text:
# Globular Clusters in Early-Type Galaxies with GMOS

## 1. Introduction

Globular clusters (GCs) are excellent probes of the dynamics, dark matter content, star-formation histories, and chemical enrichment of early-type galaxies. We have embarked upon a major programme using the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on the 8m Gemini telescopes to obtain photometry and spectroscopy of GCs in $``$ 12 early-type galaxies, covering a range of galaxy type, luminosity, and environment. In this paper we present some of the first results from this programme.

## 2. Data

We have been using GMOS on Gemini North (since 2002A) and South (since 2003B) to obtain spectroscopy for 30$``$100 GCs in each of NGCs 3379, 4649, 524, 7332, and IC 1459. GMOS pre-imaging in the g’, r’, and i’ filters for 2$``$3 fields per galaxy (400$``$800 sec in each filter) is used to select GC candidates for follow-up spectroscopy and for photometric analysis of the GC systems. The GMOS images have been reduced using IRAF/DAOPHOT, with photometric calibration from HST photometry kindly supplied by Soeren Larsen. Final GC candidate lists are determined after rejection of resolved objects, and objects with colours outside the range of Galactic GCs. GMOS multi-slit spectroscopy has been obtained for one or more fields in each galaxy, with 25$``$50 slits per field/mask (depending on the richness of the GC system), and exposure times of 8$``$10 hours per mask. Spectroscopic data reduction is done using the IRAF/GMOS package.

## 3. Globular Cluster Photometry in NGC 4649

NGC 4649 is a luminous (MV=$``$22.4) Virgo elliptical. We present preliminary photometric results for $``$ 2000 unresolved objects with i’ $`<`$ 25 and 0.5 $`<`$ (g’-i’) $`<`$ 1.5 (see Forbes et al. (2004) for a fuller account, and Bridges et al. (2004) for NGC 4649 GC spectroscopy). The NGC 4649 GC colour distribution is clearly bimodal, with peaks at (g’-i’) = $``$ 0.9 and 1.15. The fraction of blue/red clusters increases with radius, as found in other early-type galaxies.

## 4. Globular Cluster Spectroscopy in NGC 3379

NGC 3379 is a less luminous elliptical in the nearby Leo group. We have spectra for 22 NGC 3379 GCs in a 10 hour GMOS exposure with 5 Å resolution and coverage from $``$ 4000$``$7000 Å . Figure 1 shows the ages and metallicities of 18 GCs, based on the comparison of line-strengths with stellar population synthesis models. Most of the GCs are old, with ages $`>`$ 10 Gyr, but there is a group of $``$ 4 metal-rich, younger GCs with ages of 2$``$6 Gyr. Figure 2 shows that both the GC velocity dispersion (top panel) and the local M/L (bottom panel) decrease outwards. A preliminary analysis (see Beasley et al. 2004) shows that there is no evidence for a dark-matter halo in NGC 3379, a very interesting result also seen in the PNe kinematics (Romanowsky et al. 2003, Science, 301, 1696).

Figure 1 (left): Ages/metallicities for NGC 3379 GCs (filled circles) and MW GCs (open circles), from our GMOS spectra. Figure 2 (right): Top: velocity dispersion of NGC 3379 stars (small errors) and GCs (larger errors); the solid line is a constant M/L fit. Bottom: The local M/L for NGC 3379.

### Acknowledgments.

We are very grateful to Soeren Larsen for all of his help with our photometric calibration, and to the Gemini staff, particularly Inger Jorgensen, for obtaining such nice data for us.


format: text

text:
# Properties of Baryon Anti-decuplet

## Abstract

We study the group structure of baryon anti-decuplet containing the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. We derive the SU(3) mass relations among the pentaquark baryons in the anti-decuplet, when there is either no mixing or ideal mixing with the pentaquark octet, as advocated by Jaffe and Wilczek. This constitutes the Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula for the pentaquark baryons. We also derive SU(3) symmetric Lagrangian for the interactions of the baryons in the anti-decuplet with the meson octet and the baryon octet. Our analysis for the decay widths of the anti-decuplet states suggests that the $`N(1710)`$ is ruled out as a pure anti-decuplet state, but it may have anti-decuplet component in its wavefunction if the multiplet is mixed with the pentaquark octet.

preprint: hep-ph/0310117

The recent discovery of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ baryon by LEPS Collaboration at SPring-8 LEPS03 , which has been confirmed by several groups CLAS03-b-SAPHIR03-DIANA03-ADK03 , initiated a lot of theoretical works in the field of exotic hadrons. Experimentally, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is observed to have a mass of 1540 MeV and a decay width of $`<25`$ MeV. Because of its positive strangeness, the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ baryon is exotic since its minimal quark content should be $`uudd\overline{s}`$. Other states that have positive strangeness but different charges are not observed, which suggests that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is an isosinglet. The existence of such an exotic state with narrow width was first predicted by Diakonov et al. DPP97  in the chiral soliton model, where the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ is a member of the baryon anti-decuplet. Although it should be confirmed by other experiments, the recently discovered $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}^{}`$ baryon NA49-03  strongly supports the anti-decuplet nature of pentaquark baryons. The discussion on the existence of a baryon anti-decuplet has a longer history going back to the early 1970’s Golo71 , and in the Skyrme model Chem85 . Pentaquark states with a heavy antiquark ($`uudd\overline{c}`$, $`uudd\overline{b}`$) were also predicted in the Skyrme model. Here an important issue is whether such nonstrange heavy pentaquark states are stable against strong decays RS93 ; OPM94b-OPM94c ; OP95 ; GSR87-Lip87 ; JW03 . Subsequent theoretical investigations on the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ include approaches based on the constituent quark model SR03 ; CCKN03 ; Cheung03-Gloz03a-KL03a , Skyrme model Weig98-WK03 ; Pras03 ; JM03 ; BFK03 ; IKOR03 , QCD sum rules MNNRL03 ; Zhu03-SDO03 , lattice QCD CFKK03-Sasaki03 , chiral potential model Hosaka03 , large $`N_c`$ QCD Cohen03-CL03 , and Group theory approach Wyb03 . The production of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ was also discussed in relativistic nuclear collisions Rand03-CGKLL03 , where the number of the anti-$`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(1540)`$ produced are expected to be similar to that of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+(1540)`$.

Several pressing issues that should be clarified are whether the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ has positive or negative parity, and whether the Roper $`N(1710)`$ is included in the baryon anti-decuplet with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$. As for the spin-parity of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$, several works claim that $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ is more natural CCKN03 ; Zhu03-SDO03 ; CFKK03-Sasaki03 , which, however, is in contrast to the prediction of the soliton models, where the relative orbital angular momentum plays an important role OP95 ; JW03 . The $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ assignment is also consistent with the recent study of the quark model CCKN03b , which predicts the lowest mass pentaquark state to be in the $`P`$ wave state. The elementary production processes of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ have been studied to address this question LK03a-LK03b-NHK03-OKL03a . As for the structure of the anti-decuplet states, Jaffe and Wilczek proposed that the pentaquark is a diquark-diquark-antiquark state which is ideally mixed with the corresponding pentaquark in the octet JW03 . In this approach, the $`N(1710)`$ is classified as a member of the pentaquark states as in the chiral soliton model of Ref. DPP97 , but the mass spectrum is totally different, as the mixing introduces the $`N(1440)`$ as the lowest state among the pentaquark states. However, it is also claimed that such interpretation is doubted as the Roper resonances fall into the (excited) $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}`$-plets of SU(6) Gloz03b .

In this paper, we study the SU(3) flavor structure of the baryon anti-decuplet. We derive the SU(3) mass relations among the baryons in the anti-decuplet when there is either no mixing or ideal mixing with the pentaquark octet, where the later mixing scenario was advocated by Jaffe and Wilczek JW03 . This constitutes the Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula for the pentaquark baryons. We also derive the SU(3) symmetric interactions of the anti-decuplet with the baryon octet and pseudoscalar meson octet.

As shown in Fig. 1, we start by introducing the irreducible tensor notation $`T^{jkl}`$ to represent the baryons in the anti-decuplet, which are denoted as the (0,3) representation in the usual $`(p,q)`$ notation Low . Note that the baryon decuplet is in the (3,0) and represented by $`T_{jkl}`$. Since $`T^{jkl}`$ is an eigenstate of the hypercharge $`Y`$ and the third component of the isospin $`I_3`$, one can directly match it with the physical baryon states. (See Table 1.)

With these informations, we study baryon masses using SU(3) flavor symmetry. The well-known Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula reads

$$M=M_0+\alpha Y+\beta D_3^3,$$
(1)
where $`M_0`$ is a common mass of a given multiplet and $`D_3^3=I(I+1)Y^2/4C/6`$, with $`C=2(p+q)+\frac{2}{3}(p^2+pq+q^2)`$ for the $`(p,q)`$ representation. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are mass constants that are in principle different for different multiplets. Using these constants, one can write down the masses of all the baryon within a multiplet. Moreover, using these mass formulas, one can derive the well-known Gell-Mann–Okubo mass relation, the decuplet equal spacing rule, and the hyperfine splitting rule,

$`3M_\mathrm{\Lambda }+M_\mathrm{\Sigma }=2(M_N+M_\mathrm{\Xi }),`$ (2)
$`M_\mathrm{\Omega }M_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}=M_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (3)
$`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(M_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_\mathrm{\Lambda })=M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N.`$ (4)
The last relation follows only if we assume $`\alpha _8=\alpha _{10}`$ and $`\beta _8=\beta _{10}`$, where the subscripts $`8,10`$ represent the octet and decuplet representation respectively.

Using Eq. (1), the mass formulas for the baryon anti-decuplet can also be written down as follows,

$`M_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}}+2(\alpha _{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta _{\overline{10}}),`$
$`M_{N_{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}}+(\alpha _{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta _{\overline{10}}),`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}}(\alpha _{\overline{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\beta _{\overline{10}}).`$ (5)
We now discuss the anti-decuplet mass spectrum.

Pure anti-decuplet: Eq. (5) shows that the equal spacing rule holds also for the baryon anti-decuplet,

$$M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}=M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}M_{N_{10}}=M_{N_{10}}M_\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(6)
which was already used in Ref. DPP97 . This suggests that if any two of the masses in the anti-decuplet are known, the other masses can be predicted by the mass relation. Using $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }=1540`$ MeV and identifying the recent measurement of $`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{3/2}}=1862`$ MeV by the NA49 experiment NA49-03  as $`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}`$, we have

$`M_\mathrm{\Theta }=\underset{¯}{1540}\text{ MeV},M_{N_{10}}=1647\text{ MeV},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}=1755\text{ MeV},M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}=\underset{¯}{1862}\text{ MeV},`$ (7)
where the masses used as input are underlined.

