonstrated for the ISWHM. In fact, and according to the obtained universality results, the ISWHM constitutes itself (at least from a theoretical perspective) as a super-Turing computational model.

On the other hand, the success obtained by choosing a physical referent different from the one selected by Kieu opens the possibility of obtaining new hypercomputation models supported on the quantum computation. Due to the nature of their theoretical construction, these models may be the best candidates to a possible physical realization or implementation of a hypercomputer. Be this possible, such hypercomputer would broaden the conception of the term ‘computable’, not exclusively from the theoretical perspective but also from the practical perspective.

## Aknowledgments

We would like to thank Tien D. Kieu for discussions and feedback. This research was supported by EAFIT University under Research Project No. $`PY0204`$.


format: text

text:
# Sivers function in a spectator model with axial-vector diquarks

## I Introduction

The Sivers function was introduced for the first time in Ref. Sivers (1990), in an attempt to explain the observation of single-spin asymmetries in hard hadronic reactions. Since then, some phenomenological extractions of the Sivers function have been performed Anselmino and Murgia (1998); Anselmino et al. (1999, 2003), from data on pion production in proton-proton collisions Adams et al. (1991); Bravar et al. (1996). The Sivers function gives a contribution also to the single-spin asymmetry observed by the HERMES collaboration in pion production via deep inelastic scattering off polarized targets Airapetian et al. (2000, 2001, 2003). In all the above cases, however, the presence of competing effects (in particular the Collins effect) did not allow clear conclusions up to now Anselmino et al. (1999); Efremov et al. (2003).

Despite the phenomenological indications, for several years the Sivers function was believed to vanish due to time-reversal invariance Collins (1993). However, this statement was contradicted by an explicit calculation by Brodsky, Hwang and Schmidt, using a spectator model Brodsky et al. (2002a). As the Sivers function is an example of T-odd entity, it requires the interference between two amplitudes with different imaginary parts Collins (1993); Bacchetta et al. (2001). Spectator models at tree level cannot provide these nontrivial phases, but they can arise as soon as a gluon is exchanged between the struck quark and the target spectator Brodsky et al. (2002a). More generally, the presence of the gauge link, which insures the color gauge invariance of parton distributions, can provide nontrivial phases and thus generate T-odd functions Collins (2002); Ji and Yuan (2002); Belitsky et al. (2003); Boer et al. (2003a). The main ingredient of the model calculation of Brodsky et al. (2002a) is nothing else than the one-gluon approximation to the gauge link. It is also interesting to note that T-odd distribution functions vanish in a large class of chiral soliton models, where gluonic degrees of freedom are absent Pobylitsa (2002).

The work of Brodsky, Hwang and Schmidt was not aimed at producing a phenomenological estimate. A step forward in this direction has been accomplished in Refs. Boer et al. (2003b); Gamberg et al. (2003). In our article, we present an alternative calculation, using the version of the spectator model presented by Jakob, Mulders and Rodrigues in Ref. Jakob et al. (1997). In particular, we include in the model a dynamical axial-vector diquark as a possible spectator, and we explore the Sivers function for down quarks. The necessity to include axial-vector diquarks is also discussed, e. g., in Refs. Close and Thomas (1988); Meyer and Mulders (1991); Oettel et al. (2000). Finally, we point out that a calculation of the Sivers function in the MIT bag model has been recently presented in Ref. Yuan (2003).

## II Unpolarized distribution function $`f_1`$

The unpolarized distribution function $`f_1`$ can be defined as

$$f_1(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)=\frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)+\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)\right)\gamma ^+\right],$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the spin of the target. The correlator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T)`$ can be written as Boer et al. (2003a)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)=\frac{\mathrm{d}\xi ^{}\mathrm{d}^2\xi _T}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{e}^{+\mathrm{i}k\xi }P,S|\overline{\psi }(0)_{[0^{},\mathrm{}^{}]}_{[0_T,\mathrm{}_T]}_{[\mathrm{}_T,\xi _T]}_{[\mathrm{}^{},\xi ^{}]}\psi (\xi )|P,S|_{\xi ^+=0},$$
(2)
where the notation $`_{[a,b]}`$ indicates a straight gauge link running from $`a`$ to $`b`$. In Drell-Yan processes the link runs in the opposite direction, to $`\mathrm{}`$ Boer et al. (2003a). For the calculation of the unpolarized function $`f_1`$ the transverse part of the gauge link does not play a role and the entire gauge link can be reduced to unity. Therefore, for this first part of the calculation it is sufficient to consider only the handbag diagram.

At tree level, we follow almost exactly the spectator model of Jakob, Mulders and Rodrigues Jakob et al. (1997). In this model, the proton (with mass $`M`$) can couple to a constituent quark of mass $`m`$ and a diquark. The diquark can be both a scalar particle, with mass $`M_s`$, or an axial-vector particle, with mass $`M_v`$. The relevant diagram at tree level (identical for the scalar and axial-vector case) is depicted in Fig. 1 (a). In our model, the nucleon-quark-diquark vertices are

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_s`$ $`=g_s(k^2),`$ $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_v^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{g_v(k^2)}{\sqrt{2}}}\gamma _5\gamma ^\mu .`$ (3)
We make use of the dipole form factor

$$g_{s/v}(k^2)=N_{s/v}\frac{(k^2m^2)(1x)^2}{\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_{s/v}^2\right)^2},$$
(4)
where

$`\stackrel{}{k}_T^2`$ $`=(1x)k^2xM_{s/v}^2+x(1x)M^2,`$ (5)
$`L_{s/v}^2`$ $`=(1x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+xM_{s/v}^2x(1x)M^2.`$ (6)
The only difference with respect to Ref. Jakob et al. (1997) is the form of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_v`$ – the vertex involving nucleon, quark, and axial-vector diquark. This change modifies the original results only slightly. Note that our choice of the form factor, defined in Eq. (4), is very different from the Gaussian form factor employed in Ref. Gamberg et al. (2003). Both choices have the effect of eliminating the logarithmic divergences arising from $`k_T`$ integration and suppress the influence of the high $`k_T`$ region, where anyway perturbative corrections should be taken into account Boer et al. (2003b).

The final results for the unpolarized distribution function $`f_1`$ are

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_1^s(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)& ={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2\left[(xM+m)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_T^2\right]}{2(2\pi )^3(1x)(k^2m^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_s^2(1x)^3\left[(xM+m)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_T^2\right]}{16\pi ^3\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_s^2\right)^4}},\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_1^v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)& ={\displaystyle \frac{g_v^2\left[(xM+m)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+2xmM\right]}{2(2\pi )^3(1x)(k^2m^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_v^2(1x)^3\left[(xM+m)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+2xmM\right]}{16\pi ^3\left(\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_v^2\right)^4}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
Both functions can be integrated over the transverse momentum to give

$`f_1^s(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{N_s^2(1x)^3}{96\pi ^2L_s^6}}\left[2(xM+m)^2+L_s^2\right],`$ (9)
$`f_1^v(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{N_v^2(1x)^3}{96\pi ^2L_v^6}}\left[2(xM+m)^2+L_s^2+4xmM\right].`$ (10)
In order to obtain the distribution functions for $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, we use the following relation, coming from the analysis of the proton wave function,

$`f_1^u`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}f_1^s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_1^v,`$ $`f_1^d`$ $`=f_1^v.`$ (11)
Here we refrain from discussing the choice of parameters of the model and its quality, for which we refer to the original work Jakob et al. (1997). We choose the following values for the parameters of the model:

$`m`$ $`=0.36\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`M_s`$ $`=0.6\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`M_v`$ $`=0.8\mathrm{GeV},`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=0.5\mathrm{GeV},`$ $`N_s^2`$ $`=6.525,`$ $`N_v^2`$ $`=28.716.`$ (13)
The factors $`N_s`$ and $`N_v`$ are chosen in order to normalize the functions $`f_1^s`$ and $`f_1^v`$ to 1 and consequently to normalize $`f_1^u`$ to 2 and $`f_1^d`$ to 1. The results of the model are shown in Fig. 2. The dashed line represents the result of the spectator model with scalar diquarks only (with $`f_1^u=2f_1^s`$). As can be seen, the difference for the $`u`$ distribution is not big, but it is particularly relevant at small $`x`$. The $`d`$ quark distribution is zero when only scalar diquarks are used, which is clearly unrealistic.

