text:
# Measurements of the Mass and Width of the 𝜂_𝑐 Meson and of an 𝜂_𝑐(2𝑆) Candidate

BABAR-PUB-03/023

SLAC-PUB-10245

thanks: Deceased

The BABAR Collaboration

## Abstract

The mass $`m_{\eta _c}`$ and total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}`$ of the $`\eta _c`$ meson have been measured in two-photon interactions at the SLAC $`e^+e^{}`$ asymmetric $`B`$-Factory with the BABAR detector. With a sample of approximately 2500 reconstructed $`\eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decays in 88 fb-1 of data, the results are $`m_{\eta _c}`$ = 2982.5 $`\pm `$ 1.1 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.9 (syst)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}`$ = 34.3 $`\pm `$ 2.3 (stat) $`\pm `$ 0.9 (syst)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. Using the same decay mode, a second resonance with $`112\pm 24`$ events is observed with a mass of 3630.8 $`\pm `$ 3.4 (stat) $`\pm `$ 1.0 (syst)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and width of 17.0 $`\pm `$ 8.3 (stat) $`\pm `$ 2.5 (syst)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. This observation is consistent with expectations for the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state.

preprint: BABAR-PUB-03/023preprint: SLAC-PUB-10245

The mass and width of the $`\eta _c`$ meson ($`J^{PC}=0^+`$), the lowest lying state of charmonium, are not as well established as those of the $`J/\psi `$ meson. The world average pdg  of the total width is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}=16.0_{3.2}^{+3.6}`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, with individual measurements ranging from 7$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ to 27$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ with large errors. Recent measurements etac  extend from 17$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ to 29$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$.

A radial excitation of the $`\eta _c`$, the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state, is predicted by heavy quark potential models to lie below the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold theor . The hyperfine separations ($`\eta _c,J/\psi `$) and ($`\eta _c(2S),\psi (2S)`$) are directly related to the spin-spin interaction. These calculations predict the mass splitting $`m_{\psi (2S)}m_{\eta _c(2S)}`$ to be in the range 42–103$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The Crystal Ball Collaboration edw82  observed a peak at 91 $`\pm `$ 5$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, in the inclusive photon spectrum of $`\psi (2S)`$ decays, with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }8`$$`\mathrm{MeV}`$ (95% confidence level). This peak was considered most likely to be due to $`\psi (2S)\eta _c(2S)\gamma `$, with the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state having a mass of 3594 $`\pm `$ 5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The Belle Collaboration recently reported signals attributed to the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state, but with substantially higher masses: for the $`K_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ mass distribution in exclusive $`BKK_S^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ decays cho02 , they measured 3654 $`\pm `$ 6 (stat) $`\pm `$ 8 (syst)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }55`$$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (90% confidence level); from a signal observed in the inclusive $`J/\psi `$ spectrum in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation abe02 , they measured 3622 $`\pm `$ 12$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. This state was unsuccessfully searched for in $`p\overline{p}X\gamma \gamma `$ fermi  and $`\gamma \gamma hadrons`$ cern . However, an estimate bar96  of the two-photon production rate of the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ suggested that this meson could be identified in the current $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$-factories.

In this analysis we measure the masses and widths of the $`\eta _c`$ and of a state interpreted as the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ meson, by reconstructing $`\gamma \gamma XK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ ($`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$) events in the BABAR detector at the PEP-II energy-asymmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ storage ring at SLAC. The data sample was collected both on and slightly below the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ resonance, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 88 fb-1.

The BABAR detector is described in detail in reference bab02 . The momenta of charged particles are measured and their trajectories reconstructed with two detector systems located in a 1.5 T solenoidal magnetic field: a five-layer, double-sided silicon strip vertex tracker and a 40-layer drift chamber. Both devices provide $`dE/dx`$ measurement. Charged particle identification is provided by a detector of internally reflected Cherenkov light, complemented by the $`dE/dx`$ measurement. The energies of electrons and photons are measured in a calorimeter consisting of 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals.

The mesons are formed by the interaction of two virtual photons. Since the $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$ scatter through too small an angle to be detected, the two photons are quasi-real and nearly aligned with the incident beams. A preselected sample comprises events having four charged tracks with a net zero charge and with total laboratory energy less than 9$`\mathrm{GeV}`$. This removes most events coming from $`B`$ meson decays.

A further selection of events is aimed at maximizing the ratio $`S/\sqrt{(S+B)}`$, where $`S`$ is the signal and $`B`$ the background, both taken within a $`\pm 50\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ window around the $`\eta _c`$ peak. Events with total transverse momentum in the center-of-mass greater than 1.05$`\mathrm{GeV}/c`$ or with total energy of neutral particles greater than 0.7$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ are rejected. In order to identify $`\eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ events, decays with one $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ candidate that lies within the window $`0.482M(K_S^0)0.512`$$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ are selected. Of the two remaining tracks, we require that one and only one be identified as a kaon; the other one is assumed to be a pion. The angle between the $`K_S^0`$ momentum and its flight path, as determined by the $`K_S^0`$ and $`K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ vertices, is required to be small ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta (K_S^0)0.992`$). Finally the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ vertex is fitted, with the $`K_S^0`$ mass constrained to the world average value pdg .

The resulting $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum is shown in Fig. 1, with a large peak at the $`\eta _c`$ mass and a smaller peak at the $`J/\psi `$ mass. Although the $`J/\psi `$ cannot be produced in two-photon fusion, it is expected to be produced with hard photon emission by initial state radiation (ISR). The boost of the asymmetric collider brings the decay products of $`J/\psi `$ mesons travelling in the backward direction into the acceptance of the detector.

A thorough understanding of the experimental resolution is essential to determine the width of the $`\eta _c`$ meson. The resolution for the $`J/\psi `$ can be inferred from data since its natural width is negligible. This is not the case for the $`\eta _c`$, which has a natural width somewhat larger than the detector resolution. To help determine the resolution for the $`\eta _c`$, Monte Carlo calculations were performed. The generator paa  used to simulate $`\gamma \gamma \eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ events applies the formalism of Budnev et al. bud75  to calculate the cross-section for the process $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma e^+e^{}\eta _c`$. Monte Carlo calculations were also performed to generate $`J/\psi `$ events produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation with initial state radiation. Both $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ were assumed to decay into $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ with a phase-space distribution. In the Monte Carlo simulation, the reconstructed $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ masses are both shifted by $`1.1\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ (with statistical errors of 0.1$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and 0.2$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ respectively) from their generated values. This bias does not affect the mass difference $`m_{J/\psi }m_{\eta _c}`$. The mass resolution is estimated by fitting the distribution of the difference between reconstructed mass and generated mass to a Gaussian function. Its standard deviation is found to be 7.3 $`\pm `$ 0.1$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`\eta _c`$ and 8.1 $`\pm `$ 0.2$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`J/\psi `$.

To determine the mass and width of the $`\eta _c`$, an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum for masses between 2.5 and 3.5$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is performed. The $`\eta _c`$ is represented by a Breit–Wigner function $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2/((Wm_{\eta _c})^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2)`$, with $`W`$ the invariant $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mass, convolved with a Gaussian resolution function. The $`J/\psi `$ peak is fitted with a Gaussian function. The background is represented by an exponential function of $`W`$, $`A\mathrm{exp}(\lambda W)`$. The free parameters of the fits are the $`J/\psi `$ mass $`m_{J/\psi }`$, the mass difference $`m_{J/\psi }m_{\eta _c}`$, the $`\eta _c`$ width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}`$, the $`J/\psi `$ resolution $`\sigma _{J/\psi }`$, the coefficients $`A`$ and $`\lambda `$ of the background, and the numbers of events in the $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ peaks. The resolution $`\sigma _{\eta _c}`$ of the $`\eta _c`$ peak is constrained to a value 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ lower than the $`J/\psi `$ resolution, as indicated by the Monte Carlo simulation. The results of the fit are: $`m_{J/\psi }`$ = 3093.6 $`\pm `$ 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{J/\psi }m_{\eta _c}`$ = 114.4 $`\pm `$ 1.1$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, $`\sigma _{J/\psi }`$ = 7.6 $`\pm `$ 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}`$ = 34.3 $`\pm `$ 2.3$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The numbers of $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ events are respectively 2547 $`\pm `$ 90 and 358 $`\pm `$ 33.

The mass resolution found for the $`J/\psi `$ is 0.5 $`\pm `$ 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ lower than the Monte Carlo prediction, but consistent with it. To evaluate the systematic uncertainty affecting the $`\eta _c`$ width, the conditions of the fit are varied as shown in Table 1. When $`\sigma _{J/\psi }`$ and $`\sigma _{\eta _c}`$ are fixed to the values obtained in the Monte Carlo simulation (second row of Table 1), the width of the $`\eta _c`$ changes by 0.6$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. We take this value as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty associated with the uncertainty on the $`\eta _c`$ resolution. The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}`$ changes by 0.4$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ on average when the mass range of the fit is varied from 2.4–3.6$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ to 2.7–3.3$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This gives an estimate of the systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of the mass range of the fit. By varying the event selection parameters, we estimate that the systematic uncertainty associated with the event selection is 0.5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The total systematic uncertainty on the $`\eta _c`$ width is then 0.9$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The final value of the $`\eta _c`$ width is:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c}=34.3\pm 2.3(stat)\pm 0.9(syst)\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$

The $`\eta _c`$ mass is 2982.5 $`\pm `$ 1.1 (stat) $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, obtained by subtracting 114.4$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ from the current world average value of the $`J/\psi `$ mass pdg . The $`\eta _c`$ and $`J/\psi `$ masses are unchanged by the alternative fits listed in Table 1. We estimate that the systematic uncertainty on $`m_{J/\psi }m_{\eta _c}`$, associated with the event selection, is 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. After correction for the $`1.1\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ shift seen in simulation, as mentioned above, the $`J/\psi `$ mass is still shifted by an additional $`2.2\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ relative to the well established world average value pdg . Because $`J/\psi `$ events and $`\eta _c`$ events populate different regions of detector acceptance, as illustrated in Fig. 2 for final-state pions, a shift that applies to the $`J/\psi `$ may not entirely apply to the $`\eta _c`$ due to possible imperfections in the detector modelling. When one selects $`\eta _c`$ events with decay particles going backward, as is the case for the $`J/\psi `$, the $`\eta _c`$ peak shifts by 0.5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, which we take as a contribution to the systematic uncertainty. The final value of the $`\eta _c`$ mass is then:

$$m_{\eta _c}=2982.5\pm 1.1(stat)\pm 0.9(syst)\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$

The peak at 3.63$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ in the $`K_S^0K\pi `$ mass spectrum (Fig. 1) may be the expected $`\eta _c(2S)`$ state. In order to optimize the significance of the signal, a new event selection is performed that maximizes the ratio $`S/\sqrt{B}`$. This is appropriate in place of $`S/\sqrt{S+B}`$ because we need to establish the significance of the peak without bias from assumptions about how much signal to expect, and in any case the branching fraction and $`\gamma \gamma `$ width needed for such a prediction are unknown. For $`S`$ we take the signal as generated from Monte Carlo simulation and $`B`$ is the background estimated from the average of the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ sidebands 3.30–3.48$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and 3.78–3.96$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ of the data. Events are required to have the total energy deposited by neutral particles less than 0.25$`\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta (K_S^0)0.995`$. The other optimized cuts are the same as for the $`\eta _c`$. The resulting mass spectrum is shown in Fig. 3.