It should be noted that for the anti-decuplet, there are in fact only two independent parameters; $`M_{\overline{10}}`$ and $`\delta m_{\overline{10}}=(\alpha _{\overline{10}}\frac{3}{2}\beta _{\overline{10}})`$. This is also true for the decuplet; $`M_{10}`$ and $`\delta m_{10}=(\alpha _{10}+\frac{3}{2}\beta _{10})`$. However, the mass parameters are quite different for the anti-decuplet $`\delta m_{\overline{10}}107`$ MeV, and the decuplet $`\delta m_{10}150`$ MeV. Moreover, if we assume $`\alpha _{\overline{10}}=\alpha _{10}=\alpha _8`$ and $`\beta _{\overline{10}}=\beta _{10}=\beta _8`$, we would get an unrealistically large mass splitting $`\delta m_{\overline{10}}240`$ MeV. The problem comes from using the parameters obtained from baryons with valence strange quarks only in the mass splitting for pentaquark baryon, where the anti-strange quark is also important in giving their mass splitting. That is why Jaffe and Wilczek introduced a phenomenological mass formula for the pentaquark states where the important mass splitting comes from not only terms proportional to the number of strange quarks $`n_s`$ but also from terms proportional to $`n_{\overline{s}}`$ JW03 ,

$$\delta M=\gamma (n_s+n_{\overline{s}}),$$
(8)
which, however, does not change the mass relations (2)-(4).

Ideal mixing with pentaquark octet: Let us consider the mixing of the anti-decuplet with the pentaquark octet JW03 . Using Eq. (1), we can write the masses of the pentaquark octet as

$`M_{N_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}+\alpha _8^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _8^{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}+\beta _8^{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}\alpha _8^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _8^{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}\beta _8^{}.`$ (9)
As in the model of Jaffe and Wilczek JW03 , we assume that the pentaquark octet and anti-decuplet are ideally mixed so that the $`s\overline{s}`$ component is isolated,

$`N_{10}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}N_q+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}N_s,N_8=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}N_q\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}N_s,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_q+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s,\mathrm{\Sigma }_8=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_q\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s,`$
where the subscript $`q`$ ($`s`$) means that the pentaquark has only light (strange) antiquark. Based on the above mixing formula, one can show that the original mass term in the Hamiltonian, if it has mixing between octet and anti-decuplet ($`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ terms), is diagonalized as

$`H_m`$ $`=`$ $`M_{N_{10}}N_{10}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M_{N_8}N_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+c_1N_{10}N_8`$
$`+M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_8}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+c_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}\mathrm{\Sigma }_8`$
$`=`$ $`(2M_{N_8}M_{N_{10}})N_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(2M_{N_{10}}M_{N_8})N_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+(2M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}}M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_8})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(2M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_8}M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$
Then we have

$`M_{N_q}`$ $`=`$ $`2(M_8^{}+\alpha _8^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _8^{})(M_{\overline{10}}+\delta m_{\overline{10}}),`$
$`M_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}}+2\delta m_{\overline{10}},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}\beta _8^{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_q}`$ $`=`$ $`2M_{\overline{10}}(M_8^{}+\beta _8^{}),`$
$`M_{N_s}`$ $`=`$ $`2(M_{\overline{10}}+\delta m_{\overline{10}})(M_8^{}+\alpha _8^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _8^{}),`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\overline{10}}\delta m_{\overline{10}}`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_8}`$ $`=`$ $`M_8^{}\alpha _8^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _8^{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_s}`$ $`=`$ $`2(M_8^{}+\beta _8^{})M_{\overline{10}}.`$ (12)
There are eight masses and five parameters, hence three SU(3) mass relations. These are the generalized Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula and anti-decuplet equal spacing rule and read

$`M_{N_q}+2M_{N_s}=2M_\mathrm{\Theta }+M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}},`$ (13)
$`2M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_q}+M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_s}=M_\mathrm{\Theta }+2M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}},`$ (14)
$`3M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}=M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_q}+M_{N_q}+2M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_8}M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}.`$ (15)
These are the model independent SU(3) mass relations that should be satisfied by any model calculations.

So far, only two masses are known. To go further, we need some assumptions. First of all we will assume $`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_8}=M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}`$. Next, as in Ref. JW03 , we assume $`M_{N_q}=1440`$ MeV, namely identify it with the Roper. Then we get $`M_{N_s}=1751`$ MeV, which is close to the $`N(1710)`$. If we further assume $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}=M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_q}`$ JW03 , we obtain $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}=1651`$ MeV and $`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_s}=1962`$ MeV. This is an improved mass spectrum based on the assumptions of Ref. JW03 .

Alternatively, we may turn on the phenomenological mass term in eq. (8) and assume that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ are the same for all the multiplet. Then using $`M_N`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}`$ to fit these parameters, we obtain,

$`M_{N_q}=1584\text{ MeV},M_\mathrm{\Theta }=\underset{¯}{1540}\text{ MeV},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_8}=1647\text{ MeV},M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_q}=1495\text{ MeV},`$
$`M_{N_s}=1679\text{ MeV},M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}}=M_{\mathrm{\Xi }_8}=\underset{¯}{1862}\text{ MeV},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_s}=2274\text{ MeV},`$ (16)
where the input masses are underlined. This is very different from the previous results and shows the sensitivity of the pentaquark mass spectrum on the assumptions made.

We now consider the SU(3) symmetric interaction of the anti-decuplet ($`\overline{D}`$) with the baryon octet ($`B`$) and the pseudoscalar meson octet ($`P`$). The SU(3) symmetric interaction can be written as

$$_{\overline{D}PB}=ig\overline{T}^{jkl}\gamma _5P_m^jB_n^kϵ^{lmn}+\text{h.c.},$$
(17)
where $`P_m^j`$ is the pseudoscalar meson octet and $`B_n^k`$ the baryon octet of which the expressions can be found, e.g, in Refs. Low ; Close ; FR . Here we have used pseudoscalar coupling for the interaction, which can be readily replaced by pseudovector coupling by imposing chiral symmetry in the anti-decuplet sector. The universal coupling constant $`g`$ can be determined from the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ decay width as $`g^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }/(6.19\text{ MeV})`$, which gives $`g0.9`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }=5`$ MeV Thetadecay . But we notice the possibility that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is much smaller Thetadecay . In Table 2, we give the full $`\overline{D}PB`$ coupling constants, some of which were derived in Ref. CCKN03b . We also note that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+K^0p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+K^+n`$ interactions have different phase, which differs from Ref. DPP97 , where the two couplings have the same phase.

The next step is to find the interactions of anti-decuplet with other multiplets. One can obtain the anti-decuplet interaction with the meson octet as

$$_{\overline{D}\overline{D}P}=g^{}\overline{T}^{jkl}P_m^jT^{mkl},$$
(18)
where we have dropped the Lorentz structure of the interaction. However, the interaction of $`\overline{D}PD`$, where $`D`$ represents the baryon decuplet, is not allowed by SU(3) flavor symmetry. This is because $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟖}`$. So it cannot form an $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ and the $`\overline{D}PD`$ interaction cannot be SU(3) singlet. This gives a very strong constraint on the properties of the $`N_{10}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$), since it is now prohibited to couple with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$) channel.

As an application, we compute the decay widths of the pure anti-decuplet members. Using the SU(3) Lagrangian, the total decay widths of the $`N_{10}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{10}`$ are approximately $`4\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`7\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`10\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, respectively, which are expected to have some corrections if the decay channels into vector meson plus baryons are opened. As mentioned before, the $`N_{10}`$ cannot decay into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ because of SU(3) flavor symmetry. Furthermore, $`U`$-spin conservation does not allow its production from $`\gamma p`$ reaction, while $`\gamma n`$ reaction can generate the $`N_{10}`$. Since the $`N(1710)`$ has large branching ratio of the decay into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ and its coupling to $`\gamma p`$ is larger than that to $`\gamma n`$ PDG02 , it cannot be a pure anti-decuplet state. Therefore, there is no candidate for the $`N_{10}`$ among the known $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ nucleon resonances PDG02 . The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1770)`$ with $`J^P=\frac{1}{2}^+`$ may be a candidate for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{10}`$.

However, if we consider the mixing with octet, the analyses become more complex. The pentaquark octet can couple to meson octet and baryon octet through the familiar $`F`$ and $`D`$ type interactions, which introduces additional unknown coupling constants. It can also couple to meson octet and baryon decuplet. So the mixing debilitates the selection rules above. As far as the mass is concerned, if we use the assumption that gives (16), we found that the $`N_q`$ is much higher than the $`N(1440)`$, but the $`N_s`$ is close to the $`N(1710)`$. For the other states, we found that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1600)`$ with $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ can be a candidate for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_8`$. As possible candidates for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$, we found $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1480)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2250)`$ bumps in Particle Data Group PDG02  although their quantum numbers are not fixed yet.

Y.O. is grateful to the hospitality of Jefferson Lab., where this work was completed. This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2002-015-CP0074).

Note added. After completion of this work, we were aware of a recent work of Diakonov and Petrov DP03 , which discussed the mixing angles and similar mass relations in pentaquark states.


text:
# Discovery of a New Transient Magnetar Candidate: XTE J1810–197

## 1 Introduction

Several hundred X-ray pulsars have been discovered to date. Some are powered by their own rotational energy or residual surface heat and others by accretion. The two subgroups of anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) and soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) are remarkably distinct from the rest and similar to each other. They rotate relatively slowly with spin periods in the narrow range $`P512`$ s and spin-down rather rapidly at $`\dot{P}10^{11}`$ s s-1. Both are radio-quiet, sources of persistent X-ray emission ($`L10^{34}10^{36}`$ erg s-1) and short ($`<0.1`$ s), bright ($`L_{peak}>L_{EDD}`$) bursts of X-rays and soft $`\gamma `$rays. They are peculiar in that there is no evidence of a binary companion or a remnant accretion disk to power their emission, although it is several orders of magnitudes higher than can be provided by their rotational energy. Nine sources are currently firmly identified, including four SGRs and and five AXPs (See Hurley 2000 and Mereghetti et al. 2002). Four candidates need confirmation.