One of the problems when trying to match the model and the phenomenology is that it is not clear at which energy scale the model should be applied. A way to estimate this energy scale is to compare the total momentum carried by the valence quarks in the model and in some parametrization Meyer and Mulders (1991); Bacchetta et al. (2000a). Taking, for instance, the CTEQ5L parametrization Lai et al. (2000)111We use leading order evolution with three flavors and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{LO}^{(3)}=0.222`$, in order to match the CTEQ5 results. it turns out that this scale is about 0.078 GeV2. Then, by applying standard DGLAP equations, we can evolve our model results to 1 GeV2 and compare it with the CTEQ5L parametrization at that scale. The result is shown in Fig. 3. Admittedly, the model reproduces the parametrization of the valence quark distribution only qualitatively. In any case, in this work we mainly aim at giving rough estimates of the relative magnitude of the $`u`$ and $`d`$ Sivers function and of the related single-spin asymmetries, as well as studying the changes induced in the model results when an axial-vector diquark is introduced. Therefore, we refrain from improving and tuning the model.

## III Sivers function and its moments

We use the following definition of the Sivers function

$$\frac{ϵ_T^{ij}k_{Ti}S_{Tj}}{M}f_{1T}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)=\frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)\right)\gamma ^+\right],$$
(14)
where $`4\mathrm{i}ϵ_T^{ij}k_{Ti}S_{Tj}=\text{Tr}[\gamma _5\gamma ^+\gamma ^{}\text{/}k\text{/}S]`$. At tree level the Sivers function turns out to vanish. This is due to the lack of any final state interaction that can provide the imaginary parts necessary to generate T-odd functions. We need to introduce the one-loop amplitude described in Fig. 1 (b). This is nothing else than the one-gluon approximation to the gauge link included in Eq. (2). The Sivers function receives a contribution from the interference between amplitude (a) and the imaginary part of amplitude (b). The imaginary part of amplitude (b) can be computed by applying Cutkosky rules or, equivalently, by taking the imaginary part of the propagator $`1/(l^++\mathrm{i}ϵ)`$ Ji and Yuan (2002). Note that in Drell-Yan processes the different topology of the one-gluon diagram implies that the imaginary part of the propagator $`1/(l^+\mathrm{i}ϵ)`$ has to be taken, with the effect of changing the overall sign of the Sivers function Collins (2002); Brodsky et al. (2002b). This is consistent with the change in direction of the gauge link mentioned before Boer et al. (2003a).

Following Ref. Brodsky et al. (2002a) we perform the calculations initially with Abelian gluons and generalize the result to QCD at the end. We use Feynman gauge. In order to compute the one-loop diagram, we have to make the appropriate choice for the vertex between the gluon and the scalar or axial-vector diquark. We choose the following forms

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s^\mu `$ $`=\mathrm{i}e_2\left(2p2kl\right)^\mu ,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_v^{\mu ,\alpha \beta }`$ $`=\mathrm{i}e_2\left[\left(2p2kl\right)^\nu g^{\alpha \beta }\left(pkvl\right)^\beta g^{\nu \alpha }\left(pk(1v)l\right)^\alpha g^{\nu \beta }\right],`$ (16)
where $`e_2`$ denotes the color charge of the diquark, which we assume to be the same for both kinds of diquark. The gluon-axial-vector diquark coupling is identical to the photon-axial-vector diquark coupling suggested in Ref. Oettel et al. (2000). The parameter $`v`$ is the anomalous magnetic moment of the axial-vector diquark; for $`v=1`$ the vertex is analogous, for instance, to the standard photon-$`W`$ vertex. In any case, our results at leading order do not depend on the anomalous magnetic moment of the diquark.

The final results for the Sivers function are

$`f_{1T}^s(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_s^2(1x)^3M(xM+m)}{4(2\pi )^4L_s^2\left[\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_s^2\right]^3}},`$ (17)
$`f_{1T}^v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_v^2(1x)^3xM^2}{8(2\pi )^4L_v^2\left[\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_v^2\right]^3}}.`$ (18)
Note that our result for the scalar diquark has the opposite sign compared to similar computations Brodsky et al. (2002a); Boer et al. (2003b). However, a sign error in those computations has been recently identified Burkardt and Hwang (2003). The other differences between our results and those in Refs. Brodsky et al. (2002a); Boer et al. (2003b); Gamberg et al. (2003) are due to the different choice of form factors in the nucleon-quark-diquark vertex. Unfortunately, we cannot evolve our results to a higher energy scale, as we have done for the unpolarized distribution function, since the evolution equations for the Sivers function have not been established yet Henneman et al. (2002); Kundu and Metz (2002). We hope, however, that the $`Q^2`$ dependence of our results is not very strong.

We introduce the $`k_T`$ moments

$`f_{1T}^{(1/2)}(x)`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_T\frac{\left|\stackrel{}{k}_T\right|}{2M}f_{1T}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)},`$ $`f_{1T}^{(1)}(x)`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{k}_T\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_T^2}{2M^2}f_{1T}^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)},`$ (19)
for which we get the following results

$`f_{1T}^{(1/2)s}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_s^2(1x)^3(xM+m)}{1024\pi ^2L_s^5}},`$ $`f_{1T}^{(1)s}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_s^2(1x)^3(xM+m)}{256\pi ^3ML_s^4}},`$ (20)
$`f_{1T}^{(1/2)v}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_v^2(1x)^3xM}{2048\pi ^2L_v^5}},`$ $`f_{1T}^{(1)v}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_v^2(1x)^3x}{512\pi ^3L_v^4}}.`$ (21)
The only parameter to be fixed is the product of the quark and diquark charges. Following Ref. Brodsky et al. (2002a) we fix $`e_1e_2=4\pi C_F\alpha _s`$ and we choose $`C_F=4/3`$ and $`\alpha _S0.3`$.

Relations equivalent to those of Eq. (11) hold for the Sivers function and its moments. In Fig. 4 we show the model results for the first moment of the Sivers function. The inclusion of the axial-vector diquark results in some change to the $`u`$ Sivers function and allows us to produce a nonzero $`d`$ quark Sivers function. It turns out in particular that the $`d`$ Sivers function is much smaller than the $`u`$ one and has the opposite sign. This result is in qualitative agreement with the bag-model calculation of Ref. Yuan (2003). The opposite sign of the two functions is also in agreement with the only phenomenological extractions available at present Anselmino and Murgia (1998); Anselmino et al. (1999); Boglione and Mulders (1999). However, there is a sharp difference in the relative magnitude of the two contributions, since in the phenomenological extractions the absolute value of the $`d`$ contribution is about half of the $`u`$ contribution, while in our model calculation the $`d`$ contribution is only about $`1/10`$ of the $`u`$ contribution. We point out that this difference could be due to a sizeable contribution of sea quarks (in particular $`\overline{u}`$) to the asymmetry studied in Refs. Anselmino and Murgia (1998); Anselmino et al. (1999).