The mass resolution determined from the Monte Carlo simulation is 9.2$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ and the reconstructed mass is 0.4$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ lower than the generated mass. Since the resolution for the $`J/\psi `$ was found to be 0.5 $`\pm `$ 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ lower in the data than in the Monte Carlo simulation, we assume that the resolution for $`\eta _c(2S)`$ is also 0.5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ lower in the data, with an uncertainty of 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ mass spectrum is then fitted between 3.3$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and 4.0$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ resonance shape being represented by a Breit–Wigner function convolved with a Gaussian resolution function with standard deviation 8.7$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The background is fitted with an exponential shape. The fit results in 112 $`\pm `$ 24 events in the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ peak. The significance of this signal is characterized by the quantity $`\sqrt{2\times \mathrm{log}_{max}/_0}`$ = 4.9, where $`_{max}`$ and $`_0`$ are respectively the likelihoods for the fits with and without the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ peak.

The $`m_{\eta _c(2S)}m_{J/\psi }`$ mass difference is found to be 534.6 $`\pm `$ 3.4 (stat)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. Taking into account the shifts from generated to reconstructed masses of $`1.1\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`J/\psi `$ and $`0.4\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`\eta _c(2S)`$, as found in the Monte Carlo simulation, this mass difference becomes 533.9$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass is then $`m_{\eta _c(2S)}`$ = $`m_{J/\psi }`$ \+ 533.9 = 3630.8 $`\pm `$ 3.4 (stat)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The measured total width is 17.0 $`\pm `$ 8.3 (stat)$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The resolution uncertainty of 0.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ results in a systematic uncertainty of 0.1$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ on the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass and 2.0$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ on its total width. When the mass range for the fit is varied to 3.2–4.1 or 3.4–3.9$`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass varies by 0.2$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ whereas its width varies by 1.2$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ on average. The $`0.5\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ uncertainty on the $`2.2\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ shift observed for the measured $`J/\psi `$ mass relative to the world average value is taken as a systematic uncertainty on the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass. Based on the upper limit for the branching fraction $`\psi (2S)K^+K^{}\pi ^0`$ pdg , we estimate that $`\psi (2S)`$ (with a mass of 3.686 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ pdg ) could contribute up to 5 events to the spectrum of Fig. 3. Allowing for this reduces the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ width by 0.7$`\mathrm{MeV}`$, which we take as a systematic uncertainty, whereas the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass varies by about 0.1$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$. The systematic uncertainties associated with the event selection are taken to be the same as for the $`\eta _c`$, 0.8 $`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for the $`\eta _c(2S)`$ mass and 0.5$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ for its total width. Adding all systematic uncertainties in quadrature, the final results are:

$$m_{\eta _c(2S)}=3630.8\pm 3.4(stat)\pm 1.0(syst)\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}^{\eta _c(2S)}=17.0\pm 8.3(stat)\pm 2.5(syst)\mathrm{MeV}/c^2.$$

While we have not measured the quantum numbers of the state at 3630.8$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$, demonstrating that it is formed from the fusion of two quasi-real photons would at least restrict the possibilities. Such a process can occur only if C=+, and JP = 0- (0+ is excluded by the final state), 2±, 3+, 4±, …. Other combinations would be possible if production were via an ISR process, or if at least one of the two photons in two-photon fusion were highly virtual. However ISR is excluded as the source, because the decay products of this state have angular distributions concentrated in the forward hemisphere, like the $`\eta _c`$, in contrast to the $`J/\psi `$ for which the decay products peak in the backward direction. This is illustrated in Fig. 2. Moreover the distribution of the total transverse momentum (Fig. 4) is peaked at 0, characteristic of quasi-real photons, and this excludes spin-one production. Thus the evidence supports the state having quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=0^+`$ or $`J2`$. But $`J2`$ is disfavored for a charmonium state of such low mass, which suggests that the state has the quantum numbers of the $`\eta _c(2S)`$.

In summary, we have measured the mass difference between the $`J/\psi `$ and the $`\eta _c`$ and the total width of the $`\eta _c`$, using 2547 $`\pm `$ 90 events of $`\gamma \gamma \eta _cK_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and 358 $`\pm `$ 33 $`J/\psi K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ events, selected with the BABAR detector.

A state which could be the expected $`\eta _c(2S)`$ was also observed in the $`K_S^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ decay mode, with 112 $`\pm `$ 24 events, and its mass and total width measured. The measured mass is significantly different from the mass of the state reported by the Crystal Ball Collaboration edw82 , but consistent with the measurements of the Belle Collaboration cho02 ; abe02 . We have presented evidence that this state is produced via the fusion of two quasi-real photons, which suggests that its quantum numbers are those of the $`\eta _c(2S)`$. The deduced mass splitting $`m_{\psi (2S)}m_{\eta _c(2S)}`$ = 55.2 $`\pm `$ 4.0$`\mathrm{MeV}/c^2`$ is consistent with theoretical expectations.

We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), IHEP (China), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France), BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), FOM (The Netherlands), NFR (Norway), MIST (Russia), and PPARC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received support from the A. P. Sloan Foundation, Research Corporation, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Evidence of Final-State Suppression of High-p__T Hadrons in Au + Au Collisions Using d + Au Measurements at RHIC

## 1 Introduction

In the theoretical analysis of particle production in hadronic and nuclear collisions, a distinction is often made between the relative contributions from “hard” parton-parton scattering processes and “soft” processes. The contribution from hard processes is expected to grow with increasing energy and to dominate particle production at high transverse momentum. Collisions of heavy nuclei offer ideal conditions to test our understanding of this picture, as “hard” processes are expected to scale with the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{coll}}`$, whereas “soft” particle production is expected to exhibit scaling with the number of participant nucleons $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}`$. In Glauber-model calculations, Ncoll scales approximately as (Npart)4/3. For Au $`+`$ Au collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) energies, it has been predicted that the yield and momentum distribution of particles produced by hard scattering processes may be modified by “jet quenching”, i.e. the energy loss of high momentum partons in the dense medium Gyl1 ; Gyl2 .

The data for Au $`+`$ Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ were collected using the PHOBOS two-arm magnetic spectrometer NIM  at RHIC. The spectrometer arms are each equipped with 16 layers of silicon sensors, providing charged particle tracking both outside and inside the 2T field of the PHOBOS magnet. The primary event trigger and event selection were provided by two sets of 16 scintillator counters. For d $`+`$ Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ an additional array of silicon detectors was used in the event selection. The array consisted of the central single-layer Octagon barrel detector and the three single-layer forward Ring detectors located on either side of the interaction point. In addition, two higher level trigger conditions were used which utilized two rings of ten Cerenkov counters around the beam pipe and two arrays of horizontally segmented scintillator hodoscopes behind the spectrometer. The yields of charged hadrons produced in Au + Au and d + Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ are presented as a function of collision centrality and transverse momentum $`p_T`$.

## 2 Observation of suppression of high-p$`__\mathrm{T}`$ particles in Au + Au at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$

The charged hadron distribution produced in the 0–15$`\%`$ most central Au $`+`$ Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$ is presented in Fig. 1. The distribution illustrates a “bulk” and “tail” which can be related to “soft” processes and “hard” parton-parton scattering respectively. It should be kept in mind, however, that there is no clear separation between “hard” and soft processes. For this reason, an analysis as a function of centrality and transverse momentum is required to better understand particle production.

To study the evolution of the spectra with centrality in detail, we divide the data by a fit to the $`p_T`$-distribution measured in proton-antiproton collisions at the same energy proton . The $`p+\overline{p}`$ data were translated into the PHOBOS acceptance using PYTHIA, following the procedure described in Ref. method . Fig. 2 shows the Au $`+`$ Au yields divided by $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}/2`$ for the mid-peripheral bin ($`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}=65\pm 4`$) and the most central bin ($`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}=344\pm 11`$) scaled by the fit to the measured $`p_T`$-distributions in proton-antiproton collisions. The brackets indicate the systematic uncertainty in the Au $`+`$ Au data (90$`\%`$ C.L.). The largest contributions to the systematic uncertainty are the overall tracking efficiency, independent of $`p_T`$, and the $`p_T`$-dependent momentum resolution and binning correction. The proximity of the tracking to the collision vertex ensures that the contamination by secondary particles and feed-down particles is small. Therefore the correction factor and the uncertainty are also small. Similarly, the high granularity and resolution of the tracking planes leads to a small uncertainty in the rate of “ghost” tracks.

As has been shown previously pr1 ; pr2 , the yield per participant pair in Au $`+`$ Au collisions at these centralities is significantly larger than in proton-antiproton collisions at the same energy. We also observe that in the mid-peripheral Au $`+`$ Au collisions with $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}=65`$ (corresponding to impact parameter $`b10`$ fm), the spectral shape is already strongly modified from that in $`p+\overline{p}`$ collisions. It is worth noting that the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{coll}}}{\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{part}}/2}`$ increases by a factor of almost three from $`p+\overline{p}`$ to the mid-peripheral Au $`+`$ Au collisions studied here. For the highest $`p_\mathrm{T}`$, the yield for central events is significantly smaller than expectations based on $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{coll}}`$-scaling.

## 3 Absence of suppression of high-p$`__\mathrm{T}`$ particles in d + Au at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$

The d $`+`$ Au measurement at higher energies is motivated by results from Au $`+`$ Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}`$ = 130 and 200 GeV. In these collisions, the expected scaling of hadron production with the number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions at $`p_\mathrm{T}`$ from 2 to 10 GeV/c is strongly violated Adc1 ; Adl ; Bac1 . This effect had been predicted as a consequence of the energy loss of high-$`p_T`$ partons in the hot and dense medium formed in Au $`+`$ Au collisions phe . The interpretation of the Au $`+`$ Au data relies on an understanding of initial state effects, including gluon saturation sat , which can be investigated with the d $`+`$ Au data presented here. By studying the spectra as a function of collision centrality, we can control the effective thickness of nuclear matter traversed by the incoming partons.

In Fig. 3 we present the nuclear modification factor $`R_{dAu}`$ as a function of $`p_T`$ for each centrality bin, defined as:

$$R_{dAu}=\frac{\sigma _{p\overline{p}}^{inel}d^2N_{dAu}/dp_Td\eta }{N_{coll}d^2\sigma (\mathrm{UA1})_{p\overline{p}}/dp_Td\eta }$$

Consistent with our Glauber calculation, we used $`\sigma _{p\overline{p}}^{inel}`$ = 41 mb. A value of $`R_{dAu}=1`$ corresponds to scaling of the yield as an incoherent superposition of nucleon-nucleon collisions. For all centrality bins, we observe rapid rises of $`R_{dAu}`$ from low $`p_T`$, leveling off at $`p_T`$ of $``$ 2 GeV/c. For comparison, we also plot the results from central Au $`+`$ Au collisions at the same energy Bac1  in the lower right panel of Fig. 3 as a solid line. The average number of collisions undergone by each participating nucleon in the central Au $`+`$ Au collision is close to 6, similar to that of each nucleon from the deuteron in a central d$`+`$Au collision. For central Au $`+`$ Au collisions, the ratio of the spectra to $`p+\overline{p}`$ rises rapidly up to $`p_T=`$ 2 GeV/c, but falls far short of collision scaling at larger $`p_T`$, in striking contrast to the behavior for central d $`+`$ Au collisions. Predictions for the evolution of $`R_{dAu}`$ from semi-peripheral collisions with $`\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{coll}}6`$ to central collisions were made in two qualitatively different models.