The magnetar model provides a coherent picture for SGRs and AXPs, in which their radiation is powered by a decaying super-critical magnetic field, in excess of the quantum critical field $`B_c=4.4\times 10^{13}`$ G (Duncan & Thompson 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1995). Evidence for magnetars has come from the long spin-period and high spin-down rate (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; 1999; Vasisht & Gotthelf 1997), the energetic burst emission (Paczynski 1992; Hurley et al. 1999; Ibrahim et al 2001), and the lack of binary companion or accretion disks (Kaplan et al. 2001). Further evidence for magnetar strength fields has recently come from spectral line features (Ibrahim et al. 2002; Ibrahim, Swank & Parke 2003). For one case a pulsed optical counterpart appears consistent with being the neutron star itself (Hulleman et al. 2000; Kern & Martin 2002). Until recently only SGRs were observed to burst. The recent bursting activity from two AXPs unified the two families of objects in the magnetar framework (Gavriil, Kaspi & Woods 2002; Kaspi et al. 2003). Alternative models such as fossil accretion (Chatterjee et al. 2000; Marsden et al. 2001) and strange quark stars (Zhang et al. 2000) do not appear to explain all observational evidence as well.

Here we present the discovery of a new X-ray pulsar whose properties, in outburst, are consistent with those of AXPs and SGRs. We discuss the implications of this finding for our understanding of the characteristics and population of magnetars.

## 2 Observations and Results

### 2.1 A New X-ray Pulsar near SGR 1806-20

Following the Interplanetary Network (IPN) report of renewed burst activity from SGR 1806–20 on 2003 July 14 (Hurley et al. 2003), we observed the source on July 15 with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) onboard RXTE. PCA data in the event-mode configuration E\_125US\_64M\_0\_1S were collected from the operating PCUs (0, 2 & 3), corrected to the solar system barycenter, selected to be in the 2-8 keV range, and binned in 0.125 s intervals. PCA detector layers are not differentiated in that mode. A strong periodic signal with a barycentric period of 5.540(2) s was clearly identified in the first 2.6 ks of the data, with a chance probability of $`2.5\times 10^{12}`$ (Ibrahim et al. 2003; see Fig. 1). The large discrepancy between this unexpected pulse period and the known 7.5 s pulse period of SGR 1806-20 implied the presence of a new X-ray pulsar in the PCA $`1^{}.2`$ field of view.

### 2.2 Source Position and Optical Counterpart

A PCA scanning observation was performed on July 18, following a path that covered a region surrounding SGR 1806–20. During scans, the count rates due to individual sources are modulated by the response of the PCA collimator. The resulting light curves are subtracted of their internal background (using the “CM” L7 background model), and are fitted to a model of known and unknown sources, convolved with the collimator response. For unknown sources, a trial position is assumed and adjusted until the best fit is achieved. The sources included in this fit were the new source, SGR 1806–20, the galactic ridge, and an overall diffuse level. The spatial distribution of the galactic ridge emission in the field of view is not precisely known; an unresolved ridge at $`0^{}`$ latitude was assumed. The best fit position and $`3\sigma `$ contour obtained for the position of the new source, designated XTE J1810–197, are shown in Fig. 2 (Markwardt, Ibrahim & Swank 2003).

A follow up $`Chandra`$ observation with the High Resolution Camera (HRC) on August 27 localized the source precisely to $`\alpha =18^\mathrm{h}09^\mathrm{m}51^\mathrm{s}.13`$ and $`\delta =19\mathrm{°}43\mathrm{}51\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}7`$ (J2000), with an error circle radius of 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 (Gotthelf et al. 2003a; 2003b). Pulsations of the HRC data definitively identified the source. The HRC position is consistent with the $`ROSAT`$ and $`ASCA`$ sources 1RXS 180951.5–194345 & AX J180951–1943 (Bamba et al. 2003).

The HRC position is 14′ from the best fit PCA position. Typically, accuracies of 1–2$`\mathrm{}`$ have been obtained in past scans. The presence of the diffuse galactic ridge and other faint sources in the field of view — in particular G11.2–0.3 — resulted in large systematic errors, for which a priori estimates were difficult.

We observed the $`Chandra`$ HRC error box of XTE J1810–197 with the 1.5 m $`RussianTurkish`$ Telescope, $`RTT150`$ (Antalya, Turkey) on 2003 September 3 and 6. Optical Cousins R filter images of the field around the source were obtained using the ANDOR CCD ($`2048\times 2048`$ pixels, $`0.24\mathrm{}`$ pixel scale and $`8\mathrm{}\times 8\mathrm{}`$ Filed of View) with 15 min exposure times (3 frames). Seeing was about $`2\mathrm{}`$. We do not detect a counterpart to a limiting magnitude of 21.5 ($`2\sigma `$ level) in the $`R_c`$ band, comparable to the limits in $`V(22.5)`$, $`I(21.3)`$, $`J(18.9)`$, and $`K(17.5)`$ obtained by Gotthelf et al. (2003b).

### 2.3 Long Term Light Curve: A Transient Source

XTE J1810–197 was consistent with a previously unidentified source that had been present in the PCA monitoring program of the galactic bulge region since 2003 February. In the program, a region of approximately 250 square degrees around the galactic center has been scanned by the PCA twice weekly since 1999 February, except for several months per year, when sun and operation constraints interfere (Swank & Markwardt 2001). The scan pattern is a zig-zag which alternates semi-weekly between primarily north-south and east-west. XTE J1810–197 is covered in the north-south scans only. At the end points of each scan the PCA dwells for $`150`$ seconds, and XTE J1810–197 is near the center of the PCA field of view of one of these points. As discussed below, pulsations were observed during these brief points, confirming the identification of the source.

Fig. 3 shows the 2002–2003 light curve of XTE J1810–197, when fixed at the $`Chandra`$ position. Clearly XTE J1810–197 became active sometime between 2002 November and 2003 February. The distribution of 1999–2002 pre-outburst fluxes allow us to place a $`3\sigma `$ upper limit on previous outbursts of $`<`$ 2 ct/s/PCU or 1 mCrab (2–10 keV) from the baseline level, as long as the outburst did not fall in an observing gap (the maximum gap was 3 months).

The flux decay can be fitted to power-law or exponential models. For the exponential model, the e-folding time is $`269\pm 25`$ days. The power-law model has the potential of retrieving the epoch at which the outburst began. Assuming the flux is proportional to $`((TT_0)/(52700T_0))^\beta `$, at time $`T`$ and with outburst time $`T_0`$ in MJD, $`\beta =0.450.73`$ were acceptable ($`1\sigma `$), with $`52580T_052640`$, that is, 2002 November 2 to 2003 January 1. We have additional information from observations of the nearby source PSR J1811–1925 (Obsids 70091-01, 80091-01). An observation on 2002 November 17 (MJD 52595) showed that the pulsations were not detected, while they were by 2003 January 23 (MJD 52662). The ROSAT and ASCA detections in 1993, 1996, and 1999 were consistent with fluxes $`0.02`$ mCrab (Gotthelf et al. 2003b).

### 2.4 Spectrum

A crude PCA spectrum was obtained by reanalyzing the light curves in each spectral band, this time using the $`Chandra`$ position and allowing a contribution from G11.2–0.3 (Markwardt, Ibrahim,& Swank 2003). The resulting spectrum of XTE J1810–197 was clearly soft, despite large uncertainty in the column densities for any model. For the column fixed at $`1\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 (typical for sources in the region and confirmed by the XMM-Newton results), a power-law fit has a photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=4.7\pm 0.6`$, while a black body fit has $`kT=0.94\pm 0.11`$ keV. The 2-10 keV absorbed flux was $`5.5\times 10^{11}`$ ergs cm2 s-1 on July 18. Additional PCA spectral data requiring analysis beyond the scope of this paper will address spectral evolution during the outburst.

The source was observed with XMM-Newton on 2003 September 8. Results have been presented by Tiengo & Mereghetti (2003) and by Gotthelf et al. (2003b). We also processed the EPIC PN and MOS1 data using standard SAS routines (the MOS2 data suffered pile-up in the full frame mode) and obtained results consistent with theirs using the PN alone. A two-component power-law plus blackbody model provides a good fit with well constrained parameters of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3.75(3.54.1)`$, $`kT=0.668(0.6570.678)`$ keV, $`n_H=1.05(1.01.13)\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2, and $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.04`$ ($`\nu `$=896) (errors are at the 3$`\sigma `$ level). The total unabsorbed flux in 0.5–8.0 keV is 1.35$`\times `$10-10 erg cm-2 s-1 with a 30% contribution from the blackbody component. This gives a source luminosity of $`1.6\times 10^{36}d_{10}^2`$ erg s-1, with $`d_{10}`$ the distance in units of 10 kpc.

We analyzed archival $`ROSAT`$ and $`ASCA`$ data of the source and obtained results consistent with those reported by Gotthelf et al. (2003b). We find the source in a faint quiescent state with a flux two orders of magnitude lower than that first detected in early 2003 and a spectrum much softer than seen above ($`kT0.15`$ keV).

### 2.5 Timing: Frequency History and Spin-down Rate

Timing analysis was performed using a variety of PCA observations that included pointed observations dedicated to XTE J1810–197 (Obsid 80150-06) observations of G11.2-0.3 and PSR J1811–1925, SGR 1806–20 (Obsids 80149-02, 80150-01), plus the bulge scans (Obsids 80106, 70138). The total exposure time was about 216 ks between 2003 January 23 and September 25. Folded light curves were extracted (2–7 keV; top PCU layers) based on a trial folding period. A sinusoidal profile fit well, and was used to estimate the pulse times of arrival (TOAs) and uncertainties. By using a combination of all data sets we were able to extend a phase connected solution through the complete time span. While we attempted several models, a polynomial was conceptually simplest.

Note– Errors were determined with $`\chi ^2`$ normalized to dof.