Note that our model calculation complies with the positivity bound Bacchetta et al. (2000b)

$$f_{1T}^{(1/2)}(x)\frac{1}{2}f_1(x).$$
(22)
We performed also the calculation of the function $`h_1^{}`$, introduced by Boer and Mulders in Ref. Boer and Mulders (1998) and defined as

$$\frac{ϵ_T^{ij}k_{Tj}}{M}h_1^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)=\frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)+\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T;S)\right)\mathrm{i}\sigma ^{i+}\gamma _5\right].$$
(23)
For the scalar diquark, we found that $`h_1^s=f_{1T}^s`$, confirming the results already obtained in Refs. Gamberg et al. (2003); Boer et al. (2003b). For the axial-vector diquark, we obtain

$`h_1^v(x,\stackrel{}{k}_T^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_v^2(1x)^3M(2xM+m)}{4(2\pi )^4L_v^2\left[\stackrel{}{k}_T^2+L_v^2\right]^3}},`$ $`h_1^{(1)v}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e_1e_2N_v^2(1x)^3(2xM+m)}{256\pi ^3ML_v^4}}.`$ (24)
## IV Single spin asymmetries

We consider the weighted transverse spin asymmetries

$`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}(x,z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dyd\varphi _S\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{P}_h\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)(\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U)}{dyd\varphi _S\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{P}_h(\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U+\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U)}},`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{P}_h|}{zM}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}(x,z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{dyd\varphi _S\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{P}_h|\stackrel{}{P}_h|/(zM)\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)(\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U)}{dyd\varphi _S\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{P}_h(\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U+\mathrm{d}^6\sigma _U)}},`$ (26)
where the notation $`\mathrm{d}\sigma _U`$ indicates the cross section with an unpolarized lepton beam off a transversely polarized target. The angles involved in the definition of the asymmetry are depicted in Fig. 5. These asymmetries are currently measured by the HERMES and COMPASS collaborations Schnell (2003); Pagano (2003).

Under the assumption that the pion transverse momentum with respect to the virtual photon is entirely due to the intrinsic transverse momentum of partons, i.e., $`\stackrel{}{P}_h=z\stackrel{}{k}_T`$, the first asymmetry can be written as

$$\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}(x,z)\frac{1/x_ae_a^2f_{1T}^{(1/2)a}(x)D_1^a(z)}{1/x_ae_a^2f_1^a(x)D_1^a(z)},$$
(27)
with $`a`$ indicating the quark flavor. Our model results are displayed in Fig. 6. We took the unpolarized fragmentation functions from Ref. Kretzer et al. (2001) at a scale $`Q^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. In order to make predictions useful for the HERMES experiment, to produce Fig. 6 (a) and (b) we integrated the asymmetries over $`z`$ from 0.2 to 0.7. To produce Fig. 6 (c) and (d) we integrated the asymmetries over $`x`$ from 0.023 to 0.4.

Evidently, there is not a big difference between $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ asymmetries. We do not plot the results for $`\pi ^0`$ production, since they lie between the previous two. We point out that assuming

$$f_1^dD_1^{d(\pi ^{\pm ,0})}4f_1^uD_1^{u(\pi ^{\pm ,0})},$$
(28)
the above asymmetry can be written as

$$\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}^{\pi ^{\pm ,0}}(x,z)\frac{3}{2}\frac{f_{1T}^{(1/2)s}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{f_{1T}^{(1/2)v}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D_1^{d(\pi ^{\pm ,0})}(z)}{D_1^{u(\pi ^{\pm ,0})}(z)}\right).$$
(29)
The first term in this equation is the dominant one. This explains why there are only small differences between the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ asymmetry. However, the axial-vector contribution to $`f_1^u`$ cannot be neglected. From Eq. (29) it is also evident that the dependence of the asymmetries on $`z`$ is due to the influence of the unfavoured fragmentation functions. In the case of $`\pi ^{}`$ the last term in Eq. (29) is bigger and therefore the $`z`$ dependence is stronger. In the case of $`\pi ^0`$ – not shown in our pictures – the term in parentheses would be exactly $`3/2`$ and the $`z`$-dependent asymmetry would be a flat line at about $`5\%`$.

The asymmetry in Eq. (26) can be written in an assumption-free way as

$$\frac{|\stackrel{}{P}_h|}{M}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}(x,z)=\frac{1/x_ae_a^2f_{1T}^{(1)a}(x)zD_1^a(z)}{1/x_ae_a^2f_1^a(x)D_1^a(z)}.$$
(30)
The calculated asymmetries are shown in Fig. 7, where we performed the integrations over $`x`$ or $`z`$ as in the previous case. As before, assuming Eq. (28) the asymmetry can be simplified to

$$\frac{|\stackrel{}{P}_h|}{M}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _h\varphi _S)_{UT}^{\pi ^{\pm ,0}}(x,z)\frac{3}{2}z\frac{f_{1T}^{(1)s}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}+\frac{1}{2}z\frac{f_{1T}^{(1)v}(x)}{f_1^u(x)}\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{D_1^{d(\pi ^{\pm ,0})}(z)}{D_1^{u(\pi ^{\pm ,0})}(z)}\right).$$
(31)
## V Conclusions

We calculated the Sivers function in a spectator model of the nucleon with scalar and axial-vector diquarks. The final state interaction necessary to generate T-odd distribution functions was provided by gluon rescattering between the struck quark and the diquark.

The inclusion of axial-vector diquarks allowed us to calculate the Sivers function for the $`d`$ quarks. The function turns out to have the opposite sign compared to the $`u`$ quarks and to be much smaller in size. The $`u`$ quark Sivers function is substantially reduced by the axial-vector contribution. Although the reliability of the model is very limited, we think that our results on the relative behavior of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks could be qualitatively relevant.

Using the results of our model, we estimated some single spin asymmetries containing the Sivers function. These asymmetries are at present being measured by the HERMES and COMPASS collaborations. We noticed that the inclusion of axial-vector diquarks can make drastic changes in the asymmetries as compared to the spectator model with scalar diquarks only, particularly at low $`x`$. We were able for the first time to estimate the Sivers single spin asymmetry in $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ production. We observed that the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ asymmetries are not very different, due to the dominance of the $`u`$ quark contribution in both cases. The $`\pi ^0`$ asymmetries (which we did not show) lie between the $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ estimates.

The present approach does not take into account sea quarks. Unfortunately, at the moment we have no indication about the size and sign of the sea-quark Sivers function.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussion with A. Metz, D. S. Hwang and M. Oettel, M. Stratmann are gratefully aknowledged. The work of A. B. has been supported by the TMR network HPRN-CT-2000-00130 and the BMBF, the work of J. Y. by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the Foundation for University Key Teacher of the Ministry of Education (China).


text:
# Melting curves and other phase transitions in a two dimensional electron assembly in a transverse magnetic field as a function of the Landau level filling factor

## I Acknowledgments

A.C. acknowledges the kind hospitality of the AS ICTP during the visit to the Center allowing this collaborative work. The support of FONDECYT grants 1020829 and 7020829 for the activity of F.C. is very much recognized. N.H.M wishes to acknowledge that his contribution to this study was made during a visit to the Condensed Matter Group at the AS ICTP, Trieste. He wishes to thank Prof. V.E. Kravtsov for the stimulating atmosphere provided and for generous hospitality.


text:
# 1 Excitation spectrum of the nucleon. The real part of the pole position is shown. Boxes represent experimental uncertainties. Those resonances which are not yet established are marked by two or one stars according to the PDG classification. The one-star resonances with 𝐽=1/2 around 2 GeV are given according to the recent Bonn (SAPHIR) results.