The results of a perturbative QCD calculation QCD  predict an increase in the maximum value of $`R_{dAu}`$ at $`p_T3.5`$ GeV/c of 15$`\%`$. In contrast, a decrease in $`R_{dAu}`$ by 25–30$`\%`$ over the same centrality range is predicted in the parton saturation model sat . The centrality evolution of $`R_{dAu}`$ is shown in Fig 4 for transverse momentum $`p_T=`$ 4 GeV/c, where the points were obtained from a fit to the $`p_T`$ dependence of $`R_{dAu}`$ in each centrality bin. We extract the ratio $`\frac{R_{dAu}(N_{coll}=14.6)}{R_{dAu}(N_{coll}=5.4)}=1.08\pm 0.06`$ (the systematic uncertainty corresponds to 15–20$`\%`$ at 90$`\%`$ C.L.). Our data therefore disfavor the prediction from the parton saturation model. The lack of suppression in d $`+`$ Au collisions suggests that it is unlikely that initial state effects can explain the suppression observed in central Au $`+`$ Au collisions.

This work was partially supported by U.S. DOE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, and W-31-109-ENG-38, US NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204, Polish KBN grant 2-P03B-10323, and NSC of Taiwan contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.


text:
# On the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism for fermionic systems

## Introduction

The basic property of fermions, half-integer spin, is a property of microscopic particles and is described by Quantum Mechanics. However the classical mechanics of fermions has been a very useful tool in their study, in particular regarding their path integral formulation 1 . Their Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations are well known, in particular the Hamiltonian requires of the Dirac formalism of singular systems 2 ; teitelboim , as far as they have second class constraints. The understanding of the Hamilton Jacobi (HJ) formalism can be helpful to understand better quantum systems. It has been applied to singular systems, as is the case of general relativity in the case of the Wheeler-DeWitt equations. In this case the HJ formulation amounts to set the constraints of the Hamiltonian formalism as differential equations on the wave function rovelli . For the WKB approximation of singular systems, in particular fermionic ones zumino , it would be also useful to have a systematic way to obtain the HJ formulation. Here an effort is made with the aim to understand this issue better. Although fermionic systems have been widely studied, their HJ formulation has been less studied. It has been worked out for bosonic constrained systems guler , where the constraints, obtained from the Hamiltonian formulation, are written as separated equations. For fermionic systems, a technique to handle a particular problem in the HJ formalism was proposed in zumino . However, the most general situation is not discussed. In brasilenios  the Güler formalism guler  is generalized to include fermionic variables, by the application of the usual concepts of classical analysis, whose properties, nevertheless, are not of general validity when dealing with nilpotent quantities. In this formulation all the constraints of the Hamiltonian formulation are kept as additional equations to the actual HJ equation. In tabunschyk  a formulation is given, which strongly relies on the Hamiltonian formulation.

Here we give a formulation of the HJ equation for fermionic systems, which is obtained as usual for bosonic theories, from the variation of the action in canonical coordinates, considering the transformation to constant new coordinates pavel . As in the Güler formalism, we apply the “second class” constraints characteristic of fermionic theories, as additional equations. We show that these equations have two important consistency consequences. First, from the way we obtain the HJ equation, there are two integration constants for each fermionic degree of freedom, and we get a set of equations among these constants, which reduce their number to half, as it must be for a first order theory. Further, related to this last fact, as noted in heno , boundary conditions have to be added to fermionic actions. This means that also the generator functions of canonical transformations must satisfy boundary conditions. It is shown that the mentioned equations ensure that these boundary conditions are automatically satisfied.

In order to verify the validity of the resulting equations, we consider two examples of simple fermionic systems. The solutions to these equations are found to be the same as the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations.

In the first section the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms for bosonic and fermionic systems are reviewed. In the second section the HJ equation for fermionic systems is given. In the next two sections illustrative fermionic systems of one and two variables are considered. In the framework of the second example, in the next section, the relation to the canonical transformations is established in a more precise way and, in the last section, the relation to the quantum theory is discussed.

## Fermionic Mechanics

Let us consider a classical system described by $`n`$ bosonic, even Grassmann, degrees of freedom $`q=(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_n)`$ and $`\mu `$ fermionic, odd Grassmann, degrees of freedom $`\psi =(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _\mu )`$. These variables obey the relations

$`q_iq_jq_jq_i`$ $`=`$ $`0i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},n,`$
$`q_i\psi _\alpha \psi _\alpha q_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta +\psi _\beta \psi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0\alpha ,\beta =1,2,\mathrm{},\mu .`$
In this case, the Lagrangian function depends on the $`q`$’s, on the $`\psi `$’s, and on their respective time derivatives

$$L=L(q,\psi ,\dot{q},\dot{\psi },t)=L(Q,\dot{Q},t),$$
(2)
where $`Q=(q,\psi )`$.

If we variate the corresponding action

$$\delta S=_{t_1}^{t_2}\left(\delta q_i\frac{L}{q_i}+\delta \dot{q}_i\frac{L}{\dot{q}_i}+\delta \psi _\alpha \frac{L}{\psi _\alpha }+\delta \dot{\psi }_\alpha \frac{L}{\dot{\psi }_\alpha }\right),$$
(3)
then, in order to get the Euler-Lagrange equations,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{Q}_k}\right)\frac{L}{Q_k}=0k=1,2,\mathrm{},n+\mu ,$$
(4)
suitable boundary conditions must be imposed. For the bosonic variables it can be done as usual by fixing each of them at both extrema. However, for each of the fermionic degrees of freedom, as far as they are first order in the velocities, only one boundary condition can be fixed. In this case, for consistency, suitable boundary terms must be added to the action heno . For example, if the fermionic kinetic term is $`L_{kin}=\frac{i}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\alpha \dot{\psi }_\beta `$, then the corrected action is given by heno ,

$$S\frac{i}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\alpha (t_1)\psi _\beta (t_2),$$
(5)
with the boundary conditions $`\delta [\psi _\alpha (t_1)+\psi _\alpha (t_2)]=0`$, that is $`\psi _\alpha (t_2)=\psi _\alpha (t_1)+\xi _\alpha `$, where $`\xi _\alpha `$ are constant anticommuting quantities.

The Hamiltonian is given by

$$H(Q,P,t)=\dot{q}p+\dot{\psi }\pi L\dot{Q}PL$$
(6)
were $`p_iL/\dot{q}^i`$, $`\pi ^\alpha L/\dot{\psi }_\alpha `$ and $`P(p,\pi )`$.

The Lagrangian (2) is first order in the fermionic variables, i.e. the kinetic term is linear in fermionic velocities and the potential does not depend on them. Therefore there are primary constraints,

$$\varphi ^\alpha =\pi ^\alpha f^\alpha (q,\psi ),$$
(7)
where $`f^\alpha (q,\psi )`$ are odd Grassmann functions. In the Dirac formalism for constrained systems, these constraints turn out to be second class. Further we suppose that there are no more constraints. Thus, due to the fact that in the Hamiltonian (6) the term $`\dot{\psi }_\alpha \pi ^\alpha `$ compensates the corresponding kinetic term in the Lagrangian, the canonical Hamiltonian does not depend on the fermionic momenta,

$$H=H(Q,p,t),$$
(8)
Therefore, if the Lagrangian is purely fermionic, the Hamiltonian will be given by the potential.

### HJ formalism for Grassmann variables

In order to find the HJ equation for the preceding system, we consider the variation of the action

$$S=_{t_1}^{t_2}L(Q,\dot{Q},t)𝑑t+BT=_{t_1}^{t_2}\left[\dot{Q}PH(Q,p,t)\right]𝑑t+BT,$$
(9)
where the second class constraints (7) and, as mentioned in the preceding section, suitable fermionic boundary conditions ($`BT`$) added to the action, insure us that the variation of the right hand side gives the correct equations of motion. For instance, if we consider the action $`L=\frac{i}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\alpha \dot{\psi }_\beta V(\psi )`$, then we have $`\pi ^\alpha =\frac{i}{2}g^{\alpha \beta }\psi _\beta `$ and if we impose the boundary conditions $`\delta [\psi _\alpha (t_1)+\psi _\alpha (t_2)]=0`$, then,

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left[\dot{\psi }_\alpha \pi ^\alpha H(\psi ,t)\right]𝑑t+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\psi _\alpha (t_1)\pi ^\alpha (t_2)\right\}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left(\delta \psi _\alpha \dot{\pi }^\alpha +\dot{\psi }_\alpha \delta \pi ^\alpha \delta \psi _\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{H}{\psi _\alpha }}\right)={\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\delta \psi _\alpha \left(ig^{\alpha \beta }\dot{\psi }_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{V}{\psi _\alpha }}\right)=0.`$
Thus, the physical phase space is ($`2n+\mu `$)-dimensional hyperplane $`𝒫`$, solution of (7).

Let us do a canonical transformation of coordinates, $`(Q,P)(\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{P})`$. In this case the constraints (7) will transform to some constraints

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\alpha (\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{P})=0.$$
(11)
To obtain the HJ equation a variation of these actions is done,

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left[\dot{Q}PH(Q,p,t)\right]𝑑t+BT\right\}=0,`$ (12)
$`\delta S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left[\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{P}H^{}(\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{P},t)\right]𝑑t+(BT)^{}\right\}=0,`$ (13)
The relation between integrands is,

$$\dot{Q}PH(Q,p,t)=\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{P}H^{}(\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{P},t)+\frac{dF}{dt}+K,$$
(14)
where $`K=\frac{(BT)^{}BT}{t_2t_1}`$ and $`F`$ is a function, whose dependence on the phase space coordinates and on time must be such that its variation at the boundary satisfies $`\delta [F(t_2)F(t_1)]=0`$.

If now $`F=F(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P}`$, then

$$\frac{dF}{dt}=\dot{Q}\frac{F}{Q}+\dot{\stackrel{~}{P}}\frac{F}{\stackrel{~}{P}}+\frac{F}{t}\frac{d}{dt}(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P}),$$
(15)
hence

$$\dot{Q}PH(Q,p,t)=\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}\stackrel{~}{P}H^{}(\stackrel{~}{Q},\stackrel{~}{p},t)+\dot{Q}\frac{F}{Q}+\dot{\stackrel{~}{P}}\frac{F}{\stackrel{~}{P}}+\frac{F}{t}\frac{d}{dt}(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{P})+K.$$
(16)
A factorization of this gives

$$\dot{Q}\left(P\frac{F}{Q}\right)+\dot{\stackrel{~}{P}}\left((1)^{a_pa_q}\stackrel{~}{Q}\frac{F}{\stackrel{~}{P}}\right)\left(H+\frac{F}{t}H^{}+K\right)=0,$$
(17)
and additionally the constraints (7) and (11). The sign in the middle term corresponds to the interchange of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ and $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{P}}`$. Even with these constraints, the quantities $`\dot{Q}`$ and $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{P}}`$ can be taken as independent, and we get,

$$P=\frac{F}{Q},\stackrel{~}{Q}=(1)^{a_pa_q}\frac{F}{\stackrel{~}{P}},H^{}=H+\frac{F}{t}+K.$$
(18)
If, as usual, the new coordinates, $`\stackrel{~}{P}=(\stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$, are assumed to be constant, which is guaranteed if $`H^{}=0`$ or, what is the same, $`H^{}=K`$, then the HJ equation will be in fact given by a system of equations. If the first equation in (18) is applied to the last one and to (7), we get the HJ equation,

$$H[Q,\frac{F}{q}(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t),t]+\frac{F}{t}(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)=0,$$
(19)
as well as,

$$\frac{F(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)}{\psi _\alpha }=f^\alpha (Q).$$
(20)
Additionally we have the second equation in (18), which can be written as,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)}{\stackrel{~}{p}_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{q}^i=\mathrm{even}\mathrm{Grassmann}\mathrm{constant},`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)}{\stackrel{~}{\pi }^\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha =\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{Grassmann}\mathrm{constant},`$ (22)
plus the $`\mu `$ (unknown) constraints (11), which eliminate half of the fermionic constants $`(\stackrel{~}{\psi },\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$. Usually, the configuration space variables can be obtained from equations (21) and (22), as functions of two integration constants, and this will be the case of (21), from which the bosonic variables $`q`$ can be obtained in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. However, before solving the equations (22), we can solve the equations (20). Indeed, the fact that (11) are second class means that $`f^\alpha `$ are invertible, and a solution for $`\psi `$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ can be obtained, after substituting $`q`$ by its solution. If this solution is then substituted in (22), $`\mu `$ relations among the constants $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ arise, which will eliminate half of them.