Fig 4. shows the frequency evolution and phase residuals for the polynomial fit with frequency and 6 derivatives (see Table 1 for parameters). While the choice of polynomial order is somewhat arbitrary, a lower order produces significantly worse residuals. The weighted r.m.s residuals are 165 ms. Reminiscent of the behavior of 1E 2259+586 after a bursting episode (Kaspi et al. 2003), the spin down is initially steeper, but evolves to a quieter and slower spin-down. The weighted r.m.s deviation since July is only 94 ms for a steady spin-down (i.e. 2nd order polynomial; Table 1). The mean pulse period derivative is $`1.8\times 10^{11}`$ s s-1 over the full time span of the data, and $`1.15\times 10^{11}`$ s s-1 for the July–September time span.

With 245 days of data, it is possible to rule out a long period orbit ($``$ 100 days) as entirely responsible for the frequency slow down (Markwardt et al. 2003). While a phase-connected solution is possible for an orbit plus a spin-down, such models are utterly dominated by the spin-down component (best fit $`\dot{\nu }`$ = $`5.4\times 10^{13}`$ Hz s-1 for an mildly eccentric orbit with a period of 232 days; compare to Table 1), and so the orbit does not appear to add much information.

To look for short period orbits we made Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the phase residuals obtained from subtracting the polynomial model. They show no significant peaks at the 95% confidence level. For orbital periods down to 20 minutes, the peak periodogram power was 21, for a maximum orbital amplitude, $`a_x\mathrm{sin}i`$, of 70 lt-ms. Such a limit is independently inferred from the high stability of the spin down rate during the past 80 days. This would imply a mass function of $`4\times 10^7M_{}/P_d^2`$, $`P_d`$ being the binary period in days. Thus, except for orbits improbably close to face-on, a companion mass would be restricted to be planetary in size.

## 3 Discussion

The nature of a neutron star source is principally determined by the energy mechanism that powers its emission. The distance of XTE J1810–197 is likely to be 5 kpc and almost certainly in the range 3–10 kpc (Gotthelf et al. 2003b). The unabsorbed outburst luminosity (from §2.4) is $`(216)\times 10^{35}`$ ergs s-1, which is in the range of the unabsorbed luminosities of AXPs and SGRs. Since the outburst episode, the rotational energy loss due to the pulsar spin-down, $`\dot{E}=I\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}4\times 10^{33}`$ erg s-1 (where $`I`$ is the moment of inertia of a canonical neutron star and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi /P`$), is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the implied X-ray luminosity. A binary Doppler shift can not explain the frequency trend and there are strong limits on the mass of any companion in a short period orbit. As discussed by Gotthelf et al. (2003b), the optical and infra-red limits, as well as our own limit in the red, are sufficient to rule out interpreting the transient X-ray source as a distant Be-star binary. Furthermore, the spectrum of the source is notably softer than the typically hard spectra of high mass X-ray binaries.

Magnetic braking is then a candidate to dominate the spin-down. It appears to have been variable at the start of the outburst and to have relaxed to a relatively stable rate of $`1.15\times 10^{11}`$ s s-1. Such a rate, for a dipole magnetic field, would imply a magnetic field $`B=3.2\times 10^{19}\sqrt{P\dot{P}}=2.6\times 10^{14}`$ G and a characteristic age $`\tau =P/2\dot{P}7600`$ yr. Such a super-critical field strength and relatively young pulsar age are typical of magnetars. This and the close similarities between the temporal and spectral properties of the source and those of AXPs and SGRs make XTE J1810–197 a new magnetar candidate. The once apparent divide between AXPs and SGRs has been blurred by the SGR-like bursts from AXPs 1E 1048.1–5937 and 1E 2259+586 (Gavriil et al. 2002; Kaspi et al. 2003) and the AXP-like soft spectrum from SGR 0526–66 (Kulkarni et al. 2003) and SGR 1627-41 (Kouveliotou et al. 2003).

With the exception of the transient candidate AXP AX 1845–0258, considerable flux variability like that shown in Fig. 3 is not commonly observed from AXPs and SGRs in their quiescent non-bursting states. However, both AXPs and SGRs are known to show significant enhancement to their persistent emission flux following active bursting episodes. The flux may rise by more than an order of magnitude before relaxing back on timescales that range from days to years. This behavior was observed from 1E 2259+586 (Kaspi et al. 2003; Woods et al. 2003), SGR 1900+14 (Woods et al. 2001; Ibrahim et al. 2001; Feroci et al. 2003) and SGR 1627-41 (Kouveliotou et al. 2003). For a power-law flux decay, the index for XTE J1810–197 falls within the range of those of SGR 1627-41 (0.47) and SGR 1900+14 (0.6-0.9).

We searched for bursts prior to the peak activity of the source that could have been associated with it. We found no bursts in the PCA observations of G11.2–0.3 on 2003 January 23. Five SGR-like bursts were observed by experiments in IPN on 2002 December 5 and 6 (Hurley et al. 2002). One was well localized to SGR 1806–20 by Ulysses and Konus-Wind . The others remain unlocalized.

Alternatively, the possibility of flux variability due to magnetic field disturbances is also viable in the magnetar model. Given that a magnetic field has to be greater than $`B_02\times 10^{14}(\theta _{max}/10^3)^{1/2}`$ G to fracture the crust and cause burst activity (Thompson & Duncan 1995; $`\theta _{max}`$ is the crust yield strain), the energy associated with fields $`B<B_0`$ may excite magnetospheric currents or dissipate in the crust (Thompson, Lyutikov & Kulkarni 2003), causing a long-lasting flux enhancement.

If the magnetar birth rate is $``$ 10 % of neutron stars (Kulkarni & Frail 1993; Kouveliotou et al. 1994), there should be $``$ 100 in the same part of the galaxy to which we have yet been sensitive, rather than the 9 sources currently known. The difference may be explained if other magnetars are usually in a quiescent state like that of XTE J1810–197 before the current outburst.

We thank C. Thompson for useful discussions and S. Snowden and M. Still for help with XMM data. AII is supported by NASA grants NAG5-13186 & NAG5-13740; the McGill groups by NSERC Discovery and Steacie grants, Canada Research Chairs, NATEQ, CIAR & NASA; SS-H by NSERC UFA and Discovery grants & NASA LTSA NCG5-356; PMW by NASA grant NAG5-11608; and KH by Ulysses grant under JPL Contract 958056.


text:
# Spin-Isospin Resonances and Neutron Skin of Nuclei

## Abstract

The Gamow-Teller resonances (GTR) and isobaric analog states (IAS) of a sequence of even-even Sn target nuclei are calculated by using the framework of the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov model plus proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation. The calculation reproduces the experimental data on ground-state properties, as well as the excitation energies of the isovector excitations. It is shown that the isotopic dependence of the energy spacings between the GTR and IAS provides direct information on the evolution of neutron skin-thickness along the Sn isotopic chain. A new method is suggested for determining the difference between the radii of the neutron and proton density distributions along an isotopic chain, based on measurement of the excitation energies of the GTR relative to the IAS.

The determination of neutron density distributions in nuclei provides not only basic nuclear structure information, but it also places important additional constraints on effective interactions used in nuclear models. Various experimental methods have been used, or suggested, for the determination of the neutron density and differences between radii of the neutron and proton distributions Bat.89 ; Kra.91 ; Suz.95 ; Kra.99 , but no existing measurement of neutron densities or radii has an established accuracy of one percent Hor.99 .

Potentially, a very accurate and model independent experimental method for the determination of neutron densities is the elastic scattering of longitudinally polarized electrons on nuclei. The electron interacts with a nucleus by exchanging either a photon or a $`Z^0`$ boson. Parity violation arises from the interference of electromagnetic and weak neutral amplitudes. The parity-violating asymmetry parameter, defined as the difference between cross sections for the scattering of right- and left-handed longitudinally polarized electrons, provides direct information on the Fourier transform of the neutron density DDS.89 . A recent extensive analysis of possible parity-violating measurements of neutron densities and their theoretical interpretation can be found in Refs. Hor.98 ; Hor.99 ; Vre.00 . Neutron density measurements will be also crucial for the analysis of atomic parity-violating (APV) experiments Hor.99 ; Mus.99 ; PW.99 ; VLR.00 . Measurements of parity non conservation effects in intermediate and heavy atomic systems might provide very stringent tests of the Standard Model of electroweak interactions. At the present level of APV experimental precision, the dominant inaccuracy in the interpretation of the data is associated with atomic theory uncertainties in the electron density at the nucleus. These uncertainties could be considerably reduced by measuring APV observables for different atoms along an isotopic chain. Experiments involving isotope ratios, however, will be very sensitive to changes in the neutron density distribution along the isotopic chain. For atomic PV experiments it would be very important to determine with high accuracy ($`1`$%) the neutron spatial distribution for a sequence of isotopes VLR.00 .

Krasznahorkay et al. have used the excitation of the giant dipole resonance (GDR) Kra.91  and the excitation of the spin-dipole resonance (SDR) Kra.99  to extract the neutron-skin thickness of nuclei. In Ref. Kra.99 , in particular, it has been demonstrated that there is a predictable correlation between the SDR cross section and the difference between the rms radii of the neutron and proton density distributions. By normalizing the results in the case of 120Sn, data on neutron-skin thickness along the stable Sn isotopic chain were obtained, in good agreement with theoretical predictions.

In this Letter we suggest a new method for determining the difference between the radii of the neutron and proton density distributions along an isotopic chain, based on measurement of the excitation energies of the Gamow-Teller resonances relative to the isobaric analog states.

Nucleons with spin up and spin down can oscillate either in phase (spin scalar S=0 mode) or out of phase (spin vector S=1 mode). The spin vector, or spin-flip excitations can be of isoscalar (S=1, T=0) or isovector (S=1, T=1) nature. These collective modes provide direct information on the spin and spin-isospin dependence of the effective nuclear interaction (for an extensive review see Ref. Ost.92 ). Especially interesting is the collective spin-isospin oscillation with the excess neutrons coherently changing the direction of their spins and isospins without changing their orbital motion – the Gamow-Teller resonance (GTR) $`J^\pi =1^+`$. The simplest charge-exchange excitation mode, however, does not require the spin-flip (i.e. S=0) and corresponds to the well known isobaric analog state (IAS) $`J^\pi =0^+`$. The spin-isospin characteristics of the GTR and the IAS are related through the Wigner supermultiplet scheme. The Wigner SU(4) symmetry implies the degeneracy of the GTR and IAS, and furthermore the resonances would completely exhaust the corresponding sum rules Gap.74 . The Wigner SU(4) symmetry is, however, broken by the spin-orbit term of the effective nuclear potential. In Ref. Gap.74  it was noted that the energy difference between the GTR and the IAS decreases with increasing asymmetry $`(NZ)/A`$.