Chiral symmetry restoration in excited hadrons.

L. Ya. Glozman

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz,

Austria

Abstract. The evidence, theoretical justification and implications of chiral symmetry restoration in excited hadrons are presented.

Different 3Q potential constituent quark models  predict a lot of baryon states at the mass region 2 GeV, which are not observed. A possible discovery of the strange pentaquark suggests that there should be in addition high-lying 5Q (and with higher amount of quarks) states that belong to different multiplets. Both constituent quark models as well as different pentaquark models rely crucially on spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry (the very notion of constituent quark as a quasiparticle is related to chiral symmetry breaking in the QCD vacuum). A question then arises why all these states are not seen? Is it related to technical limitations to see them or it perhaps indicates that the physics of the high-lying hadrons is different as compared to the low-lying ones? Indeed, if one looks carefully at the nucleon excited states, see Fig. 1, one immediately notices regularities for high-lying states that definitely absent for the low-lying states. In particular, the nucleon (and delta) high-lying spectra show obvious patterns of parity doubling: starting from the 1.7 GeV region excited nucleons of the same spin but opposite parity are approximately degenerate. Is it accidental? If not, some symmetry should be behind this parity doubling. Then we have to understand why this symmetry is definitely absent for the low-lying states and persists only higher in the spectrum.

It has been suggested some time ago that this parity doubling reflects effective chiral symmetry restoration . We know that the QCD Lagrangian posseses almost perfect $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ chiral symmetry, which is a symmetry of two independent (left and right) rotations of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks in the isospin space. If this symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian was intact in the QCD vacuum, then all hadrons would fall into representations of the parity-chiral group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times C_i`$, where the group $`C_i`$ consists of elements identity and space inversion . For baryons these multiplets are either parity doublets in $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ spectra, not related to each other, or quartets that contain degenerate nucleon and delta doublets. Either of these degeneracies should be fulfilled for any spin of baryons, because chiral symmetry of QCD does not constrain spin. From the low-lying nucleon and delta spectra we can conclude that there are no degeneracies of states of the same spin but opposite parity (even more, there is no one-to-one mapping of states of opposite parity with the same spin). It is this fact which was historically one of the most important arguments to conclude that chiral symmetry must be spontaneously broken. This spontaneous breaking leads to the appearance of quasiparticles (constituent quarks) and gives a basis for a constituent quark model. The latter one, supplemented by the effective interactions of constituent quarks which are also related to chiral symmetry spontaneous breaking , is known to explain regularities of the low-lying baryons. However, higher in the spectrum the typical momenta of constituent quarks should increase, consequently the quasiparticle (constituent) mass of quarks should drop off and chiral symmetry will be effectively restored . This is a plausible microscopical picture of symmetry restoration.

The systematic approach to the symmetry restoration based on QCD has been formulated in ref. . By definition an effective symmetry restoration means the following. In QCD the hadrons with the quantum numbers $`\alpha `$ are creared when one applies the local interpolating field (current) $`J_\alpha `$ with such quantum numbers on the vacuum $`|0`$. Then all the hadrons that are created by the given interpolator appear as intermediate states in the two-point correlator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=ıd^4xe^{ıqx}0\left|T\left\{J_\alpha \left(x\right)J_\alpha \left(0\right)\right\}\right|0,$$
(1)
where all possible Lorentz and Dirac indices (specific for a given interpolating field) have been omitted. Consider two local interpolating fields $`J_1\left(x\right)`$ and $`J_2\left(x\right)`$ which are connected by chiral transformation, $`J_1\left(x\right)=UJ_2\left(x\right)U^{}`$, where $`U`$ is an element of the chiral group. Then, if the vacuum was invariant under chiral group, $`U|0=|0`$, it follows from (1) that the spectra created by the operators $`J_1\left(x\right)`$ and $`J_2\left(x\right)`$ would be identical. We know that in QCD one finds $`U|0|0`$. As a consequence the spectra of two operators must be different. However, it may happen that the noninvariance of the vacuum becomes unimportant (irrelevant) high in the spectrum. Then the spectra of both operators become close al large masses (and asymptotically identical). This would mean that chiral symmetry is effectively restored. We stress that this effective chiral symmetry restoration does not mean that chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum disappears, but only that the role of the quark condensates that break chiral symmetry in the vacuum becomes progressively less important high in the spectrum . One could say, that the valence quarks in high-lying hadrons decouple from the QCD vacuum.

Actually it is easy to prove that it must happen in QCD. At large space-like momenta $`Q^2=q^2`$ the correlator can be adequately represented by the operator product expansion, where all nonperturbative effects reside in different condensates . The only effect that spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry can have on the correlator is via the quark condensates of the vacuum. However, the contributions of all these condensates are suppressed by inverse powers of $`Q^2`$. This shows that even if the chiral symmetry is broken in the vacuum, at large space-like momenta the correlation function becomes chirally symmetric. In other words $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{J_1}(Q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{J_2}(Q)`$ at $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$. The dispersion relation provides a connection between the space-like and time-like domains of the correlator. In particular, the large $`Q^2`$ correlator is completely dominated by the large $`s`$ spectral density. Hence the spectral density at large $`s`$ should be insensitive to the chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum and must satisfy $`\rho _1(s)\rho _2(s)`$ at $`s\mathrm{}`$. If this chiral symmetry restoration happens in the regime where the spectrum is still quasidiscrete (i.e. it is dominated by resonances and the successive resonances with the given spin are separated), then these resonances must fill in representations of the parity-chiral group.

Clearly it is a matter of experiment to answer a question at which mass scale it happens. For example, the difference between the vector and axial-vector spectral densities, extracted from the weak decays of tau-lepton by ALEPH  and OPAL  collaborations is compatible with zero at masses of 1.7 GeV, though uncertainties are rather large. This difference is entirely from the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry and while it is large at $`\rho `$ and $`a_1`$ masses, it gets strongly suppressed at the same mass scale where we see parity doublets in Fig. 1

A direct evidence  for chiral symmetry restoration can be infered from the recent results of partial wave analysis of proton-antiproton annihilation at LEAR . In particular, the pions, $`I,J^P=1,0^{}`$, and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})`$ $`f_0`$ mesons, $`I,J^P=0,0^+`$ would form $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representations of the chiral group and would be degenerate level by level if the vacuum was chirally symmetric. Clearly it is not the case for the low-lying mesons, where effects of chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum are strong. However, starting from 1.5 GeV mass we observe a pattern of chiral symmetry restoration, see Fig. 2.

The phenomenon of chiral symmetry restoration in hadron spectra rules out the nonrelativistic potential description of high-lying hadrons in the spirit of the constituent quark model . Consider, for instance, mesons. Within the nonrelativistic potential description of mesons the parity of the state is unambiguously prescribed by the relative orbital momentum of quarks. The states of opposite parity require different orbital angular momenta and hence different centrifugal repulsion. Hence they cannot be systematically degenerate within such a picture. Similar conclusions can be obtained for baryons . Clearly the chiral symmetry restoration in high-lying hadrons is against relativistic scalar confinement potential description either, because scalar confinement manifestly breaks chiral symmetry. However, it does not contradict Lorentz-vector confining potential and this type of potential can be reconciled with parity doubling .