Consistently with these results, we have that, for an action with standard kinetic fermionic term, as a consequence of (20) the boundary condition for $`F`$ will be fulfilled,

$$\delta F(t_1)=\delta \psi _\alpha (t_1)\frac{F}{\psi _\alpha }(t_1)=\delta \psi _\alpha (t_1)f^\alpha (t_1)=\delta \psi _\alpha (t_2)f^\alpha (t_2)=\delta F(t_2).$$
(23)
Thus, all these equations (19-22), must be solved to get the complete solution for the Hamilton principal function (Hpf),

$$F(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)=S(Q,\stackrel{~}{P},t)+\alpha ,$$

as well as the solution for the configuration space variables $`(q,\psi )`$, depending on the correct number of integration constants, two for each bosonic degree of freedom, and one for each fermionic degree of freedom.

## A system $`L=\psi \dot{\psi }`$

In this section, a simple instance is solved to show the problems which appear when fermionic variables are present.

Consider a system characterized by the Lagrangian $`L=\psi \dot{\psi }`$, the Euler-Lagrange equation is $`\dot{\psi }=0`$. The canonical momentum to the fermionic variable $`\psi `$, is given by $`\pi =L/\dot{\psi }=\psi `$. The Hamiltonian is given by $`H_0=\dot{\psi }\pi L=\dot{\psi }\pi \psi \dot{\psi }=\dot{\psi }(\pi +\psi )`$, where the velocity $`\dot{\psi }`$ can be handled as a new parameter. It vanishes, weakly, according to the second class constraint.

Now the HJ formalism is applied, by substituting $`\pi =S/\psi `$. In this case the Hamiltonian vanishes and the HJ equation is given by

$$\frac{S}{t}=0,$$
(24)
where the action depends on the configuration variable $`\psi `$ and on one constant fermionic parameter $`\rho `$, i.e. $`S=S(\psi ,\rho )`$. We have as well the equations,

$$\frac{S}{\psi }=\psi ,\frac{S}{\rho }=\beta ,$$
(25)
where $`\beta `$ is a constant grassman parameter.

Due to the fact that the action is bosonic, it must have the form

$$S=a(t)\rho \psi .$$
(26)
Applying to it the first equation in (25), we get $`\psi =a\rho `$, then we apply the second equation and $`\beta =a\psi =a^2\rho `$. Thus $`a`$ is a constant, as would result also from (24). Thus, the constant fermion solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations turns out.

## Interacting system

In this section, an interacting system with two fermionic variables $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$, such that each one are the complex conjugated from the other $`\psi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\psi _2`$, will be discussed,

$$L=i(\psi _1\dot{\psi }_2+\psi _2\dot{\psi }_1)+k\psi _1\psi _2.$$
(27)
The Euler-Lagrange equations are given by,

$$i\dot{\psi }_1+\frac{k}{2}\psi _1=0,i\dot{\psi }_2\frac{k}{2}\psi _2=0,$$
(28)
with solutions,

$$\psi _1(t)=\xi _1e^{(ik/2)t},\psi _2(t)=\xi _2e^{(ik/2)t}.$$
(29)
The Hamiltonian of this system is given by,

$$H=k\psi _1\psi _2,$$
(30)
which must be accompanied by the second class constraints, as definitions of the momenta, $`\pi _1=i\psi _2`$ and $`\pi _2=i\psi _1`$. As a consequence, the Hpf will be the solution of the following system of equations,

$`H(\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{S(\psi ,\rho ,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (31)
$`i\psi _2+{\displaystyle \frac{S(\psi ,\rho ,t)}{\psi _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (32)
$`i\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{S(\psi ,\rho ,t)}{\psi _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (33)
$`\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\rho _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (34)
$`\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\rho _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (35)
where, $`\rho _i=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_i`$ and $`\beta _i=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i`$ are constant odd Grassmann quantities, which satisfy $`\rho _1^{}=\rho _2`$, $`\beta _1^{}=\beta _2`$, and $`\dot{\psi }_1\pi _1+\dot{\psi }_2\pi _2`$ is real. Seemingly, there are too many constants for a first order system. However, as will be shown further, the role of the equations (34, 35) is precisely to establish relations, corresponding to the second class constraints, between them.

In order to solve this system, we write the most general even Grassmann function of the odd Grassmann quantities $`\rho _1`$, $`\rho _2`$, $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$:

$$S(\psi ,\rho ,t)=S_0(\rho ,t)+S_1(\rho ,t)\psi _1+S_2(\rho ,t)\psi _2+S_3(\rho ,t)\psi _1\psi _2,$$
(36)
where the fermionic functions are given by $`S_1(\rho ,t)=s_1(t)\rho _1`$ and $`S_2(\rho ,t)=s_2(t)\rho _2`$, and the bosonic ones by $`S_0(\rho ,t)=s_0(t)+s_{01}(t)\rho _1\rho _2`$ and $`S_3(\rho ,t)=s_{30}(t)+s_3(t)\rho _1\rho _2`$.

From the reality of $`S`$, we get that the coefficients $`s_0`$, $`s_{01}`$, $`s_{30}`$ and $`s_3`$ must be real and $`s_1^{}=s_2`$.

Further we have the conditions (32, 33, 34, 35 )

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\psi _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`s_1\rho _1+(s_{30}+s_3\rho _1\rho _2)\psi _2=i\psi _2,`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\psi _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`s_2\rho _2(s_{30}+s_3\rho _1\rho _2)\psi _1=i\psi _1,`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\rho _1}}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{01}\rho _2+s_1\psi _1+s_3\rho _2\psi _1\psi _2=\beta _1,`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\rho _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`s_{01}\rho _1+s_2\psi _2s_3\rho _1\psi _1\psi _2=\beta _2.`$ (40)
The first two equations, can be solved for $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$, thus obtaining,

$$\psi _1=\frac{s_2}{s_{30}i}\rho _2,\psi _2=\frac{s_1}{s_{30}+i}\rho _1,$$
(41)
which substituted in the second two, (39, 40), give us,

$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(s_{01}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2}{s_{30}i}}\right)\rho _2,`$ (42)
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(s_{01}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2}{s_{30}+i}}\right)\rho _1.`$ (43)
These equations could be identified with the second class constraints, letting only two free constants, as corresponds to fermionic theories.

Taking into account the fact that $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$, $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are constant, we see that the coefficients in (42) and (43) are themselves constant, that is

$$s_{01}\frac{s_1s_2}{s_{30}i}=A,s_{01}\frac{s_1s_2}{s_{30}+i}=A^{},$$
(44)
if we set $`A=uiv`$, we get now

$`s_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`vs_{30}+u,`$ (45)
$`s_1s_2`$ $`=`$ $`v(s_{30}^2+1).`$ (46)
Now, in order to write the HJ equation, we note that it has to be written before substituting (45) and (46) into the Hpf, because the time derivative in the HJ equation does not act on the fermionic variables $`\psi `$. Thus we have,

$$\frac{S}{t}+H=\dot{s}_0+\dot{s}_{01}\rho _1\rho _2+\dot{s}_1\rho _1\psi _1+\dot{s}_2\rho _2\psi _2+(\dot{s}_{30}+\dot{s}_3\rho _1\rho _2)\psi _1\psi _2k\psi _1\psi _2=0.$$
(47)
Taking into account (41) we get,

$$\dot{s}_0+\frac{1}{s_{30}^2+1}\left[\dot{s}_{01}(s_{30}^2+1)\dot{s}_1s_2(s_{30}+i)s_1\dot{s}_2(s_{30}i)+s_1s_2(\dot{s}_{30}+k)\right]\rho _1\rho _2=0,$$
(48)
or, equivalently $`\dot{s}_0=0`$, and

$$(s_{30}^2+1)\dot{s}_{01}s_{30}(s_1\dot{s}_2+s_2\dot{s}_1)+i(s_1\dot{s}_2s_2\dot{s}_1)+s_1s_2(\dot{s}_{30}+k)=0.$$
(49)
From the fact that $`s_1`$ is the complex conjugated of $`s_2`$ and $`s_{30}`$ is real, and writing in (46) $`v=aa^{}`$, we get

$$s_1=a^{}(s_{30}+i)e^{i\tau },s_2=a(s_{30}i)e^{i\tau }.$$
(50)
These equations, together with (45), substituted back into (49), give $`2\dot{\tau }+k=0`$, i.e.

$$\tau =\frac{k}{2}t+c.$$
(51)
Thus, if we set $`\xi =ae^{ic}\rho _2`$, we obtain

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\xi e^{\frac{i}{2}kt}`$ (52)
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^{}e^{\frac{i}{2}kt},`$ (53)
which coincide with the solutions (29).

Therefore, the Hpf is given by

$$S=s_0+\left(s_{01}\frac{s_{30}s_1s_2}{s_{30}^21}\right)\rho _1\rho _2=s_0\frac{u}{aa^{}}\psi _1\psi _2,$$
(54)
where $`s_0`$ is constant.

Note that the undetermined functions $`s_{30}`$ and $`s_3`$, do not appear neither in the solutions (52, 53) nor in the Hpf. This can be understood from the form of the Hpf (36) and the equations (41), as the terms containing these functions vanish identically.

### Canonical transformation point of view

Let us consider the solution to the equations (39, 40) for $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$. We can get first $`\psi _1`$ from (39), then we substitute it in (40), from which we get,

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_1^2}}\left(s_1\beta _1s_{01}s_1\rho _2{\displaystyle \frac{s_3}{s_2}}\rho _2\beta _1\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}s_3}{s_2}}\rho _1\rho _2\beta _1\right),`$ (55)
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_2^2}}\left(s_2\beta _2+s_{01}s_2\rho _1+{\displaystyle \frac{s_3}{s_1}}\rho _1\beta _1\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}s_3}{s_1}}\rho _1\rho _2\beta _2\right).`$ (56)
These equations can be written in the form of canonical transformations. In order to see it, taking into account the last observation of the preceding section, let us set $`S_0=0`$, and $`s_{30}=0`$, in this case (55,56) are given by,

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{s_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_3}{s_1^2s_2}}\rho _2\beta _1\beta _2,`$ (57)
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{s_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_3}{s_2^2s_1}}\rho _1\beta _1\beta _2.`$ (58)
Note that these equations are symmetrical under the interchange $`\psi _1\psi _2`$, $`\rho _1\rho _2`$ and $`\beta _1\beta _2`$. If we define $`\psi _1^o=s_1^1\beta _1`$, $`\psi _2^o=s_2^1\beta _2`$, $`\pi _1^o=s_1\rho _1`$, $`\pi _2^o=s_2\rho _2`$, $`\alpha =(s_1s_2)^1s_3`$, and the function $`G=\pi _1^o\pi _2^o\psi _1^o\psi _2^o`$, equations (57,58) can be written as

$`\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1^o+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{G}{\pi _1^o}},`$ (59)
$`\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _2^o+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{G}{\pi _2^o}}.`$ (60)
Similarly, the momenta (37,38), can be rewritten as

$`\pi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _1^o+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{G}{\psi _1^o}},`$ (61)
$`\pi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _2^o+\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{G}{\psi _2^o}}.`$ (62)
In vectorial notation, these equations can be expressed by a single equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐮=𝐮𝐮^𝐨=\alpha 𝐉\frac{𝐆}{𝐮},$$
(63)
where $`𝐮=(\psi _\mathrm{𝟏},\psi _\mathrm{𝟐},\pi _\mathrm{𝟏},\pi _\mathrm{𝟐})`$, $`𝐮^𝐨=(\psi _\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐨,\psi _\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐨,\pi _\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐨,\pi _\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐨)`$, and $`J`$ is the corresponding Jacobian matrix.