It is implicit, therefore, that the energy difference between the GTR and the IAS reflects the magnitude of the effective spin-orbit potential. In the framework of relativistic mean-field (RMF) theory the spin-orbit term of the effective single-nucleon potential displays a strong isospin dependence: the magnitude of the spin-orbit potential is considerably reduced in neutron-rich nucleiLVR.97 . This results in a reduction of the energy splittings between spin-orbit partner states. In Ref. LVR.98  the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) model was applied in the description of ground-state properties of Ni and Sn isotopes. The NL3 parameter set LKR.97  was used for the effective mean-field Lagrangian, and pairing correlations were described by the pairing part of the finite range Gogny interaction D1S BGG.84 . Fully self-consistent RHB solutions were calculated for the Ni ($`28N50`$) and Sn ($`50N82`$) isotopes. The resulting binding energies, neutron separation energies, and proton and neutron rms radii were found in excellent agreement with available experimental data. With the increase of the number of neutrons, the theory predicts a strong reduction of the spin-orbit potential (up to $`30`$% in the surface region). The location of the minimum of the spin-orbit potential is also shifted outwards, and this is reflected in the larger spatial extension of the scalar and vector densities, which become very diffuse on the surface. The neutron-skin increases correspondingly. The issue of isospin dependence of the spin-orbit potential is, however, not quite settled among the various theoretical approaches (relativistic and non-relativistic) NP.98 , and it is at the center of active experimental investigations in unstable nuclei.

In the following we shall demonstrate that there is a direct connection between the increase of the neutron-skin thickness in neutron-rich nuclei, and the decrease of the energy difference between the GTR and the IAS. The calculation is performed in the framework of the fully self-consistent RHB plus proton-neutron relativistic QRPA model. The RHB model represents a relativistic extension of the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov framework, and it provides a unified description of particle-hole ($`ph`$) and particle-particle ($`pp`$) correlations, that is essential for a quantitative analysis of ground-state properties and multipole response of unstable, weakly-bound nuclei far from the line of $`\beta `$-stability. Another relativistic model, the relativistic random phase approximation (RRPA), has been recently employed in quantitative analyses of collective excitations in nuclei. In Ref. Paa.03  we have formulated the relativistic quasiparticle random phase approximation (RQRPA) in the canonical single-nucleon basis of the relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov (RHB) model. By definition, the canonical basis diagonalizes the density matrix and it is always localized. This particular representation of the RQRPA is very convenient because, in order to describe transitions to low-lying excited states in weakly-bound nuclei, the two-quasiparticle configuration space must include states with both nucleons in the discrete bound levels, states with one nucleon in a bound level and one nucleon in the continuum, and also states with both nucleons in the continuum. The relativistic QRPA of Ref. Paa.03  is fully self-consistent. For the interaction in the particle-hole channel effective Lagrangians with nonlinear meson self-interactions are used, and pairing correlations are described by the pairing part of the finite range Gogny interaction. Both in the $`ph`$ and $`pp`$ channels, the same interactions are used in the RHB equations that determine the canonical quasiparticle basis, and in the matrix equations of the RQRPA. The RQRPA configuration space includes also the Dirac sea of negative energy states.

In the meson-exchange picture of nucleon-nucleon forces it is the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-meson exchange that generate the spin-isospin dependent interaction terms. Even though in the RMF description of the nuclear ground state the direct one-pion contribution vanishes at the Hartree level because of parity conservation, the pion nevertheless plays an important role for excitations that involve spin degrees of freedom. Since it has a relatively small mass, the pion mediates the effective nuclear interaction over large distances. In the present relativistic description of spin-flip and isospin-flip excitations we employ the $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-meson exchange in the $`ph`$ residual interaction of the proton-neutron RQRPA. The first relativistic RPA calculations of isobaric analog resonances and Gamow-Teller resonances have been performed only recently Con.98 . This analysis was, however, restricted to doubly closed-shell nuclei. A rather small configuration space was used and, furthermore, configurations that include empty states from the negative-energy Dirac sea were neglected. A more complete relativistic RPA calculation of GT resonances in doubly closed-shell nuclei was reported in Ref. Ma.03 . The ground states of 48Ca, 90Zr and 208Pb were calculated in the relativistic mean-field (RMF) model with the NL3 effective interaction. The spin-isospin correlations in the RRPA calculation of the GT response functions were induced by the isovector mesons $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$. In addition to the standard non-linear NL3 effective interaction with the vector rho-nucleon coupling, the effective Lagrangian included the pseudo-vector pion-nucleon interaction, but not the rho-nucleon tensor term. Although the pion does not contribute in the RMF Hartree calculation of the ground state, it has a pronounced effect on the spin-isospin excitations. However, because of the derivative type of the pion-nucleon coupling, it is also necessary to include a zero-range Landau-Migdal term that accounts for the contact part of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The analysis of Ref. Ma.03  has shown that the RRPA calculation with the NL3 effective interaction, the pseudo-vector pion-nucleon coupling ($`m_\pi =138`$ MeV and $`f_\pi ^2/4\pi =0.08`$), and the Landau-Migdal force with the strength parameter $`g_0^{}=0.6`$, nicely reproduces the experimental excitation energies of the main components of the GT resonances in 48Ca, 90Zr and 208Pb.

In the present analysis we extend the approach of Ref. Ma.03  and employ the self-consistent RHB plus proton-neutron relativistic QRPA to calculate the GTR and IAS in the Sn isotopic chain. The RMF effective interaction is NL3, the pion-nucleon interaction Lagrangian reads

$$_{\pi N}=\frac{f_\pi }{m_\pi }\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\gamma _\mu ^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\tau }\psi ,$$
(1)
and we also include the Landau-Migdal zero-range force in the spin-isospin channel of the residual $`ph`$ interaction:

$$V(1,2)=g_0^{}\left(\frac{f_\pi }{m_\pi }\right)^2\stackrel{}{\tau }_1\stackrel{}{\tau }_2𝚺_1𝚺_2\delta (𝒓_1𝒓_2).$$
(2)
With $`g_0^{}=0.6`$ our model calculation reproduce the results of Ref. Ma.03  for the GTR in doubly closed-shell nuclei. For open-shell nuclei pairing correlations are described by the pairing part of the finite range Gogny interaction D1S. As it has been shown in the RHB+RQRPA analysis of Ref. Paa.03 , the consistent inclusion of the pairing interaction both in the static RHB and in the dynamical linear response, is essential in order to satisfy the energy weighted sum rules and for the decoupling of spurious modes. In the present calculation we neglect possible proton-neutron pairing correlations. Even though these correlations can contribute to the low-lying GT strength responsible for $`\beta `$-decay, their effect on the main component of the GTR can be safely neglected.

In Fig. 1 we display the calculated differences between the excitation energies of the main component of the Gamow-Teller resonances and the respective isobaric analog states for the sequence of even-even Sn target nuclei with $`A=112124`$. The result of fully self-consistent RHB plus proton-neutron RQRPA calculations are shown in comparison with experimental data obtained in a systematic study of the (3He,t) charge-exchange reaction over the entire range of stable Sn isotopes Pham.95 . The calculated energy spacings are in very good agreement with the experimental values, and this result clearly demonstrates that the relativistic mean-field plus RPA framework provides a very natural description of nuclear spin and isospin excitations. For lighter Sn isotopes it appears that the calculated values differ somewhat from the experimental trend but, of course, the theoretical energy spacings might depend on the details of the effective interaction. In fact, the experimental data shown in Fig. 1 provide very valuable information that can be used in constraining the spin-isospin channel of the effective interaction. In order to illustrate the agreement between the data and model results, in the insert of Fig. 1 the calculated excitation energies of the isobaric analog states are compared with experiment Pham.95 . Except for 112Sn, the agreement between data and the calculated values of $`E_{\mathrm{IAR}}`$ is better than $`0.5`$ MeV.

In Fig. 2 the calculated and experimental energy spacings between the GTR and IAS are plotted as a function of the calculated differences between the rms radii of the neutron and proton density distributions of even-even Sn isotopes (upper panel). The calculated radii correspond to the RHB NL3+D1S self-consistent ground-state solutions, on which the proton-neutron RQRPA calculations are performed. In the lower panel the calculated differences between neutron and proton rms radii are compared with available experimental data Kra.99 . In Fig. 2 we notice a remarkable uniform dependence of the energy spacings between the GTR and IAS on the size of the neutron-skin. In principle, therefore, the value of $`r_nr_p`$ can be directly determined from the theoretical curve for a given value of $`E_{\mathrm{GT}}E_{\mathrm{IAS}}`$. This method is, of course, not completely model independent, but it does not require additional assumptions. Since the neutron-skin thickness is determined in an indirect way from the measurement of the GTR and IAS excitation energies in a sequence of isotopes, in practical applications at least one point on the theoretical curve should be checked against independent data on $`r_nr_p`$.

In conclusion, we have employed the self-consistent RHB plus proton-neutron relativistic QRPA to calculate the spin-isospin excitations in a sequence of Sn isotopes. By using the NL3 parameter set for the effective RMF Lagrangian, the pairing part of the Gogny interaction D1S for the $`T=1`$ pairing channel, the pseudo-vector pion-nucleon interaction and the Landau-Migdal zero-range force with $`g_0^{}=0.6`$ in the spin-isospin channel of the residual $`ph`$ interaction of the proton-neutron RQRPA, it has been possible to reproduce experimental data on the excitation energies of the Gamow-Teller resonances relative to the isobaric analog states. We have also shown that the isotopic dependence of the energy spacings between the GTR and IAS provides direct information on the evolution of neutron skin-thickness along the Sn isotopic chain. Very good results have been obtained in comparison with available data on $`r_nr_p`$. This analysis suggests that the neutron-skin thickness can be determined from the measurement of the excitation energies of the GTR relative to IAS.


text:
# Aging in Spin Glasses in three, four and infinite dimensions

## 1 Introduction

Spin-glasses  were discovered to age even on human time-scales some twenty years ago . Aging is nicely demonstrated, for instance, in measures of the thermoremanent magnetization (see e.g. ): in the presence of a magnetic field, cool an spin-glass from room temperature to the working temperature, $`T`$, below its glass-temperature; hold the magnetic field for a while (the time elapsed will be called $`t_w`$ hereafter), then switch-off the field and record the time-decay of the magnetization $`M_{t_w}(t)`$. Not only this decay is very slow but, even for the longest $`t_w`$ tried up to now, $`M_{t_w}(t)`$ strongly depends on $`t_w`$ (the larger $`t_w`$ is, the slower decays $`M_{t_w}(t)`$). It has slowly become clear that the important information coming-out from experiments in spin-glasses regards dynamic out-equilibrium effects, such as this one or the more sophisticated memory and rejuvenation effects . Although there has been a burst of theoretical activity in out-of-equilibrium dynamics , it is still not clear111A very encouraging experiment  measuring the violation factor of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem  has been recently reported. how out-equilibrium experiments will help us to choose among the conflicting theoretical views on the nature of spin-glasses: Replica-Symmetry Breaking  (RSB), the droplets picture , and the intermediate TNT picture . The situation is farther complicated by the fact that detailed theoretical predictions (to be confronted with experiments) can be extracted from models only through Monte Carlo simulations. It is worth recalling that numerical results on out-of-equilibrium dynamics have cast some doubts even on the usefulness of the Edwards-Anderson model to describe physical spin-glasses  (see however  for some reassuring results).