The most simple model of highly-excited hadrons compatible with the chiral symmetry restoration is a string (with the color-electric flux-tube in the string) and with bare quarks of definite chirality at the ends of the string . Once the quarks posess a definite chirality, then all hadrons will form degenerate multiplets of opposite parity. For example, $`n\overline{n}`$ $`f_0`$ mesons and pions represent the following combinations of the right and left quarks

$$f_0:\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\overline{R}L+\overline{L}R\right),$$
(2)
$$\pi :\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\overline{R}\tau L\overline{L}\tau R\right).$$
(3)
Similar valence quark content relations can be written for other hadrons. Actually, parity partners represent different parity states of the same ”basic” particle, energy of which is determined by the energy of the string. As a byproduct, this type of model automatically solves a famous spin-orbit problem of the constituent quark model: Since the chirality operator does not commute with the spin-orbit operator, there is no spin-orbit force once the chiral symmetry is restored.

Similar arguments about chiral symmetry restoration in meson spectra have been suggested in ref. . It has also been shown in ref.  that the string spectrum can be reproduced via the Salpeter-type or Dirac equations with vector confinement. Very interesting evidence for the chiral symmetry restoration has been obtained in lattice calculations , where it has been shown that the high-lying mesons decouple from the low-lying eigenmodes of the Dirac operator (which determine the quark condensate).

Clearly, the systematic experimental study of high-lying hadrons will be an interesting enterprise and will allow us to understand a lot about QCD in the confining regime. This program is just on the way at ELSA, JLAB and hopefully will be important for the future antiproton ring at GSI and for a new Japanese hadron facility.


text:
# Competition between phase coherence and correlation in a mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

Two-species hard-core bosons trapped in a three-dimensional isotropic harmonic potential are studied with the path-integral quantum Monte Carlo simulation. The double condensates show two distinct structures depending on how the external potentials are set. Contrary to the mean-field results, we find that the heavier particles form an outer shell under an identical external potential whereas the lighter particles form an outer shell under the equal energy spacing condition. Phase separations in both the spatial and energy spaces are observed. We provide physical interpretations of these phase separations and suggest future experiment to confirm these findings.

preprint: UNLV-HiPSEC-M03-01

The rich physics of multi-species boson mixtures has attracted much attention since the first realization of the coexistence of the double condensates from two different spin states $`|F=2,m=2`$ and $`|F=1,m=1`$ of 87Rb my97 . Some interesting properties, such as the stability of condensates, phase separation, and symmetry breaking, have been investigated both experimentally my97 ; mo02  and theoretically ho96 ; pu98 ; ba97 ; es97 ; oh98 ; ao98 ; ti98 ; go98 ; ka01 ; ri02 . It was found that 87Rb in two hyperfine states can form two separate condensates with a spatial overlap my97  and this overlapping region can be adjusted by tuning the interspecies interaction. Theoretical studies including both the Thomas–Fermi approximation and numerical solution of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation ho96 ; pu98 ; oh98 ; ri02  have also found that two overlapping condensates can be separated into a core at the trap center and a surrounding shell. This phase separation can be achieved by changing the interspecies interaction, the total number of particles, and the symmetry of the trapping potential. It is suggested that the system may become unstable for certain interaction strength pu98 , which may lead to a spontaneous symmetry breaking spatially es97 ; oh98 ; ao98 .

Most of the early theoretical efforts mentioned above only give the properties of condensates at zero temperature. In this Letter, we study a two-species boson system in a three-dimensional isotropic harmonic trap through the path-integral quantum Monte Carlo simulation, which allows us to probe such a system at finite temperature. Here we concentrate on the conditions under which the phase separation occurs.

The path-integral quantum Monte Carlo method has been successfully applied to the one-species boson systems in traps pe98 . It provides the exact solution of a many-body system within a controllable variance. The total energy, density profile, specific heat, condensation fraction, and other quantities can all be evaluated pe98 .

The system considered here consists of two types of particles, marked as species 1 and species 2, respectively, with total particle numbers $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ and particle masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. For a realistic system, these two types of particles can be two different elements, two different isotopes of the same element, or two different hyperfine states of identical atoms. The interactions between two like and unlike atoms are characterized by the $`s`$-wave scattering lengths $`a_{11}`$, $`a_{22}`$, and $`a_{12}`$. In the model studied here, $`a_{11}`$ and $`a_{22}`$ are the hard-core diameters of the particles in species 1 and 2, respectively, and $`a_{12}=(a_{11}+a_{22})/2`$.

The Hamiltonian for the system of $`N=N_1+N_2`$ particles is given by

$$=_1+_2+\underset{j>k=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_{jk},$$
(1)
where

$$_i=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_i}{}}_l^2+\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_i}{}}U_i(r_l)$$
(2)
is the Hamiltonian of the noninteracting system of the $`i`$th species under the spherically symmetric trapping potential $`U_i(r)=k_ir^2/2=m_i\omega _i^2r^2/2`$. The interaction between any two particles $`V_{jk}`$ is assumed to be a hard-core potential.

The algorithm applied to the one-species systems pe98  is generalized to study the two-species system here. We treat the two-species system as two subsystems, each of which contains one species and follows its own statistics. The permutations are only performed among the identical particles during a simulation. However, these two subsystems do not behave independently because of the interspecies interaction. The Monte Carlo steps are influenced by the interactions among all the particles as well as the permutations of the particles in each species.

In order to calculate the density profile, we divide the space into small shells along the radial direction. We choose the interval between two shells such that after averaging over a large number of Monte Carlo steps on the order of $`10^6`$, the finite-size error diminishes in comparison with the statistical error. The spatial density $`\rho _i(r)`$ can then be obtained by counting the number of particles from each species in a given shell. The normalization relation $`\rho _i(r)𝑑𝐫=N_i`$ is used to check the convergence. For convenience, we use the dimensionless units with $`\mathrm{}=m_1=\omega _1=1`$.

We start the simulation with two species with an identical mass, hard-core radius, and total particle number to verify that the condensation does occur below a certain temperature. The two condensates show different critical temperatures as we change the ratios $`a_{11}/a_{22}`$ and $`m_2/m_1`$. The stronger the interaction is, the lower the critical temperature. The condensation favors the lighter particles because a heavier particle system has a lower critical temperature, which agrees well with the available experimental results mo02 .

Our main interest here is on the structures of the mixtures. We calculate the densities of two condensates at various parameters at temperature $`T/T_\mathrm{c}^0=0.1`$ when both the species have undergone Bose–Einstein condensation. Here $`T_\mathrm{c}^0`$ is the condensation/critical temperature under the mean-field approximation pe98  for species 1 with a total number of particles $`N`$. The mixtures possess two distinct structures depending on the relationship between the external potentials on the two species. We have examined two cases, one with an equal energy spacing in the single-particle spectra and another with an identical external potential. We will elucidate the results for both cases.

We first consider the case with the same energy spacing in the single-particle spectra, that is, $`\omega _1=\omega _2`$. Two identical condensates are found when $`m_2/m_1=1`$, $`N_2/N_1=1`$, and $`a_{11}/a_{22}=1`$, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Comparing with the mean-field result on the one-species condensate da99 , the double condensates in our simulation display the same expansion as $`Na_{jk}`$ is increased from 2 to 40.

In order to separate the two overlapped condensates, we perform simulations with various parameters $`m_2/m_1`$, $`a_{11}=a_{22}`$, and $`N_2=N_1`$, respectively. Figures 1(a)–(i) show the density profiles of the two species in the system of these cases. There are two significant features in the density profiles as $`m_2/m_1`$ is increased from 1 to 4, as shown in Figs. 1(a)–(c): The heavier species remains to be concentrated at the central area of the trap while the lighter particles are pushed outward and finally form an outer shell surrounding the heavier species.