As it can be observed, the function $`G`$ plays the role of the generating function of a canonical transformation (63), with a finite parameter $`\alpha `$. The solution needs additional conditions, for example “initial conditions” $`\psi _1^o\pi _2^o`$ and $`\psi _2^o\pi _1^o`$. This way to write the solution to the HJ equation, could be useful for computing the Van Vleck determinant for supersymmetric theories zumino .

### Quantum Mechanical features

Defining, $`\psi =(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$, $`\psi ^o=(\psi _1^o,\psi _2^o)`$, the equations (57, 58) can be rewritten as follows

$$\psi =\psi ^o\mathrm{exp}(\alpha S).$$
(64)
Indeed, taking $`S_0=0`$ as in the preceding section,

$$S=(\pi _1^o\psi _1^o+\pi _2^o\psi _2^o+\alpha \pi _1^o\pi _2^o\psi _1^o\psi _2^o),$$
(65)
hence

$`\psi _1^o\mathrm{exp}(\alpha S)=\psi _1^o+\alpha \pi _2^o\psi _1^o\psi _2^o=\psi _1,`$
$`\psi _2^o\mathrm{exp}(\alpha S)=\psi _2^o\alpha \pi _1^o\psi _1^o\psi _2^o=\psi _2.`$
Further, considering that

$$\frac{\psi ^o}{t}=(\frac{\dot{s}_1}{s_1}\psi _1^o,\frac{\dot{s}_2}{s_2}\psi _2^o),$$
(66)
it can be seen that $`\psi `$ is a solution of the following first order partial differential equation

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{\psi }{t}=\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }SH\right)\psi ,$$
(67)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\dot{s}_1}{s_1}\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \frac{\dot{s}_2}{s_2}\end{array}\right)$$
(68)
A particular case turns out when the permutational symmetry in eqs. (57, 58) is broken by the application of second class constraints (41). If moreover eqs. (50) are applied, we get

$$\frac{\dot{s}_1}{s_1}=i\frac{k}{2},\frac{\dot{s}_2}{s_2}=i\frac{k}{2}.$$
(69)
In this case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\frac{k}{2}\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill i\frac{k}{2}\end{array}\right)=i\frac{k}{2\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)=i\frac{k}{2\alpha }\sigma _3.$$
(70)
If for simplicity $`s_3`$ is assumed to be a constant, eq. (67) is rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }\frac{\psi }{t}=\left(i\frac{k}{2\alpha }\sigma _3H\right)\psi .$$
(71)
This equation resembles the Schrödinger equation. Note that, due to the nilpotency of fermionic degrees of freedom, $`H\psi =0`$. However, if the Lagrangian (27) would be extended to a supersymmetric one, by the addition of two bosonic degrees of freedom, second order bosonic partial derivatives would appear in eq. (71) and the Schrödinger equation of a spinning system of two degrees of freedom would turn out.

Due to eq. (64), we can make the identification $`\alpha 1/\mathrm{}`$. Hence, taking into account (50), we have the following relation

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{|a|^2}{s_3}.$$
(72)
###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by CONACyT México Grant No. 37851E. P. R. thanks the Department of Applied Physics of Cinvestav-Mérida, where part of this work was done.


text:
# Singular compactifications and cosmologyWork supported by the ‘Schwerpunktprogramm Stringtheorie’ of the DFG. Talk given by T. Mohaupt at the EURESCO conference “What comes beyond the Standard Model?”, 12. – 17. July 2003, Portorož, Slovenia.

## Abstract

We summarize our recent results of studying five-dimensional Kasner cosmologies in a time-dependent Calabi-Yau compactification of M-theory undergoing a topological flop transition. The dynamics of the additional states, which become massless at the transition point and give rise to a scalar potential, helps to stabilize the moduli and triggers short periods of accelerated cosmological expansion.

During the last year a lot of effort has been made to explain the astronomical evidence for an inflationary epoch of the early universe and the current modest accelerated expansion by invoking a scalar potential derived from string or M-theory compactifications. So far two mechanisms leading to potentials viable to describe accelerated cosmological expansion have been explored : (i) compactifications on hyperbolic spaces  and (ii) compactifications with fluxes . Our recent work  gives the first example of (iii) compactification on a singular internal manifold.

In the case of smooth compactifications one usually has a moduli space of vacua corresponding to the deformations of the internal manifold $`X`$ and the background fields. For theories with eight or less supercharges this moduli space includes special points where $`X`$ degenerates, rendering the corresponding low energy effective action (LEEA) discontinuous or singular. However, within the full string or M-theory these singularities are believed to be artifacts, which result from ignoring some relevant modes of the theory, namely the winding states of strings or branes around the cycles of $`X`$. Singularities of $`X`$ arise when such cycles are contracted to zero volume, thereby introducing additional massless states. Incorporating these states leads to a smooth gauged supergravity action which entails a scalar potential.

In Calabi-Yau (CY) compactifications of M-theory undergoing a topological flop transition these additional states (‘transition states’) are given by $`N`$ charged hypermultiplets which become massless at the transition locus. There are two ways to include the effect of these extra states in the LEEA. The usual LEEA is obtained by dimensional reduction on the smooth CY and contains only states which are generically massless. The flop manifests itself in a discontinuous change of the vector multiplet couplings at the transition locus. We call this description the ‘Out-picture’ since the extra states are left out. On the contrary, the ‘In-picture’ is obtained by including the transition states as dynamical fields in the Lagrangian.

In  we constructed an In-picture LEEA for a generic M-theory flop by combining knowledge about the general $`𝒩=2,D=5`$ gauged supergravity action with information about the extra massless states.111This strategy was first applied in  in the case of $`SU(2)`$ enhancement. While the vector multiplet sector could be treated exactly we used a toy model based on the quaternion-Kähler manifolds $`\frac{U(1+N,2)}{U(1+N)\times U(2)}`$ to describe the hypermultiplet sector. In order to find the gauging describing the flop we worked out the metrics, the Killing vectors, and the moment maps of these spaces. This data enabled us to construct a unique LEEA which has all the properties to model a flop: the extra hypermultiplets acquire a mass away from the transition locus while the universal hypermultiplet remains massless.

In  we considered an explicit model for a CY compactification undergoing a flop with $`N=1`$ and investigated the effect of the transition states on five-dimensional Kasner cosmologies,222This setup was previously considered in , but there the hypermultiplet manifold was taken to be hyper-Kähler which is not consistent with local supersymmetry.

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+e^{2\alpha (\tau )}d\stackrel{}{x}^2+e^{2\beta (\tau )}dy^2.$$
(1)
Comparing the cosmological solutions of the Out- and the In-picture, we found that the inclusion of the dynamical transition states has drastic consequences for moduli stabilization and accelerated expansion.

As soon as we allow all light states to be excited the scalar fields no longer show the usual run-away behavior but are attracted to the flop region where they oscillate around the transition locus. Thus the “almost singular” manifolds close to the flop are dynamically preferred. This is somewhat surprising, because the potential has still many unlifted flat directions meaning there is no energy barrier which prevents the system from running away. Hence this effect cannot be predicted by just analyzing the critical points of the superpotential. The following thermodynamic analogy helps to explain the situation. Generically the available energy of the system is distributed equally among all the light modes (“thermalization”). Thus near the flop line the additional degrees of freedom get their natural share of it. Once this has happened, it becomes very unlikely that the system “finds” the flat directions and “escapes” from the flop region. Our numerical solutions confirm this picture: irrespective of the initial conditions the system finally settles down in a state where all the fields either approach finite values or oscillate around the transition region with comparable and small amplitudes. From time to time one sees “fluctuations from equilibrium”, i.e., some mode picks up a bigger share of the energy for a while, but the system eventually thermalizes again. In an ideal scenario of moduli stabilization, however, one would like to have a damped system so that the moduli converge to fixed point values.

The second important aspect is that the scalar potential of the In-picture induces short periods of accelerated expansion in the three-space. Yet the net effect of the accelerating periods on cosmic expansion is not very significant. Again, this feature can be understood qualitatively in terms of the properties of the scalar potential. The point is that the potential is only flat along the unlifted directions while along the non-flat ones it is too steep to support sustained accelerated expansion. Transient periods of acceleration occur when the scalar fields pass through their collective turning point, where running “uphill” the potential turns into running “downhill” and the potential energy momentarily dominates over the kinetic energy.333This behavior is also common to the models of hyperbolic and flux compactifications, where likewise the acceleration is not pronounced enough for primordial inflation. To get a considerable amount of inflation via a slow-roll mechanism, one would need to lift some of the flat directions gently without making them too steep.

In summary we see that the dynamics of the transition states is interesting and relevant, and can be part of the solution of the problems of moduli stabilization and inflation. One direction for further investigations is to consider more general gaugings of our five-dimensional model. Once gaugings leading to interesting cosmological solutions are found, one should clarify whether these can be derived from string or M-theory where they correspond to adding fluxes or branes. Another direction is to extend our construction to other topological transitions. In particular it would be interesting to study the effect of transition states on four-dimensional cosmologies arising, e.g., from type II compactifications on singular CY manifolds. It is conceivable that a realistic cosmology derived from sting or M-theory will have to include both the effects of fluxes and branes, and the possibility of internal manifolds becoming singular.


text:
# Modelling of compound nucleus formation in fusion of heavy nuclei

## Abstract

A new model that includes the time-dependent dynamics of the single-particle (s.p.) motion in conjunction with the macroscopic evolution of the system is proposed for describing the compound nucleus (CN) formation in fusion of heavy nuclei. The diabaticity initially keeps the entrance system around its contact configuration, but the gradual transition from the diabatic to the adiabatic potential energy surface (PES) leads to fusion or quasifission. Direct measurements of the probability for CN formation are crucial to discriminate between the current models.

The understanding of new experimental results on fusion of heavy nuclei and the formation of superheavy elements (SHE) require modelling, not only of the initial capture process and the final CN de-excitation process, but also of the intermediate stage of evolution of the combined system from the contact configuration into the CN. The competition between fusion and quasifission (reseparation before CN formation) can inhibit fusion by many orders of magnitude, e.g. Reisdorf . Understanding this inhibition may be the key to forming more SHE. Nowadays, there is no consensus Volkov  for the mechanism of the CN formation in fusion of heavy nuclei near the Coulomb barrier. Depending on the main coordinate for fusion, two sorts of models can be distinguished. In the first type Greiner ; Swiatecki ; Aguiar ; Aritomo ; Tokuda ; Denisov ; Zagrebaev1 ; Shen ; Abe1 , the fusion occurs along the radial coordinate using adiabatic PES obtained either with the liquid drop model or Strutinsky’s macroscopic-microscopic method. The competition between fusion and quasifission, which depends on the fluctuactions Abe2 , has only been included in recent models, e.g. Zagrebaev1 ; Shen ; Abe1 . However, the experimental data are not always explained. In the second type DNS2  (dinuclear system (DNS) model), the fusion happens in the mass asymmetry coordinate $`\eta =(A_1A_2)/(A_1+A_2)`$ where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are the mass numbers of the nuclei. The DNS nuclei remain at the touching configuration and exchange nucleons until either all nucleons have been transferred from the lighter to the heavier fragment (complete fusion), or the DNS decays before the CN formation (quasifission). The model assumes a sudden (double-folding in frozen density approximation) PES in the radial coordinate, while the PES behaves adiabatically along the fusion path in the $`\eta `$ coordinate. Although the model has been used to explain many experimental evaporation residues (ER) cross sections, its theoretical foundation is not clear enough yet.