It is thus clear that one needs to address quantitatively the time-decay of $`M_{t_w}(t)`$ or equivalently, given the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem , the time-dependent correlation function222Actually, in the aging regime they are related by a very smooth function . in the absence of a magnetic field:

$$C(t,t_w)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\sigma _i(t+t_w)\sigma _i(t)$$
(1)
Now, it seems to be a fact of general validity in out-equilibrium dynamics  that $`C(t,t_w)`$ behaves differently in different time-sectors. Loosing generality333The here presented formulation cannot describe logarithmic domain-growth, for instance. See in  the general framework. for the sake of clarity, this amounts to say that it can be decomposed as

$$C(t,t_w)=\underset{i}{}f_i\left(\frac{(t+t_w)^{1\mu _i}t_w^{1\mu _i}}{1\mu }\right).$$
(2)
Here, $`f_i`$ are smooth, decreasing functions that tend to zero at infinity, and such that $`f_i(0)`$ is of order one. It follows that if $`tt_w^{\mu _i}`$ the $`ith`$ time sector contributes the constant value $`f_i(0)`$ to $`C(t,t_w)`$, while for $`tt_w^{\mu _i}`$ it contributes nothing. In other words, the $`ith`$ time sector is active only for $`tt_w^{\mu _i}`$ (notice that the different time sectors get neatly separated only in the limit of very large $`t_w`$). Not much is known about the exponents $`\mu _i`$ defining the different time sectors. With this popular parametrization , one has $`0\mu _i1`$. For the simple case of the coarsening-dynamics (domain-growth) of an ordered ferromagnet, only two time sectors are needed for a complete description: $`\mu _1=0`$ describing the stationary, $`t_w`$ independent dynamics found at small $`t`$, and $`\mu _2=1`$ describing the full-aging situation where the correlation-function depends on the ratio $`t/t_w`$. Also the spin-glass dynamics has been experimentally claimed to be ruled only by two time sectors: $`\mu _1=0`$ and $`\mu _2=0.97`$. The second time sector is slightly but clearly different from the full-aging $`t/t_w`$ behavior ($`\mu =1`$) and is thus named sub-aging. However, a very recent experiment seems to indicate that the sub-aging behavior is just an artifact of the finite-time needed to cool the system down to the working temperature (a limitation not suffered of in numerical simulations). Using their fastest cooling protocol, Rodriguez et al. have found a clear full-aging behavior $`\mu _2=0.999`$. Furthermore, the role of the stationary time-sector ($`\mu _1=0`$) to describe the data is far less critical than previously thought. It is also worth mentioning the recent numerical results in 3 and 4 dimensions by Berthier and Bouchaud , who found superaging for infinite cooling rates, turning to subaging for finite cooling rates. At this point, we wish to make two comments:

* The presence of more than two time-sectors seems to be a crucial requirement for the validity of the dynamic version of the usual ultrametric Replica-Symmetry Breaking description of spin-glasses with an infinite number of replica symmetry breakings.
* If the largest $`\mu `$ exponent is 1, as implied by this popular parametrization , for the very large $`t_w`$ achieved in experiments (1 second means roughly $`t_w=10^{12}`$), it is quite possible that all the faster sectors have already died-out since $`t_w^{\mu _i}t_wt`$. A full-aging ansatz could pretty well describe the data, specially if the second-largest $`\mu `$ exponent is significantly smaller than one. In this respect, a numerical simulation could have a better chance of observing the different time sectors.

To conclude this introduction, let us recall the main results of previous intensive numerical studies of aging dynamics  (for a more recent extensive numerical study of the aging dynamics with a different focus see ). Indeed, it was found  that the correlation function at short times ($`tt_w`$) could be described as a power law with a temperature dependent exponent ($`C(t,t_w)t^{x(T)}`$). The exponent $`x(T)`$ was found to be fairly small ($`x(T=0.5T_\mathrm{c})=0.015`$) On the other hand, at long times a power-law decay with a different exponent, $`\lambda (T,t_w)`$, was observed ($`C(t,t_w)=t^{\lambda (T,t_w)}`$ for $`tt_w`$). Yet a cross-over functional form was proposed  (see also Ref. ), implying that $`\lambda (T,t_w)`$ saturates to $`\lambda (T)`$ for large $`t_w`$:

$$C(t,t_w)=t^{x(T)}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{t}{t_w}\right).$$
(3)
The cross-over function was proposed to be decreasing, smooth, and to have the asymptotic behaviors $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)constant`$ for small $`y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)y^{\lambda (T)+x(T)}`$ for large $`y`$. However, in the spanned time scales  ($`t_w10^5`$, $`t10^6`$), $`\lambda (T)`$ was actually found to significantly depend on $`t_w`$. Yet, if one assumes that $`\lambda (T,t_w)`$ saturates to $`\lambda (T)`$ for large $`t_w`$, so that Eq.(3) could hold, one would speak of a dynamics with effectively three time sectors: $`\mu _1=0`$, $`\mu _2=1x(T)/\lambda (T)`$, and $`\mu _3=1`$ (to derive this, assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ is an analytical function, such as $`(1+y)^{\lambda (T)+x(T)}`$). However, since $`x(T)/\lambda (T)`$ was found  to be $`0.1`$ or smaller, it would not be easy to separate the $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ sectors. On the other hand, it is clear that Eq.(3) describes a non-ultrametric dynamics.

In this paper, by extensive Monte Carlo simulations using among others the dedicated SUE machine , we will show that there are small yet quite significant deviations to Eq.(3) in finite dimensions. Surprisingly enough, our results in infinite dimensions are rather different, and suggest that dynamical ultrametricity could not hold in (some) statically ultrametric systems. As the reader will notice, heavy use of data fitting will be made in the following. Unfortunately there is no precise theory that tell us which should be the precise functional form of $`C(t+t_w,t_w)`$, so it is difficult to justify theoretically many of the fits. Also the very good power like behaviour we found cannot be recovered from analytic computations. Here we are doing some kind of exploratory work, trying to guess which could be a reasonable form that well represents the data. This may be useful for a number of reasons: If we can do good fits at given vale of $`t_w`$ it is rather more convenient to look to the dependence of the fits parameter on $`t_w`$ than to the data themselves (sometimes scaling plots may be misleading), good fits may evidentiate some behaviour that could be eventually analytically derived, fits can also used to extrapolate data to large times. Finally, notice that as an outcome of this strategy, some of the fits that we are doing could also be useful in analyzing experimental data.

The layout of the rest of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we describe our simulations. In section 3 we concentrate on the spin-spin correlation function, presenting a new parametrization of the function $`C(t,t_w)`$, and discussing the possibility of numerically studying the existence of more than two time-sectors. In section 4 we focus on the aging behavior of the link-overlap and the link-correlation function (defined in section 2). We shall conclude that even in the limit of infinite waiting time, the link-correlation function ages. Finally, we present our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 The simulation

We have studied the three dimensional Ising spin glass defined on a cubic lattice ($`L\times L\times L`$) with helicoidal boundary conditions444Let $`(x,y,z)`$ be the lattice coordinates of spin number $`ix+yL+zL^2`$, then the coordinates of the three nearest neighbors (in the three positive directions) are given by: $`i_1=(i+1)\mathrm{mod}L^3`$, $`i_2=(i+L)\mathrm{mod}L^3`$ and $`i_3=(i+L^2)\mathrm{mod}L^3`$.. The Hamiltonian is

$$=\underset{}{}\sigma _iJ_{ij}\sigma _j.$$
(4)
The large time scale and lattice sizes simulated have been possible due to the use of a dedicated computer, SUE (Spin Update Engine, Universidad de Zaragoza) based on programmable components, and achieving an update speed of of 0.22 nanoseconds per spin. Details about the machine can be found in Refs. .

The volume of the system is $`V=L^3`$, $`\sigma _i`$ are Ising variables, $`J_{ij}`$ (uncorrelated quenched disorder) are $`\pm 1`$ with equal probability, and the sum is extended to all pairs of nearest neighbors. The choice of helicoidal boundary conditions is mandatory (for us) because the hardware of the SUE machine has been optimized for them. During the simulation we have measured the following quantities:

$`C(t,t_w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i(t+t_w)\sigma _i(t),`$ (5)
$`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{DN}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{D}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i(t+t_w)\sigma _{i+\mu }(t+t_w)\sigma _i(t_w)\sigma _{i+\mu }(t_w),`$ (6)
$`q(t_w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i^{(1)}(t_w)\sigma _i^{(2)}(t_w)\right|,`$ (7)
$`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{DN}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{D}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i^{(1)}(t_w)\sigma _{i+\mu }^{(1)}(t_w)\sigma _i^{(2)}(t_w)\sigma _{i+\mu }^{(2)}(t_w).`$ (8)
in the above equations, $`D`$ is the spatial dimension, $`i+\mu `$ stands for the nearest neighbor in the $`\mu `$ direction, while the superscript $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ refer to the replica index (real replicas: pair of systems evolving independently with the same couplings $`J_{i,j}`$). The notation $`\mathrm{}`$ refers both to average over thermal histories (random-numbers) and over disorder realizations. Let us just recall that since the starting configurations are random, we have explored the so-called $`q=0`$ sector , in which one expects dynamical correlation functions to be self-averaging.