The interaction dependence of the density profiles is given in Figs. 1(d)–(f). The interaction strength can dramatically affect the particle distribution. Here we show the results for the same number of particles in each species with $`m_2/m_1=4`$. The densities of both the species at the trap center decrease as the interaction strength is increased from $`a_{ij}=0.15`$ to 0.3. However, under a stronger interaction strength, the lighter particles are pushed out further away from the trap center. Heavier particles spread out with a less distance.

Figures 1(g)–(i) show the changes in the density distribution as the total number of particles increases from 200 to 1600 while keeping $`N_2=N_1`$, $`m_2/m_1=4`$, and $`a_{11}=a_{22}=0.15`$. The two condensates are always in partial overlap but with more the lighter particles going outward with a larger $`N`$. This means that when more particles are trapped in an experiment, the heavier particles can be caged inside the light particles with both the species forming condensates at the low energy levels of the single-particle spectra.

The condensation fraction in a species can be determined by counting the particles on the permutation rings pe98 . We have evaluated the condensation fractions for each species in the system with parameters shown in Fig. 1 and find them in the range of 0.8–0.95. This means that a reasonable fraction of particles is not in phase coherence with the rest in that species. Furthermore, particles can accumulate in any single-particle state, for example, the first excited state, to form a condensate. In fact, in certain parameter regions, the particles can be completely driven out of the single-particle ground state by strong correlation.

To have a better picture of whether a particle is in its single-particle ground state or not, we further decompose the density of each species into that of the single-particle ground state and the corresponding excite states in Fig. 2.

We show here the percentages of the particles in each species in the single-particle ground states at different interaction strengths with $`m_2/m_1=4`$ and $`N_1=N_2=100`$. The percentage of the particles in the single-particle ground state drops as the interaction strength is increased for both the species. This can be interpreted as a result of competition between correlation and phase coherence. When the strength is small (with small hard-core radii), the particles are close to be free and they condense to the single-particle ground state when the temperature is lowered beyond the critical temperature. However, when the interaction strength is increased, particles try to avoid each other to lower the total energy of the system, and more particles move into the low-lying excited states with higher single-particle energies. Our simulation shows that the lighter species is affected more drastically by the interaction strength than the heavier one because the corresponding percentage drops faster as the interaction strength is increased.

Decomposition of the density profiles indicates that when the spatial separation between the two species occurs, the majority of particles from both the species do not occupy the single-particle ground states. This is because when one species is pushed away from the central area of the trap by the correlation, the particles in both the species are also driven away from the single-particle ground states by the same force. The distribution of the particles in the energy space is strongly influenced by the energy spacing and the scattering lengths. Therefore, no significant separation between the two species can happen in the energy space when $`\omega _1=\omega _2`$ and $`a_{11}=a_{22}`$.

So far we have shown that the lighter particles can form an outer shell surrounding the heavier particles. A mass ratio far away from 1, strong interaction, and large number of particles are all the contributing factors for the particles to accumulate in the higher single-particle energy states and to cause a spatial separation between the two species. However, the structure of a mixture turns out to be very different if the external trapping potentials on the two species are different from those with $`\omega _1=\omega _2`$. Let us consider the case with an identical external potential, that is, with $`k_1=m_1\omega _1^2=k_2=m_2\omega _2^2`$. In Fig. 3, we compare the results under different external potentials. The percentage indicates the fraction of particles in the single-particle ground state. The simulation result shown in Fig. 3(a) under an identical external potential does not have any significant phase separation even though most particles are pushed out of the single-particle ground states. While keeping the same energy spacing, the spatial phase separation between the two species is obvious, as shown in Fig. 3(b).

More interestingly, the roles of the heavier and lighter species can be reversed under the identical potential case with the heavier particles forming an outer shell surrounding the lighter particles. To consider a possible experiment, we have performed the simulation with parameters appropriate to the 87Rb–23Na mixture. We set Na as species 1 and Rb as species 2. The total particle numbers $`N_1=N_2=100`$ and the hard-core radii used in producing the results shown in Fig. 4(a) are equivalent to an actual mixture with $`s`$-wave scattering lengths of 3 nm and 6 nm, respectively, and a total particle number on the order of $`10^4`$ pu98 . In Fig. 4, the density profiles of both the species under the same single-particle energy spacing and identical external potential are shown.

The energy spacing in the single-particle spectrum of Rb is about half of that of Na for the data shown in Fig. 4(a) due to the difference in the trapping frequencies. The small energy gap and large scattering length make it much easier for Rb atoms to be driven out of the trap center or its single-particle ground state whereas most Na atoms stay at the trap center or in its single-particle ground state. This is totally counterintuitive and in disagreement with the mean-field results ho96 ; pu98 ; es97 . No significant spatial separation is found when the single-particle energy spacings are the same, as shown in Fig. 4(b); but increasing either the interaction strength or the total number of particles can result in the spatial separation with an outer shell of Na.

Under the identical external potential, we have also found that the spatial separation of the two species is independent of the ratio $`m_2/m_1`$. Therefore, for a system containing any two species, it is energetically favorable to have the species with a larger scattering length to form a low-density outer shell surrounding the other with a smaller scattering length; this is consistent with the experimental observation for the mixture of 87Rb atoms with two distinct spin states my97 . It is also possible for a future experiment to realize the separation in the energy space as predicted here.

Our simulations show that the external potentials can be used to tune the structure of a boson mixture. With the same trapping frequency for the two species, it is more likely for a system with a mass ratio close to 1 to form an outer shell of particles with a larger scattering length whereas for system with a mass ratio far away from 1 to form an outer shell of lighter particles. In the latter case, the large difference of external potentials between two species outweighs the moderate effect of the two-body interactions within a species. It is possible for the 87Rb–41K mixture to form an outer shell of Rb atoms whereas for the 87Rb–23Na mixture to form an outer shell of Na atoms and the future experiment will tell.

We thank Dr. Han Pu for providing helpful information and comments. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under the Cooperative Agreement DE-FC08-01NV14049-A09.


text:
# QCD Critical Region and Quark Gluon Plasma from an Imaginary 𝜇_𝐵

## 1 QCD and a complex $`\mu _B`$

Results from simulations with an imaginary chemical potential can be analytically continued to a real chemical potential, thus circumventing the sign problem ,  . In practice, the analytical continuation is carried out along one line in the complex $`\mu `$ plane: first along the imaginary axes, and then along the real one. It is then meaningful to map this path in the complex $`\mu ^2`$ plane: because of the symmetry property $`Z(\mu )=Z(\mu )`$ this can be achieved without losing generality. In the complex $`\mu ^2`$ plane the partition function is real for real values of the external parameter $`\mu ^2`$, complex otherwise: the situation resembles that of ordinary statistical models in an external field. Hence, the analyticity of the physical observables  as well as that of the critical line  follows naturally.

The phase diagram in the temperature, (real) $`\mu ^2`$ plane is sketched in Fig.1, where we omit the superconducting and the color flavor locked phase, which (unfortunately) play no rôle in our discussion. The region accessible to numerical simulations is the one with $`\mu ^20`$: at a variance with other approaches to finite density QCD which only use information at $`\mu =0`$    the imaginary chemical potential method exploits the entire halfspace. And we will also argue that there are physical questions which can be addressed without analytic continuation.

## 2 The Critical Line

Also in this case the consideration of the $`T,\mu ^2`$ plane helps the analysis. Model analysis suggests the following parametrization, confirmed by numerical results:

$$(T+aT_c)(TT_c)+k\mu ^2=0,k>0$$
(1)
It encodes reality for real $`\mu ^2`$, contains the physical scale $`T_c`$ , is dimensionally consistent, gives $`T(\mu =0)=T_c`$, $`T(\mu 0)<T_c`$ . We refer to Section IV of Ref.  for our results on the critical line in the four flavor model, and their discussion in terms of model calculations. Here it suffices to remind ourselves that the second order approximation turns out to be adequate, and that the fourth order corrections were found to be consistent with zero within errors.