In this paper a new model is proposed for the CN formation, which is based on the following general ideas (which are well-established but have up to now not been used in combination in any of the current models of fusion): (i) Once the two nuclei are at the contact point, the system moves in a multidimensional space of collective coordinates q (shape parameters), (ii) this motion is governed by the master equation, and (iii) the nature of the s.p. motion is time-dependent, it is initially diabatic and then approaches the adiabatic limit due to residual two-body collisions. Consequently, the system moves in a time-dependent PES, $`V(\text{q},t)`$, which is initially diabatic and gradually becomes adiabatic. In the diabatic limit Nore  (elastic nuclear matter), the nucleons do not occupy the lowest free s.p. energy levels as in the adiabatic case (plastic nuclear matter), but keep their quantum numbers and remain in the diabatic states during a collective motion of the system. This approach is realistic in the initial stage of collisions near the Coulomb barrier where the total excitation energy per nucleon $`E^{}0.03`$ MeV Cass ; Alexis1 . During the transition from the diabatic to the adiabatic limit, the nuclear matter is elastoplastic like glycerine. In contrast to the current models for CN formation, the present approach explicitly includes for the first time the time-dependent dynamics of the s.p. motion in conjunction with the macroscopic evolution of the system into the CN. In Refs. Aritomo ; Tokuda ; Zagrebaev1 ; Shen  the ideas (i) and (ii) were applied, but the authors exclusively used adiabatic PES. In a recent paper Alexis1 , only idea (iii) was used to calculate the dynamical potential for the radial motion of the combined system, while in the past only the diabatic limit of the s.p. motion was used to study the initial capture process Cassing2 ; Berdichevsky . The ideas (i)-(iii) have solely been applied in combination to describe deep-inelastic reactions Yadav . The scenario presented here for the CN formation shows that following contact the diabaticity forms a valley in the PES where the system remains trapped around its touching configuration, but the gradual transition from the diabatic to the adiabatic PES allows the system to evolve in shapes leading to fusion or quasifission. The timescale for the decay to the adiabatic PES is crucial in determining the timescale of the transition to the compact fused system. The calculations are based on the master equation Norenberg  and the diabatic two-center shell model (TCSM) Lukasiak2  developed using the asymmetric TCSM (ATCSM) ATCSM . The critical ingredients of the model are (i) temperature, (ii) diabatic PES, (iii) adiabatic PES, (iv) transition from diabatic to adiabatic PES, and (v) shape parameters. The evaluation of each will be described, then the results from the model will be presented.

The time-dependent population probabilities $`p`$ for the different configurations q (shapes) of the system are solutions of the master equation

$$\dot{p}(\text{q},t)=\underset{\text{q}^{^{}}}{}[\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{q},\text{q}^{^{}},t)p(\text{q}^{^{}},t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{q}^{^{}},\text{q},t)p(\text{q},t)],$$
(1)
where the macroscopic transition probabilities according to Ref. Moretto  are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{q},\text{q}^{^{}},t)=\kappa _0exp[V(\text{q}^{^{}},t)/2T(\text{q}^{^{}},t)V(\text{q},t)/2T(\text{q},t)]`$, justified by the assumption that the level density of the system determines the transition. The strengh constant $`\kappa _0`$ characterizes the global time scale and has a realistic value of $`10^{22}`$ s-1 Gippner . The sum in Eq. (1) is extended only to the nearest configurations $`\text{q}^{^{}}`$ (the collective coordinate space is discretized). It is assumed that the system is initially at the contact configuration $`\text{q}_0`$ where the s.p. occupation numbers obey a Fermi-distribution $`n_\alpha ^F(\text{q}_0,T_0)`$ for a temperature $`T_0`$. Configurations other than $`\text{q}_0`$ are not populated at this time, and hence the initial condition for Eq. (1) is $`p(\text{q},0)=\delta _{\text{q},\text{q}_0}`$. The temperature $`T_0`$ is related to the excitation of the system immediately after the capture process. This temperature can be estimated either as $`T_0\sqrt{[E_{c.m.}V(\text{q}_0,0)]/a}`$, where $`E_{c.m.}`$ is the total incident energy in the center of mass frame and $`a=A/12`$ MeV-1 ($`A`$ is the total mass number of the system), if the initial radial kinetic energy is dissipated when the nuclei reach the contact point, or using a frictional model, e.g. Shen , for the capture process. The local (at fixed q) temperature $`T=\sqrt{E_{exc}/a}`$ is defined by means of the local excitation energy

$$E_{exc}(\text{q},t)=aT_0^2+_0^t(\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}(\text{q},t^{^{}})}{dt^{^{}}})p(\text{q},t^{^{}})𝑑t^{^{}},$$
(2)
which results from the decay of the diabatic part $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}`$ of the potential $`V`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}`$ represents an energetic hindrance for the initial system to reach a configuration q, if the nucleons follow diabatic levels during this process (elastic response). The local excitation of the system is caused by the loss of its elasticity Nore . $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}`$ is calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}(\text{q},t)\underset{\alpha }{}\epsilon _\alpha ^{diab}(\text{q})[n_\alpha (\text{q},t)n_\alpha ^F(\text{q},T)],$$
(3)
where $`\epsilon _\alpha ^{diab}`$ are the diabatic levels with occupations $`n_\alpha (\text{q},t)`$ and $`\alpha `$ denotes the quantum numbers of these states. The diabatic levels $`\epsilon _\alpha ^{diab}`$ and their wave functions $`\varphi _\alpha ^{diab}(\text{r})`$ are obtained with the maximum symmetry method Lukasiak2 . The dynamical PES is defined as $`V(\text{q},t)=V_{adiab}(\text{q},T)+\mathrm{\Delta }V_{diab}(\text{q},t)`$, where $`V_{adiab}`$ is the adiabatic PES which is calculated using Strutinsky’s macroscopic-microscopic method ATCSM . The nuclear part of the macroscopic energy is obtained with the Yukawa-plus-exponential method Krappe . The diabaticity destroys the Fermi-distribution of the occupations, but the residual two-body collisions gradually recover it. This process is locally described by the relaxation equation Cassing

$$\dot{n}_\alpha (\text{q},t)=\tau ^1(\text{q},t)[n_\alpha (\text{q},t)n_\alpha ^F(\text{q},T)],$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ is an average relaxation time (in order to conserve the number of particles). The initial occupations $`n_\alpha (\text{q},0)`$ are the diabatic ones obtained from $`n_\alpha ^F(\text{q}_0,T_0)`$. $`\tau `$ is defined as

$$\tau ^1(\text{q},t)=\frac{_\alpha [n_\alpha (\text{q},t)n_\alpha ^F(\text{q},T)]\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha (\text{q},T)}{N_{coll}\mathrm{}_\alpha n_\alpha (\text{q},t)},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ are the widths of the s.p. levels. The factor $`N_{coll}`$ is the average number of two-body collisions per nucleon to establish the equilibrium occupations $`n_\alpha ^F`$. The value $`N_{coll}=3`$ Cass  will be used. The expression (5) follows the idea that the relaxation process becomes slower when the occupations approach $`n_\alpha ^F`$. If the equilibrium was reached, the relaxation time would be infinite, i.e. the occupations would remain the same. The widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ are obtained with the parametrization given in Ref. Helmut . Since the diabatic s.p. excitations occur around the Fermi surface, the values $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1=0.061`$ MeV-1 for half saturation density and $`c=20`$ MeV will be used Helmut .

The collective coordinates q are the shape parameters of the ATCSM ATCSM : (i) the elongation $`\lambda =l/2R_0`$, which measures the length $`l`$ of the system in units of the diameter $`2R_0`$ of the spherical CN and describes the relative motion, (ii) the deformation $`\beta _i=a_i/b_i`$ of the fragments, defined by the ratio of their semiaxes, (iii) the neck coordinate $`ϵ=E_0/E^{^{}}`$, defined by the ratio of the actual barrier height $`E_0`$ to the barrier height $`E^{^{}}`$ of the two-center oscillator, and (iv) the volume asymmetry of the nuclear shapes (equipotential shapes) $`\xi =(V_1V_2)/(V_1+V_2)`$, where $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are the volumes of the left and right regions divided by a plane at the necks between the fragments. The collective coordinate space is divided into three regions: (i) compact shapes around the spherical shape (fusion region), (ii) elongated shapes outside the initial contact configuration and beyond the Coulomb barrier (quasifission region), and (iii) intermediate shapes which could lead to fusion or quasifission. In the fusion region the physical mass asymmetry $`\eta `$ (defined like $`\xi `$ but in terms of the masses which are calculated using the microscopic density distribution $`\rho (\text{r})=_\alpha n_\alpha |\varphi _\alpha ^{diab}(\text{r})|^2`$ ) reaches a minimal plateau, i.e. a maximal number of nucleons move (their wave-functions spread) in the whole volume of the system due to the decrease of the barrier $`E_0`$ between the fragments. The fusion ($`P_{CN}`$) and quasifission ($`P_{QF}`$) probabilities are defined as the sum of the population probabilities $`p`$ in the fusion and quasifission regions, respectively. In addition the CN excitation energy $`E_{CN}`$ is defined as the average of the excitation energies (2) of the different shapes in the fusion region.

In the following the fragments are considered as spherical ($`\beta _i`$=1) and the neck coordinate is fixed at $`ϵ=0.75`$. With this value of $`ϵ`$ the Coulomb barrier of the diabatic potential for an initial system with $`T_0=0`$ MeV is close to the barrier of the double-folding potential Alexis1 . For computational reasons the calculations are done using the coordinates $`\lambda `$ and $`\xi `$ that are the relevant ones in the current models for CN formation. The non-linear set of equations (1-5) are solved by sucessive iterations using a small time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=10^{23}`$ s. The master equation (1) is solved on a grid ($`1\lambda 1.8`$,$`|\xi |0.7`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =0.02`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi =0.1`$) with appropriate boundary conditions to follow the continuous split of the initial population probabilities $`p(\text{q},0)`$ into fusion and quasifission. Values of $`|\xi |>0.7`$ are not included in the calculation because the TCSM used ATCSM  is not appropriate for large $`\xi `$. The fusion and quasifission processes are determined at the timescale $`t_0`$ when $`P_{CN}(t_0)+P_{QF}(t_0)1`$. The model will be applied to some (near) symmetric central ($`l=0`$) collisions. In these calculations the excitation energy of the initial system at the contact configuration is 40 MeV.