Given the unique features of the SUE machine we have preferred to use it for very long runs in a rather small number of samples. The lattice sizes studied have been $`L=20,L=30`$ and $`L=60`$. We have considered three values of the inverse temperature: $`\beta =1.25,1.67`$ and $`2.0`$ (hereafter to be referred to as $`T=0.8,0.6`$ and $`T=0.5`$ respectively). The critical temperature for this model is $`T_\mathrm{c}=1.14(1)`$, thus the selected temperatures are $`0.7T_\mathrm{c},0.53T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`0.44T_\mathrm{c}`$ respectively. Given the very slow growth of the spin-glass coherence length (see e.g. ) one should not expect noticeable finite-size effects even for the $`L=20`$ lattice. However, as it is well known, sample-to-sample fluctuations in $`C(t,t_w)`$ decrease fastly with growing system sizes.

We can sum up the details of the SUE simulations in table 1. The SUE time-step corresponds to 8192 full-lattice sequential heat-bath updates. For $`C(t,t_w)`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)`$ we have selected the $`t`$ and $`t_w`$ values in a logarithmic scale. These values corresponds actually to $`8192\times 2^{0.25i},i=1,\mathrm{}`$. The number of simulated samples has been 16 for the $`L=60`$ systems and 32 for the $`L=20,30`$ ones. Here, we will only present the results for $`L=60`$, since the data for $`L=20`$ and $`L=30`$ are fully compatible with them, but far noisier. Yet, much more accurate data have been obtained for moderate $`t`$ and $`t_w`$ from simulations on a PC (see below) of an $`L=33`$ system.

To have some data at times shorter than SUE step $`8192`$, we have simulated (using heat-bath) on a personal computer 80 samples with $`L=60`$ ($`t_w6877`$ , $`t65519`$).

In addition, we have performed Metropolis simulations on personal computers for the same model in 3D ($`L=33`$, $`T=0.8=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`t_w2^{18}`$, $`t2^{22}`$), 4D ($`L=37`$, $`T=1.2=0.6T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`t_w2^{18}`$, $`t2^{22}`$ ) and in the infinite-dimensional Viana-Bray model ($`z=6`$, $`N=5\times 10^6`$, $`T=0.8=0.34T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`t_w2^{13}`$, $`t2^{17}`$ and $`N=10^6`$ $`T=0.8`$, $`t_w2^{19}`$, $`t2^{16}`$). Even if the times were shorter than in SUE, the number of simulated samples has been much larger. The typical statistical error in correlation functions (as calculated from the sample-to-sample fluctuations) obtained in the PC was 20 times smaller than the statistical errors of the SUE results.

## 3 Aging dynamics

We have found in finite dimensions ($`D=3`$ and $`D=4`$) that the correlation function $`C(t,t_w)`$ can be nicely fitted for $`tt_w`$ as

$$C(t,t_w)=A(t_w)\left(1+\frac{t}{t_w}\right)^{1/\alpha (t_w)},t>t_w.$$
(9)
As it can be seen in Figs. 1,2 and 3, for a wide range of $`t/t_w`$ and $`t_w`$ and all three temperature a simple power-law decay seems enough to describe the data, although the coefficients $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$ clearly depends on temperature (notice that $`\alpha (t_w)`$ is just the inverse of Rieger et al.  $`\lambda (T,t_w)`$ exponent). The behavior in infinite dimensions ($`z=6`$ Viana-Bray model) is rather different and will be discussed at the end of this section.

It is clear that the waiting-time dependence of the prefactor $`A(t_w)`$ and the exponent $`\alpha (t_w)`$ is of utmost importance. Should $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$ tend to constant non vanishing values, dynamic ultrametricity  would not hold, implying that the usual dynamic formulation of the ultrametric approach to continuous Replica Symmetry Breaking should be modified. Furthermore, we have been unable of finding a divergence law for $`\alpha (t_w)`$ compatible with dynamic ultrametricity, if $`A(t_w)`$ has a non-vanishing limiting value for large $`t_w`$. Thus, we tend to believe that dynamical ultrametricity implies that $`A(t_w)`$ should vanish in the large $`t_w`$ limit.

To obtain the coefficients $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$ we have fitted the correlation functions $`C(t,t_w)`$ to the functional form in Eq.(9). Yet, although Figs. 1,2 and 3, suggest a pure power-law behavior, we have found some dependence of $`\alpha (t_w)`$ on the fitting-window, particularly for $`T=0.5`$. Specifically, at $`T=0.5`$ $`\alpha (t_w=8192)`$ grows a $`10\%`$ if the fit is performed for $`t_wt10^5t_w`$ as compared to the fit in the window $`t_wt10t_w`$. Not taking care of this could be dangerous since, obviously, the larger $`t_w`$ the shorter the achievable $`t/t_w`$. Thus, in order to isolate the $`t_w`$-dependence we have restricted ourselves to the fitting range $`t_wt10t_w`$. On the other hand, the prefactor $`A(t_w)`$ is basically independent of the fitting-window. Another tricky point is the error-estimate for $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$. It is clear that standard techniques ($`\chi ^2`$ minimization) work poorly for tremendously correlated stochastic variables such as $`C(t,t_w)`$ for successive $`t`$. In order to have a (hopefully) reasonable estimate we have turned to a Jack-Knife procedure on the fitted coefficients themselves.

Our results for the prefactor $`A(t_w)`$ and the exponent $`\alpha (t_w)`$ of the heat-bath dynamics in the $`D=3`$ case, can be found in Figs. 4 ($`T=0.8`$), 5 ($`T=0.6`$) and 6 ($`T=0.5`$). The results for $`t_w<8192`$ were obtained on a PC (see section 2), while for $`t_w8192`$ SUE data were used. Actually, we have found that the functional form (9) is not suitable for very small $`t_w`$, thus there is a lower, temperature-dependent, cut-off on the $`t_w`$ values shown in Figs. 45 and 6.

As far as the exponent $`\alpha (t_w)`$ is concerned (see the upper part of Figs. 45 and 6), we have a significant growth for $`t_w<10^6`$. For larger $`t_w`$, $`\alpha (t_w)`$ is constant within errors. This (asymptotic?) value would correspond to the inverse of the large waiting time limit of Rieger et al.  aging exponent $`\lambda (T,t_w)`$. Interestingly enough, the values of $`\alpha (t_w)`$ for the largest achieved $`t_w`$ seems to be proportional to $`T_\mathrm{c}/T`$. On the other hand, the prefactor $`A(t_w)`$ (see the lower part of Figs. 45 and 6) clearly decreases in all the simulated $`t_w`$ range. A power law seems to be appropriate for this decay, the exponent being precisely the exponent $`x(T)`$ in Eq.(3). Thus, we find $`x(0.7T_\mathrm{c})=0.016`$, $`x(0.53T_\mathrm{c})=0.0064`$, $`x(0.44T_\mathrm{c})=0.0049`$.

We have found similar results (see Fig. 9) for the Metropolis dynamics of the Edwards-Anderson model with binary-couplings distributions in three dimensions ($`T=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$), four-dimensions ($`T=0.6T_\mathrm{c}`$). For all the simulated $`t_w`$ ($`<10^6`$) we have found a growing trend in the exponent $`\alpha (t_w)`$. As usual, the dynamics in four dimensions is faster than in three dimensions (notice how the $`\alpha (t_w)`$ is smaller but more rapidly growing). The prefactor $`A(t_w)`$ decreases. A power-law seems to be adequate for this decay in $`D=3`$, but this is less clear for the four-dimensional lattice.

Up to now, we have only confirmed that the dynamics for $`tt_w`$, and $`t_w>10^6`$ can be rather well described by the cross-over  formula (3), and we have given an explicit form for the cross-over function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$ (see Eq.(9)). We are thus predicting that $`C(t_w,t_w)`$ should vanish in the infinite waiting-time limit: dynamic ultrametricity reduces to a trivial $`0=0`$ statement in the $`tt_w`$ time-sector. Therefore, non trivial statements about dynamical ultrametricity should regard times $`1tt_w`$. In this time sector, the cross-over formula (3), predicts a time-translational invariant ($`\mu =0`$) power law decay, $`C(t,t_w)=\mathrm{\Phi }(0)/t^{x(T)}`$. This prediction is of course non-ultrametric.

However, one could wonder about the presence of more than one time sector. In fact, as one can see in Fig. 8 for the Metropolis dynamics of the 3D Edwards-Anderson model at $`T=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$, small but measureable deviations from time-traslation invariance appear at $`t/t_w10^3`$. In order to explore the regime $`1tt_w`$, we have introduced a subtracted correlation function:

$$C_{\mathrm{subs}}(t,t_w)=C(t,t_w)A(t_w)\left(1+\frac{t}{t_w}\right)^{1/\alpha (t_w)}.$$
(10)
where $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$ are of course the coefficients obtained in the fit to the functional form (9) for each $`t_w`$. To motivate it, let us recall that the quasi equilibrium regime is realized in the case where $`t_w`$ goes to infinity at fixed $`t`$. Naive scaling predicts that $`C(t+t_w,t_w)`$ goes to a non trivial function of $`t/t_w`$ when $`t_w`$ goes to infinity. However we have already remarked that we could have also a subaging contribution and find a non trivial behaviour in the region where $`t`$ is of order $`t_w^\mu `$ with $`\mu <1`$. In this region we have $`1tt_w`$, but we may be not in the quasi-equilibrium regime as far as $`t`$ goes to infinity and it is not fixed. One reason for studying $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}(t,t_w)`$ is that in the case of multitime sectors, the correlation function is the sum of contributions coming from each time sector and the subtraction help to identify the given time sector.