## 3 Hadronic Phase: $`T<T_c`$

In this region observables are a continuous and periodic function of $`\mu _I/T`$ , analytic continuation in the $`\mu ^2>0`$ half plane is always possible, but interesting only when $`\chi _q(\mu =0,T)>0`$.

The analytic continuation of an observable $`O`$ is valid till $`\mu <\mu _c(T)`$, where $`\mu _c(T)`$ has to be measured independently. The value of the analytic continuation at $`\mu _c`$, $`O(\mu _c)`$ defines the discontinuity at the critical point, or, equivalently, the critical value of, say, the number density. In turns, this allows the identification of the order of the phase transition.

For observables which are even/odd in the chemical potential, $`O_{e/o}`$, we have considered a Fourier series, observing that the first cosine/sine terms suffice to parametrize the data . This has been confirmed in , where this result has been intepreted within the framework of the hadron resonance gas model.

## 4 Roberge Weiss Regime: $`T_C<T<T_E`$

The analytic continuation is valid till $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ but the interval accessible to the simulations at imaginary $`\mu `$ is small, as simulations in this area hits the chiral critical line for $`\mu ^2<0`$.

The bright side of this is that the nature of the critical line can then be studied without need for analytic continuation. In Fig. 3 we show the clear correlation between the Polyakov Loop and the chiral condensate at $`\mu =0.15`$. The correlation between chiral and deconfining transition persists at nonzero chemical potential.

It is also of interest to note that the non–applicability of perturbation theory in this region is almost a theorem: indeed the analytic continuation of the polynomial predicted by perturbation theory for positive $`\mu ^2`$ would never reproduce the correct critical behavior at the second order phase transition for $`\mu ^2<0`$ , and it is then ruled out.

## 5 The QGP phase : $`T_E<T`$

Several analytic models have been proposed to describe the properties of this phase and, as analytic models can be obviously analytically continued in the $`\mu ^20`$ half plane, imaginary chemical potential is an excellent testbed for these approaches. Here, as an example, we just contrast the data with a free field behavior $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/T^4=2(\mu /T)^2,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=P(\mu )P(0)`$, and we have ignored the fourth order terms. In Fig. 4 we plot $`\mathrm{\Delta }PK_{L(N_t=4)}/(T^42(\mu /T)^2)`$ versus $`\mu /T`$, where we have corrected for finite lattice effects $`K_{L(N_t=4)}`$ following , .

This “effective prefactor plot” is perhaps more informative than the direct quadratic fits of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/T^4`$ to $`k(\mu /T)^2`$, as it allows an assessment by eye of the $`\mu `$ dependence, if any, of the prefactor to the quadratic term.

We see that the results approach the perturbative limit, but corrections at small chemical potential are clearly visible, possibly consistent with the predictions of .

## 6 Summary/Outlook

We have studied four flavor QCD within the imaginary chemical potential approach in a large part of the phase diagram.

We have shown that the chiral and deconfining transition remain correlated at nonzero chemical potential. We have found that the critical line is described by a polynomial, and interpreted this result in terms of simple models. We have identified and discussed three different regimes: the hadronic phase results are consistent with the hadron resonance gas model. The Roberge Weiss regime is eminently nonperturbative, and in this regime we have the possibility to study the nature of the chiral transition at nonzero chemical potential without performing any analytic continuation. The Quark Gluon Plasma phase is an ideal test bed for analytic models.

The method seems mature for quantitative studies in realistic cases, and a nice possibility is offered by a combination of this approach with other methods, for instance by using reweighting   or direct calculations of derivatives  at nonzero $`\mu `$ to improve the accuracy of the results at negative $`\mu ^2`$. Finally, the study of discontinuities as sketched in Sect.3 above might offer an alternative approach to the study of the endpoints and tricritical points.


text:
# Limiting fragmentation and ϕ meson production at RHIC

## Abstract

The PHOBOS’s limiting fragmentation etc. three empirical scaling rules for charged multiplicity in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC are investigated by a hadron and string cascade model LUCIAE. Similar studies are performed for the $`\varphi `$ meson exploring its production mechanism via comparing with the charged multiplicity. The LUCIAE results for charged multiplicity are compatible with PHOBOS observations. However, for the $`\varphi `$ meson the three empirical scaling rules are either kept only or kept better in the LUCIAE calculations without reduction mechanism of the $`s`$ quark suppression extra introduced for the strangeness in LUCIAE model. These results seem indicating a universal production mechanism for charged particle and $`\varphi `$ meson in string fragmentation regime. It is discussed that the PHOBOS’s empirical scaling rules are model dependent indeed.

PACS numbers: 25.75.Dw, 24.10.Lx, 24.85.+p, 25.75.Gz

The ansatz of limiting fragmentation, i.e. the number of particles produced in high energy elementary and/or nucleal collisions by the wounded projectile nucleons should be independent of the details of the target, projectile, and beam energy, was introduced very early yang . It was employed later in the fragment production in intermediate energy heavy ion collisions. Recently, the BRAHMS and PHOBOS collaborations revealed sequentially the evidence of limiting fragmentation in shifted pseudorapidity density distribution of charged particle per participant pair in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC energies brah ; pho1 . Meanwhile, the PHOBOS collaboration reported even other two empirical scaling rules: a striking similarity between $`Au+Au`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions in the energy dependence of charged particle production and the approximate participant pair scaling of the charged particle production pho2 . These empirical observations may suggest a universal mechanism of particle production in strong interaction system controlled mainly by the available energy, $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$, and challenge theorists to an explanation.

On the other hand, there was evidence that the $`\varphi `$ meson production may be distinguishable from the charged particle afa ; nu1 . In addition, the $`\varphi `$ meson is not only a promising signature for the QGP formation but also a good probe studying the reaction dynamics at early stage raf1 ; shor ; star2 . It is worthy to investigate above three empirical scaling rules for $`\varphi `$ meson exploring its production mechanism via comparison with charged particle.

To this end, a hadron and string cascade model, LUCIAE sa , is employed studying the limiting fragmentation etc. three empirical scaling rules both for charged particle and the $`\varphi `$ meson in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC energies in this letter. The three empirical scaling rules are reproduced fairly well for charged particle. A discussion is given for the $`\varphi `$ meson production mechanism in string fragmentation regime. It is pointed out that since the PHOBOS observations rely strongly on the definition and calculation of the number of participant nucleons and the PHOBOS’s $`<N_{part}>`$ was extracted based on HIJING hij , the three empirical scaling rules are model dependent indeed.

The LUCIAE model sa  is based on FRITIOF pi . FRITIOF is an incoherent hadron multiple scattering and string fragmentation model where the nucleus-nucleus collision is depicted simply as a superposition of nucleon-nucleon collisions. What characterizes LUCIAE beyond FRITIOF are the follows: First of all, the rescattering among the participant and spectator nucleons and the produced particles from string fragmentation are generally taken into account sa1 . Secondly, the collective effect in gluon emission of string is considered by firecracker model tai . Thirdly, a phenomenological mechanism for the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression in the string fragmentation is introduced tai1 . Fourth, the nuclear shadowing effect wang1  is taken into account. As the $`\varphi `$ meson does not interact strongly with hadronic matter raf1 ; shor ; ko1 ; smi ; pal ; blav ; star2  we neglect it in this work for the moment.