Fig. 1 shows the dynamical PES for 110Pd+110Pd (i) at the initial moment (diabatic PES, upper part) when the nuclei are at the contact configuration (square), (ii) at $`t_0=4\times 10^{20}`$ s (middle part), and (iii) the adiabatic PES (lower part). The PES is normalized with the macroscopic energy of the spherical CN. In Fig. 2, the distribution of the population probabilities $`p(\lambda ,\xi ,t_0)`$ on the PES of Fig. 1 (middle part) is presented. From these figures, it is observed that the diabaticity initially forms a valley confining the entrance system around its touching configuration as in the DNS model DNS2 . Nevertheless, the gradual transition to the adiabatic PES leads to fusion mainly in the elongation $`\lambda `$ (relative distance) or the population of neighbouring configurations ending in the quasifission channel. In contrast to the DNS model, the diffusion along the $`\xi `$ coordinate, while the nuclei remain at the contact point ($`\lambda =1.51.6`$), is strongly suppressed by a large diabatic hindrance. $`P_{CN}`$ and $`P_{QF}`$ are determined before the dynamical PES reaches the adiabatic one (comparing middle and lower parts in Fig. 1). The competition between fusion and quasifission is regulated by the dynamical PES. The probability of configurations which stay close to that of the entrance channel and reseparate is very large, as can be seen from Fig. 2. This causes the fusion hindrance for 110Pd+110Pd which is consistent with the experimental conclusions drawn in Ref. Reisdorf . The final population probabilities in the fusion region ($`\lambda 1.3`$ in Fig. 2) are very small, and as a result of the expression (2), $`E_{CN}`$ is practically the same as the excitation energy of the initial system at the contact point, i.e. 40 MeV. The scenario seen so far is the same for other systems studied. Table I shows $`P_{CN}`$, $`t_0`$ and $`E_{CN}`$ calculated for some (near) symmetric reactions. The values of the model parameters are the same for all the reactions. The decrease of the $`P_{CN}`$ values from 90Zr+90Zr to 110Pd+110Pd is observed along with an increase of the quasifission probability beyond $`90\%`$. This is because (i) the repulsive character of the diabatic PES increases with increasing mass number $`A`$ of the combined system and (ii) the valley of the diabatic PES becomes more shallow with increasing $`A`$. Consequently the timescale $`t_0`$ of the fusion and quasifission processes decreases with increasing $`A`$. The $`P_{CN}`$ for 96Zr+124Sn agrees very well with the recent direct experimental measurement Hinde . The $`P_{CN}^{\mathrm{exp}.}`$ includes the contribution of higher partial waves $`l`$, i.e. $`l>0`$, although the main contribution results from low $`l`$ for heavy systems at this energy. The $`P_{CN}`$ obtained with the DNS model for this reaction DNS2  also agrees well with that experiment, while $`P_{CN}`$ for, e.g. 110Pd+110Pd, is about one order of magnitude smaller than the present $`P_{CN}`$ (see Table I). The fluctuation-dissipation model in Ref. Tokuda  predicts $`P_{CN}`$ values that are much larger than the present ones, i.e. about one order of magnitude larger for 110Pd+110Pd and 100Mo+110Pd. Direct experimental measurements of $`P_{CN}`$ like in Ref. Hinde  are crucial to discriminate between the current models for CN formation. The dependence of $`P_{CN}`$ on the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^1`$ is strong for the heaviest systems studied, i.e. changing the latter from 0.061 MeV-1 to 0.03 MeV-1, causes the $`P_{CN}`$ decrease by about one order of magnitude due to the faster transition to the adiabatic PES, whereas the effect on the timescale $`t_0`$ is rather weak. The timescale $`t_0`$ is mainly determined by the quasifission process that occurs near the contact configuration of the initial system, where the diabatic effects are small. The dependence of $`P_{CN}`$ on the excitation energy of the initial system at the touching point is rather weak, i.e. a saturation of the $`P_{CN}`$ practically occurs from $`20`$ MeV upwards.

In summary, a new realistic model for the CN formation in fusion of massive nuclei has been developed. It incorporates for the first time important physical effects which critically affect the evolution of the fusing system. The diabaticity initially keeps the entrance system around its touching point, but the gradual transition from the diabatic to adiabatic PES leads to fusion (mainly in the relative distance) or quasifission. The dynamical PES regulates the competition between fusion and quasifission. The probabilities for CN formation in some (near) symmetric central collisions have been obtained and found to agree very well with the recent direct experimental determination for 96Zr+124Sn. Direct measurements of the $`P_{CN}`$ like in Ref. Hinde  along with distributions of the quasifission fragments are crucial to discriminate between the current models for CN formation. To calculate ER cross sections the present approach should be combined with other models that describe the initial capture stage and the survival of the CN against fission. A TCSM more appropriate for reactions with large mass-asymmetry is being developed which should be useful in predicting production cross sections of SHE.

The author thanks W. Scheid, W. Cassing, G.G. Adamian and N.V. Antonenko for fruitful discussions, M. Dasgupta and C. Beck for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful suggestions, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for financial support.


text:
# Dynamic roughening and fluctuations of dipolar chains

(March 15, 2024)

## Abstract

Nonmagnetic particles in a carrier ferrofluid acquire an effective dipolar moment when placed in an external magnetic field. This fact leads them to form chains that will roughen due to Brownian motion when the magnetic field is decreased. We study this process through experiments, theory and simulations, three methods that agree on the scaling behavior over 5 orders of magnitude. The RMS width goes initially as $`t^{1/2}`$, then as $`t^{1/4}`$ before it saturates. We show how these results complement existing results on polymer chains, and how the chain dynamics may be described by a recent non-Markovian formulation of anomalous diffusion.

Dipolar chains, Magnetic holes, Fluctuation dynamics, Magnetorheolocial fluids, Dynamic roughening, Brownian motion, hydrodynamic interactions, Colloids, Suspensions, Brownian dynamics, Complex fluids.

Magnetic holes Skjeltorp (1983); Toussaint et al. (2003); Skjeltorp and Helgesen (1991) are nonmagnetic micrometre sized spheres suspended in a ferrofluid, much larger than the magnetites in suspension (nm). In an external magnetic field $`𝐇`$, these holes acquire an effective dipolar moment equal to the opposite of the dipolar moment of the displaced ferrofluid. This is true for any non-magnetic material that makes up the spheres. When placed between two non-magnetic glass plates the spheres aquire interactions that may be fine tuned to produce well defined separation distances and inter particle forces. We have recently obtained the analytic form of these interactions and verified it experimentally Toussaint et al. (2003). Among the many intriguing structures that may be predicted from this theory are particle chains.

Collective Brownian motion in particle chains have been studied extensively Furst and Gast (2000) over the last decade. In general this motion is governed by a complex interplay of different mechanisms such as hydrodynamic particle–particle interactions, particle and fluid inertia, chain-chain interactions, Brownian forces and direct viscous drag forces. The magnetic hole chains represent a simple prototype system that is designed to eliminate all but the essential mechanisms needed to produce non-trivial collective behavior. The isolation of these mechanisms, which are Brownian fluctuations, viscous drag and an anisotropic interparticle attraction, allows a straightforward theoretical treatment of the kinetic roughening process. These predictions are confirmed both by our experiments and simulations over 5 orders of magnitude in the dynamic domain. The size of this domain along with the theoretical simplicity of the model appears to allow significantly more conclusive statements both on the scaling behavior of the chain motion and on the associated prefactors, than in existing works.

By studying dynamic roughening of initially straight chains we make contact with the theory of kinetic interface growth processes. It is shown that since the long range hydrodynamic interactions are eliminated in our setup by the presence of confining interfaces at a distance shorter than the chain length, the continuum description of the chain roughening process conforms to the Edwards-Wilkinson equation Edwards and Wilkinson (1982). The model developped here is also a discrete generalization of a Rouse model Grosberg and Khokhlov (1994), first developped to study polymer dynamics.

In the end we will show how the Markovian N-particle description of the entire chain may be be contracted to a non-Markovian description of a single particle in the chain. This is done by integrating out all interaction degrees of freedom. What is left is a generalized Langevin equation with long term memory. It has recently been shown how such an equation may be used to predict anomalous diffusion exponents Morgado et al. (2002), and indeed these exponents coincide with our independent predictions and measurements.

The ability of particle chains to change the rheological properties of their carrier fluids has given rise to practical applications and designs such as dampers, hydraulic valves, clutches and brakes Bullough (1996). In constant fields (electric or magnetic, depending on the nature of the dipoles), these chains aggregate laterally Halsey and Toor (1990a) due to their thermal fluctuations. Therefore, the precise quantification and understanding of these fluctuations along an isolated dipolar chain is an important component to understand the aggregation phenomena in constant fields of MR Martin et al. (1999) or ER Fraden et al. (1989) fluids, as well as in systems of magnetic holes Cernak et al. (2003).

We note that also by coating the microspheres with bio-active materials, such as streptavidin Wirtz (1995), they may be used for the direct manipulation of single strands of DNA. For such application the quantitative control of Brownian fluctuations is essential.

In the experiments monodisperse polystyrene spheres Ugelstad and Mork (1980) of diameters $`a=`$ 3.0 or 4.0 $`\mu `$m were dispersed in a kerosene based ferrofluid Fer  of susceptibility $`\chi =0.8`$ and viscosity $`\eta =610^3\text{Pa}\text{s}`$, inside a glass cell of size 38 mm $`\times `$ 8 mm $`\times `$ 10 $`\mu `$m. A pair of outside coils produced magnetic field strengths up to $`H=`$ 20 Oe. The setup was mounted under an optical microscope with an attached video camera recording four frames per second. Low volume fractions (\< 1%) of microspheres were used and chains were grown Cernak et al. (2003) by applying a constant field of about $`H=`$ 18 Oe parallel to the thin ferrofluid layer for about 20 minutes. The cell was searched for long isolated chains of 30-120 spheres. The field was then reduced to a constant value $`H`$ in the range $`2`$ Oe $`H10`$ Oe while the motion of one long chain was recorded and analyzed. One pixel of the video image corresponded to $`0.5\mu `$m, and the uncertainty in particle position could be reduced to 0.2 $`\mu `$m by utilizing the intensity profile of the pixels showing the particle. The experiments illustrated in Fig. 1 are challenging in part because this accuracy is needed to reveal the scaling behavior of the chains.

In order to obtain an equation of motion for chains we define the lateral displacement of particle $`i`$, $`h_i`$, from the initial straight line. A particle pair at a separation $`r`$ and angle $`\theta `$ to the external magnetic field, experiences a coupling energy $`U=\mu _f\sigma ^2(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )/(4\pi r^3)`$ where $`\sigma =V\overline{\chi }𝐇`$ Skjeltorp (1983); Bleaney and Bleaney (1978), and $`V`$ is the hole’s volume and $`\overline{\chi }=3\chi /(3+2\chi )`$ takes into account the demagnetization factor of spherical particles. The ratio of the maximum interaction energy over the thermal energy $`k_BT`$ characteristic of the random forces due to the molecular motion in the solvent is defined as De Gennes and Pincus (1970) $`\lambda =(\mu _f\sigma ^2)/(2\pi a^3kT)`$. In Fig. 1 the initial value $`\lambda =866`$ is reduced to $`\lambda =24`$. Neglecting all magnetic interactions but the nearest neighbor ones and performing a Taylor expansion of the magnetic interaction potential around the minimal energy configuration, a straight line with spacing $`a`$, the lateral component of the magnetic force on sphere $`i`$ is $`F_i^M=\alpha (h_{i+1}2h_i+h_{i1})`$, with $`\alpha =\pi \mu _f\overline{\chi }^2H^2a/12=6\lambda kT/a^2`$. Since the Reynolds number in this system is very small (typically Re$`=10^5`$), the hydrodynamic forces are linear in the particle velocity, and $`F_i^H=\kappa \dot{h}_i`$ where $`\kappa =3\pi \eta a`$.