We show in Fig. 9 $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}(t,t_w)`$ for $`D=3`$, $`T=0.8`$, as a function of $`t/t_w`$ (upper-part) and as a function of $`t/t_w^{0.6}`$ (lower panel). It is clear that $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}`$ can be described as a function of $`t/t_w`$ for $`t>0.1t_w`$, but that strong deviations are present for smaller times. The inset in the top panel of Fig. 9 shows as well that $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}(t,t_w)`$ is not a function of $`t`$, as the cross-over formula (3) would suggest. On the other hand, the lower part of Fig. 9 shows that $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}(t,t_w)`$ seems really a function555Notice that the numerical value of the quotient $`t/t_w^{0.6}`$ is not invariant under a change of time units, so that one should really speak about $`t/(\tau _0^{0.4}t_w^{0.6})`$, $`\tau _0`$ being the used time unit. Thus, we do not attribute any special significance to $`t/t_w^{0.6}=1`$. of $`t/t_w^{0.6}`$ during two decades (corresponding to the decay from $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}=0.18`$ to $`C_{\mathrm{subs}}=0.1`$). Up to our knowledge, this is the first time that a time sector different from $`\mu =0`$ (time-translational invariant) and $`\mu =1`$ (full-aging), has been studied. A cautionary remark is in order, though, for one cannot exclude that the $`t/t_w^{0.6}`$ scaling could stop to apply at much larger $`t_w`$. Unfortunately, because of the small number of simulated samples, we have not been able to repeat this analysis with SUE data: the $`t/t_w`$ scaling and the $`t/t_w^{0.6}`$ scaling for $`C_{\mathrm{subst}}`$ look indistinguishable within error bars.

It is clear that more work needs to be done in order to design an efficient protocol to study the different time-sectors. Yet, we hope that the reader will be convinced that it should be feasible.

The Metropolis dynamics of the infinite-dimensional $`z=6`$ Viana-Brey model is rather different. As we show in fig. 10, the long-time decay of $`C(t,t_w)`$ is not a power-law. Thus, it cannot be fitted with Eq.(9). We have found (see fig. 11) that a fit to

$$C(t,t_w)=S(t_w)\mathrm{exp}\left[\eta (t_w)\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}\left(1+t/t_w\right)}}{\mathrm{log}t_w}\right],t>t_w.$$
(11)
is rather adequate. Moreover, $`S(t_w)`$ and $`\eta (t_w)`$ seem to have a well defined limit for large $`t_w`$, $`S(t_w\mathrm{})`$ being quite close to the Edwards-Anderson order-parameter $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}=0.78`$ that in this model has been computed  at the one-step level of replica-symmetry breaking. If one believes that our results are almost asymptotic, so that the large $`t_w`$ correlation function truly is

$$C(t,t_w)q_{\mathrm{EA}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\eta \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{log}\left(1+t/t_w\right)}}{\mathrm{log}t_w}\right],t>t_w,$$
(12)
the rather amazing conclusion is reached that this ultrametric system (from the point of view of statics ) is not ultrametric from the point of view of dynamics! It has been pointed out  that dynamical ultrametricity implies (under reasonable hypothesis) statical ultrametricity, however our results suggest that dynamical ultrametricity is maybe not a necessary condition for the validity of RSB. The reader can check that the weaker property of separation of time scales holds: let $`t(C;t_w)`$ be the time necessary for the correlation function at waiting-time $`t_w`$ to reach the value $`C`$. One has

$$\underset{t_w\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{t(C_1;t_w)}{t(C_2;t_w)}=0\mathrm{if}C_1>C_2.$$
(13)
It is somehow disappointing, though, that this property is expected to hold as well for the Langevin dynamics of the disordered ferromagnet .

## 4 The link overlap

In recent years, a new picture of the low temperature phase of spin-glasses has been put forward , the so-called TNT picture. These authors propose that the link-overlap defined in Eq.(8) should have a trivial distribution function (a Dirac delta) in the thermodynamic limit (for a recent study of the link-overlap and related quantities see Ref. ). On the other hand, the spin-overlap defined in Eq.(7), would have a non trivial distribution function, as predicted by RSB . In contradiction with RSB, the TNT picture requires that the large waiting time limit of $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$ be equal to the limit of $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ (since there would be only a possible value for this quantity!). This can be checked in our simulations. In Fig. 12 we show $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ obtained from SUE, for temperatures $`T=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`T=0.53T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`T=0.44T_\mathrm{c}`$, as a function of $`t_w^{0.08}`$. The extrapolation as a function of $`t_w^{0.08}`$ was suggested by the fact that $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ is roughly a linear function of this variable. Some arguments for its validity has also been given in previous work . We notice that $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ has a very mild temperature dependence. Furthermore, for large $`t_w`$, $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,T=0.6)`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,T=0.5)`$ are on the top of each other (within error bars), while $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,T=0.8)`$ is fast approaching them. Indeed, one would expect $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w=\mathrm{},T=0.5)>q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w=\mathrm{},T=0.6)>q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w=\mathrm{},T=0.8)`$, so that the three lines should cross. The fact that the infinite waiting-time limit of $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,T=0.5)`$ is smaller than $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w=\mathrm{},T=0.6)>q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w=\mathrm{},T=0.8)`$, indicates that for $`T=0.5`$ the data should probably extrapolate like $`t_w^\eta `$ with $`\eta <0.08`$. On the other hand, $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$ shows a much stronger temperature dependence and, for $`T=0.5`$ and $`T=0.6`$, is basically $`t_w`$ independent. It seems plausible that, for $`T=0.8`$, the limiting value of $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ will be fairly close. However, for $`T=0.5`$ and $`0.6`$ the limits will be noticeably different unless the dynamics changes drastically at larger $`t_w`$. Interestingly enough, in four dimensions and $`T=0.6T_\mathrm{c}`$ (see Fig. 13, lower part), $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w)`$ seems to be linear in $`t_w^{0.17}`$, and to extrapolate to different values.

Another interesting question regards the aging properties of the link correlation-function. From the droplet  and TNT pictures of spin-glasses, one would not expect that $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)`$ would age (at least, for large enough $`t_w`$). On the other hand, the RSB picture expects aging properties akin to the ones of $`C(t,t_w)`$. To check for this, one could just look to $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)`$ as a function of $`C^2(t,t_w)`$ (see Fig. 14). If one concentrates in a small window of $`C^2`$, $`0.2<C^2<0.35`$ a linear description is perfectly adequate:

$$C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)=a(t_w)+b(t_w)C^2(t,t_w).$$
(14)
The question now translates to the behavior of $`a(t_w)`$ and $`b(t_w)`$. The TNT and droplet pictures predict that $`b(t_w)`$ tend to zero and $`a(t_w)`$ tend to the large waiting time limit of $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$. On the other hand, RSB predicts a non-vanishing limit of $`b(t_w)`$.

In Fig.15, we show coefficients $`a(t_w)`$ (bottom) and $`b(t_w)`$ (top), as a function of $`t_w^{0.08}`$, for the heat-bath dynamics of the 3D Edwards-Anderson model, at $`T=0.5,0.6`$ and $`0.8`$. Obviously, the lower $`T`$, the smaller is the range of $`t_w`$ shown, because $`C^2(t,t_w)`$ does not reach 0.2 for all the $`t_w`$ in our simulation time. The errors in $`a(t_w)`$ and $`b(t_w)`$ have been calculated with a Jack-Knife procedure. The coefficients seems to have a nice linear behavior in $`t_w^{0.08}`$. One thus conclude that, unless a drastic change arise in the behavior of $`a(t_w)`$ and $`b(t_w)`$, the slope $`b(t_w)`$ will not vanish asymptotically. This implies that $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t,t_w)`$ should age as $`C^2(t,t_w)`$ does. One must acknowledge, however, that the conclusion is less sound for $`T=0.8`$ than for the lower temperatures. In fact, for $`T=0.8`$ the infinite-volume extrapolation of $`a(t_w)`$ (see bottom part of Fig. 15) is quite close to the large time-limit of $`C_{\mathrm{link}}(t_w,t_w)`$, as TNT would predict. For the lower temperatures this extrapolations are clearly different. The data in four-dimensions support as well the RSB prediction (see the top part of Fig.13).

## 5 Conclusions

In this work, we report the results of a large scale Monte Carlo simulation of the heath-bath dynamics of the three dimensional Edwards-Anderson model with binary coupling at temperatures $`T=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`0.53T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`0.44T_\mathrm{c}`$ (see table 1). The long times achieved and the large lattices studied ($`60^3`$), have been made possible by the SUE machine. In addition, shorter but more precise666Due to the larger number of simulated samples. simulations are presented for the Metropolis dynamic of the same model in 3D, 4D and the infinite-dimensional Viana-Bray model.

For the spin correlation-function in $`D=3`$ and $`D=4`$, we find that an slightly modified power law (see Eq.(9)), well describes the data for $`t>t_w`$. This formula is identical to the cross-over like parametrization (3) proposed by Rieger et al. . However, in the regime $`1tt_w`$ a different behavior is observed. A numerical procedure is proposed for the study of the different time-sectors believed to exist in spin-glasses dynamics . Indeed, a time sector with characteristic exponent $`\mu =0.6`$ is observed for the first time, we believe, although to firmly establish this result will require very precise simulations at still larger $`t_w`$. In spite of this, the very slow $`t_w`$ evolution of $`A(t_w)`$ and $`\alpha (t_w)`$ (see Eq.(9)), makes us to believe that in thermoremanent magnetization measurements (usually restricted to the range $`10^2t_w<t<10^2t_w`$), a perfect full-aging behavior occurs, in agreement with a recent experiment , and mild disagreement with older ones  (see also ). Although it is somehow disappointing that the study of the (in)existence of more than two-time sectors in spin-glass dynamics should be restricted to simulations, we still think that it should be feasible. Nevertheless, one can always hope that new experimental techniques and protocols will be eventually able to explore this time-regime.

In infinite-dimensions, or at least for the $`z=6`$ Viana-Bray model, we have found a different scaling. The decay of the spin-correlation function is not a power law. Moreover, the limiting functional-form Eq.(12) is not dynamically ultrametric. Although clearly more work is needed to establish this result, it suggests that dynamical ultrametricity is maybe not such an interesting property as previously thought.

We have considered as well the aging properties of the link-overlap and the link correlation-function, both in three dimensions and in 4D. We have concluded that, unless a drastic change in the dynamical properties arises for $`t_w`$ larger than the here studied, the link correlation-function should age precisely in the same way as the spin correlation-function. This is in plain disagreement with the droplet and the TNT pictures of the spin-glass phase. However, one must acknowledge that the data at the highest studied temperature in three dimensions ($`T=0.7T_\mathrm{c}`$) are not incompatible with the TNT picture.

We are indebted with L.A. Fernández and J.J. Ruiz-Lorenzo for discussions. We thank the Spanish MCyT for financial support through research contracts FPA2001-1813,FPA2000-0956,BFM2001-0718 and PB98-0842. V.M.M. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow (MCyT) and S.J. is a DGA fellow.