The LUCIAE model reproduced fairly well the experimental data of the charged multiplicity sa ; sa3 ; tai1  and the enhanced production of strange baryons ($`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) tai1 ; sa2  and $`\varphi `$ meson sa3  in nucleus-nucleus collisions at SPS energy. However, the LUCIAE model overestimates the charged multiplicity, for instance, nearly a factor of 1.2 in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC energy because some energy dependent physics may not well represent in LUCIAE model.

Recently an energy dependent modification of the jet fragmentation function accounting for the energy dependence of parton energy loss was proposed in pQCD studies of $`eA`$ and $`AA`$ collisions wang ; guo ; acca . On the other hand, in lin ; bin ; sa4  the string fragmentation function in transport model has been considered to be modified in the dense string environment at early stage of the relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. Following lin ; bin ; sa4  we assume that the default $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters in LUND string fragmentation function sjo1  are suitable for $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at SPS energies. However, for $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=19.6, 56, 130, 200 GeV we first adjust roughly the $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters to the experimental charged multiplicity pho1 . The fitted $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters are then employed to investigate the three empirical scaling rules both for the charged particle and $`\varphi `$ meson in above $`Au+Au`$ collisions.

In the LUCIAE calculations for $`Pb+Pb`$ and $`Au+Au`$ collisions at SPS and RHIC energies the centrality, rapidity (pseudorapidity), and $`p_t`$ cuts are the same as that in the corresponding experiments, respectively. As an example, in Tab. 1 the data of charged multiplicity ($`|\eta |`$4.7) in 6% most central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=19.6, 130, and 200 GeV (taken from pho1 ) are given together with the corresponding LUCIAE results and the fitted $`a`$ and $`b`$ values. In the LUCIAE results the ”d.” and ”m.” in bracket refer to the LUCIAE calculation with default ($`a`$=0.3 and $`b`$=0,58) and modified $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters, respectively. The STAR data of $`\varphi `$ meson rapidity density (-0.5$`<y<`$0.5) in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=130 and 200 GeV (taken from nu  and star2 ) and the corresponding LUCIAE results are given in last two columns.

In Fig. 1 the experimental limiting fragmentation behavior of charged particle in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=19.6, 130, and 200 GeV pho1  is compared with the corresponding LUCIAE results. The upper and lower panels in Fig. 1 are, respectively, for 6% and 35-40% most central collisions. In Fig. 1 the circles, triangles, and squares are, respectively, for $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=200, 130, and 19.6 GeV and the full and open labels are for PHOBOS data and LUCIAE results, respectively. The shifted pseudorapidity $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ is equal to $`\eta `$-$`y_{beam}`$ where $`y_{beam}`$ refers to the beam rapidity (assuming similar value for the pseudorapidity and rapidity variables brah ). One sees in Fig 1 that the LUCIAE model reproduces fairly well the experimental limiting fragmentation of charged particle in 6% most central collisions. However, in 35-40% central collisions the LUCIAE results are systematically lower than the PHOBOS observations in the region $`\eta ^{^{}}>`$ -1.0 . That may attribute to the fact that the discrepancy in $`<N_{part}>`$ among models (PHOBOS’s $`<N_{part}>`$ was extracted based on HIJING model hij ) is increased with the decrease of centrality sa6 . The PHOBOS’s $`<N_{part}>`$ is visibly lower than LUCIAE in 35-40% central collisions indeed.

Given in upper panel of Fig. 2 is the shifted pseudorapidity density distributions per participant pair of $`\varphi `$ meson in 6% most central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at, respectively, $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=200, 130, and 19.6 GeV (circles, triangles, and squares) from LUCIAE. Since in LUCIAE model a mechanism for the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression in the string fragmentation was extra introduced for strangeness thus the corresponding LUCIAE results without this mechanism is plotted in lower panel. Comparing the lower panel with upper panel we see that the limiting fragmentation is kept in a wider $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ region in the LUCIAE calculations without reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression than with ones.

The data of total charged multiplicity per participant pair in 7%, 7%, and 5% most central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at 40, 80, and 158 A GeV (open circles, taken from pho2 ) and in 6% most central $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=19.6, 56, 130, and 200 GeV (full circles, taken from pho2 ) are plotted as function of $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3 the full and open triangles are the corresponding results from LUCIAE calculation with and without the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression, respectively. The LUCIAE results for $`\varphi `$ meson are given by full and open squares (scaled by 100) for, respectively, with and without the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression. Fig. 3 turns out that the LUCIAE model fairly reproduces the experimental $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ dependence of the charged multiplicity per participant pair in $`Pb+Pb`$ and $`Au+Au`$ collisions at SPS and RHIC energies. For $`\varphi `$ meson, only the LUCIAE calculations without the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression depend on $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ in nearly the same way as the charged particle.

In the left panel of Fig. 4 the PHOBOS observation of approximate $`<N_{part}>`$ scaling for total charged multiplicity in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$=200 GeV pho2  is given by full circle with error bar. The corresponding LUCIAE results with and without reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression are given by full and open triangles. Full and open squares are the results of $`\varphi `$ meson from LUCIAE calculations with and without the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression, respectively. One sees in left panel that the $`\varphi `$ meson yields per participant pair from LUCIAE calculations without the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression parallel to the corresponding charged multiplicity better than ones from LUCIAE calculations with the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression. The left panel shows also that for charged particle although the LUCIAE results are compatible with PHOBOS data within error bar, but the LUCIAE results violate $`<N_{part}>`$ scaling stronger than PHOBOS data. That may attribute to the discrepancy in $`<N_{part}>`$ definition and calculation between PHOBOS and LUCIAE model as mentioned in sa6 . To this end, in right panel we compare the PHOBOS data to the results (open triangles for $`<N_{ch}>`$ and open squares for $`<N_\varphi >`$) from a calculation where $`<N_{ch}>`$ ($`<N_\varphi >`$) is from LUCIAE but the $`<N_{part}>`$ from PHOBOS pho1  (corresponding to the same percentile of the total cross section as in LUCIAE calculation). The full triangles and full squares in right panel are the same as that in left panel. We see in right panel that using a single value of $`<N_{ch}>`$ ($`<N_\varphi >`$) from LUCIAE but dividing it by $`<N_{part}>`$ from deferent calculation, one from PHOBOS and the other from LUCIAE, the resulted $`<N_{ch}>/(0.5<N_{part}>)`$ ($`<N_\varphi >/(0.5<N_{part}>)`$) depends on $`<N_{part}>`$ in different way. Thus the above PHOBOS observation is model dependent indeed.

In summary, we have modified the LUND string fragmentation function that its $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters are first adjusted roughly to the experimental data of charged multiplicity in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at RHIC energies pho1 ; pho2 . The fitted $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters are then employed to study the three empirical scaling rules for both the charged multiplicity and the $`\varphi `$ meson. It is turned out that the three empirical observations for the charged multiplicity pho1 ; pho2  could be fairly reproduced by the LUCIAE model. However, for $`\varphi `$ meson it is either kept only or kept better in the LUCIAE calculation without the reduction mechanism of $`s`$ quark suppression. It seems an evidence that the $`\varphi `$ meson production may not distinguish from the charged particle in string fragmentation regime, except the mechanism of the reduction of $`s`$ quark suppression extra introduced for the strangeness in LUCIAE model. Because the PHOBOS observations rely strongly on the number of participant nucleon and PHOBOS’s $`<N_{part}>`$ is extracted based on HIJING hij , the PHOBOS’s three empirical scaling rules are model dependent.

Finally, the financial supports from NSFC in China (10135030 and 10075035) and DOE in USA are acknowledged.