Newton’s second law for the $`i`$-th sphere is then

$$m\ddot{h}_i=F_i^M+F_i^H+\zeta _i(t)$$
(1)
where the fluctuating force $`\zeta _i(t)`$ is due to the molecular nature of the fluid and gives rise to the Brownian motion of the particle. At time scales exceeding the viscous damping time $`t_m=m/\kappa =a^2\rho /18\eta 10^7`$ s, the inertial term $`m\ddot{h}_i`$ is negligible. Due to the presence of confining plates the inertial motion in the fluid also decays on this time scale, so that we can neglect any non-Markovian corrections to the above equations as well as such corrections in the fluctuating force Flekkøy and Rothman (1996). We may therefore write $`\zeta _i(t)\zeta _j(0)=2\kappa k_BT\delta (t)\delta _{ij}`$, where the prefactor reflects the equipartition of particle kinetic energy, i.e. $`k_BT=m\dot{h}_i^2`$ Reif (1965). Combining the above equations Eq. (1) can be written

$$\dot{h}_i=\frac{\alpha }{\kappa }(h_{i+1}+h_{i1}2h_i)+\frac{1}{\kappa }\zeta _i(t).$$
(2)
For spatial scales above $`a`$ and times above $`t_m`$, the above reduces to the Edwards–Wilkinson equation Edwards and Wilkinson (1982) $`\kappa h/t=\alpha a^2^2h/^2x^2+\zeta _i(t),`$ also known in polymer dynamics as the Rouse model Grosberg and Khokhlov (1994).

We consider an isolated chain of $`N`$ particles, and are interested in the dynamic roughening of the chain. To observe this experimentally $`\lambda `$ is decreased from a value $`\lambda _01`$, to a finite value still greater than $`1`$ (to ensure that the chain does not melt), and the root mean square width of the displacements along the chain is recorded.

It is convenient to describe this by using the discrete space-Fourier transform along the chain $`\stackrel{~}{h}_n=\frac{1}{N}_{j=0}^Nh_je^{2i\pi nj/N}`$, for $`n=0\mathrm{}N1`$. Equation (2) then takes the form

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{h}}_n=\omega _n\stackrel{~}{h}_n+\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_n/\kappa ,$$
(3)
with the dispersion relation $`\omega _n=2\alpha (1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi n/N))/\kappa ,`$ and random terms obeying $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_m(t)\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_n^{}(0)=2\kappa k_BT\delta (t)\delta _{mn}/N.`$ Equation (3) is easily solved to give

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t)=\stackrel{~}{h}_n(0)e^{\omega _nt}+_0^t𝑑t^{}e^{\omega _n(tt^{})}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_n(t^{})/\kappa .$$
(4)
Setting $`\stackrel{~}{h}_n(0)=0`$ and taking the thermodynamic average of the square of the above equation leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t)\stackrel{~}{h}_m^{}(t)=\frac{k_BT}{\kappa N}\frac{1e^{2\omega _nt}}{\omega _n}\delta _{mn}.$$
(5)
for $`n0`$, and$`|\stackrel{~}{h}_0(t)|^2=(2k_BT/\kappa N)t`$. It is seen from Eq. (5) that each Fourier mode is initially in a free diffusion regime, $`|\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t)|^2t`$, for $`t\tau _n=1/2\omega _n`$ and saturates when $`t\tau _n=1/2\omega _n`$. The minimum and maximum saturation times are respectively $`\tau _{N/2}=\tau =\kappa /8\alpha `$ and $`\tau _1=N^2\tau /\pi ^2`$ for the shortest and longest wavelength.

We are interested in the mean square width of the chain $`W^2=_i(h_i_jh_j/N)^2/N=_{n=1}^{N1}|\stackrel{~}{h}_n|^2`$. When $`t\tau `$ all Fourier modes are in free diffusion and $`W^22k_BTt/\kappa .`$ This result arises only because of the existence of a shortest wavelength $`a`$ in the system. In the continuum limit $`a0`$, $`\tau 0`$ and this regime does not exist. Later on the modes associated with progressively longer wavelengths reach their saturated states and this is reflected in a new scaling behavior of $`W`$. By inserting Eq. (5) in the above expression for $`W^2`$ it is straightforward to show that it satisfies the Family-Vicsek scaling form $`W^2=NF\left(t/N^2\right)`$. Moreover, the exact form of $`F`$ may be obtained. Along with the expressions for $`\tau `$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\alpha `$ this gives the result

$$\frac{W^2H^2a}{Nk_BT}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2N}{3\pi \eta }\frac{H^2}{N^2}t\hfill & \hfill \text{when }t\tau \\ \sqrt{\frac{8}{\pi ^3\eta \mu _f\overline{\chi }^2}}\sqrt{\frac{H^2}{N^2}t}\hfill & \hfill \text{when }\tau t\tau N^2/\pi ^2\\ \frac{2}{\pi \mu _f\overline{\chi }^2}\hfill & \hfill \text{when }t\tau N^2/\pi ^2\end{array}.$$

The hydrodynamic coupling between the particles and the confining plates was taken into account by renormalizing the drag coefficient as $`\eta /\eta _o=2/[19a/16d]1=1.40(1.7)`$ for $`a=3\mu m(4\mu m)`$ Faucheux and Libchaber (1994). This scaling law was checked in 15 experiments where chains of $`N=36`$ to $`59`$ spheres of diameters $`3`$ or $`4`$ $`\mu m`$ were allowed to evolve from states where $`\lambda `$ was reduced to values between 2.7 and 267. In Fig. 2 the average of the scaled width $`WH\sqrt{a/N}`$ is displayed as a function of the scaled time $`H^2t/N^2`$. The average is taken both over time intervals of 0.01$`t`$ and over different experiments.

The relevance of the long-range nature of the dipolar interactions and of the linearization of the magnetic interactions was studied via Brownian dynamics simulations, where Eq. (1) without the $`m\ddot{h}_0`$ term was solved, this time with the full dipolar form of the magnetic interactions computed for every particle pair. A repulsive potential $`exp(100r/a)`$ when $`r<a`$ was used to prevent any significant overlaps. The average width over 100 simulations was evaluated for $`N=36`$, $`a=3\mu m`$ and $`H=4`$ Oe. Figure 2 demonstrates that both the simulations and theoretical results agree with experimental measurements in all three scaling regimes, although the crossover between the $`t^{1/2}`$ and $`t^{1/4}`$ regimes extend over a full decade. The $`Wt^{1/4}`$ regime is visible over roughly 2.5 decades. The high variance around the average of $`W`$ in the saturated regime comes from the small number (3) of experiments that were carried out at this reduced time, along with the fact that this regime is sensitive to the longest wavelength, for which the variance of the amplitude is highest (it scales as $`1/\omega _n`$).

It is also possible to obtain the dynamic scaling from the equilibrium behavior. For this purpose consider the departure $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_i`$ from an arbitrary initial configuration, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_i(t,t_0)=h_i(t+t_0)h_i(t_0)`$. Using Eq. (4) again we find that the averaged space Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }h_i(t,t_0)`$ obeys

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t,t_0)|^2}{At}=\frac{1e^{\omega _nt}}{\omega _nt},$$
(6)
where $`A=2k_BT/3\pi \eta aN`$. Above we have used the saturation level $`|\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t_0)|^2=k_BT/\kappa N\omega _n`$ from Eq. (5). Comparing this expression with Eq. (5) shows that the lateral fluctuations at equilibrium behave similarly to the lateral displacements starting from a straight chain during the non-equilibrium roughening stage, but display an amplitude $`\sqrt{2}`$ times larger and develop $`2`$ times more slowly.

In Fig. 3 we have compared the theory of Eq. (6) to $`N=57`$, $`a=3\mu m`$ experiments with $`\lambda =113`$ and $`18.1`$, for which $`\tau =0.022s`$ and $`0.14s`$. For each $`t`$ the power spectrum $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{h}_n(t,t_0)|^2`$, calculated using a Hamming window, was averaged over all possible $`t_0`$’s in the 30 minutes the experiment lasted.

The agreement between these experiments and this theory, where there are no free parameters, is satisfactory. Note that $`\omega _n`$ was evaluated using its discrete form. Using the continuous asymptotic limit of the Rouse model, $`\omega _n=\omega _1n^2`$ instead, would result in systematic deviations from this model for large wavenumbers.

Finally, we sketch the structure of the connection between the present problem and the general framework of anomalous diffusion of particles in systems with memory Morgado et al. (2002). We consider particle $`i=0`$ and use Eq. (1) to integrate out the $`i0`$ variables. By applying time Fourier transforms and neglecting all but the $`i=0`$ mass it is possible to arrive at Toussaint et al. (2003)

$$m\widehat{\ddot{h}}_0(\omega )=m\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )\widehat{\dot{h}}_0(\omega )+\widehat{F}(\omega )$$
(7)
where the time Fourier transform is denoted by hat symbols, $`F(t)`$ is the fluctuating part of the force and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )=(4/m)\sqrt{\alpha \kappa /i\omega }`$ for $`1/\tau _1\omega 1/\tau `$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )(4/m)\sqrt{\alpha \kappa \tau _1/i}`$ for $`\omega 1/\tau _1`$. The inverse Fourier transform of Eq. (7) is a Generalized Langevin Equation of the Mori-Lee form Morgado et al. (2002),

$$m\ddot{h}_0(t)=m_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t_1\mathrm{\Gamma }(tt_1)\dot{h}_0(t_1)+F(t).$$
(8)
From the exact form of $`F(t)`$ Toussaint et al. (2003) the fluctuation dissipation theorem for such a generalized Langevin equation, $`F(t)F(0)=2mk_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }(|t|)`$, can be checked directly. The memory effects and correlations in $`F(t)`$ come from the interaction between the rest of the chain and the fluid. According to theory Morgado et al. (2002), the random mean square width of the observed particle’s displacement scales at long time as $`W^2t^{1\alpha }`$ if $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )\omega ^\alpha `$ in the limit $`\omega 0`$. In the present case, the asymptotic behavior of the response function corresponds to $`\alpha =0`$ for finite chains and $`t>\tau _1`$, and to $`\alpha =1/2`$ for times below $`\tau _1`$ ($`\tau _1\mathrm{}`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$). The observed behavior $`W^2t^{1/2}`$ for $`t\tau _1`$ is then in agreement with this theory, and the present system is a simple experimental example validating this theory.

For chains in an unbounded medium, the Zimm model predicts $`Wt^{1/3}`$ Grosberg and Khokhlov (1994), and experiments carried on various MR fluids report $`Wt^{0.35\pm 0.05}`$ Furst and Gast (2000). This behavior is attributed to either hydrodynamic- or long rang dipolar interactions. In our system hydroynamic interactions are suppressed by the walls. This may be understood by noting that the flow in our system is described by a simple Darcy law at length scales above $`d`$. This implies that a local flow perturbation decays as $`1/r^2`$ which is faster than the $`1/r`$ decay, given by the Oseen tensor in an unbounded medium Grosberg and Khokhlov (1994). Since the chain length is typically much larger than $`d`$, hydrodynamic interactions are local and do not affect the longer wavelengths of our chain motion. On the other hand we note that if our experimental and simulation data were truncated as $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(H^2t/N^2)1`$ they could support the $`Wt^{3/8}`$ interpretation made by Furst & Gast Furst and Gast (2000). As these authors attribute their exponent $`3/8`$ to long range dipolar interactions, our results may indicate that such interactions do play a role, but only in a crossover regime to the $`Wt^{1/4}`$ behavior.

In conclusion, we have established the scaling behavior of confined dipolar chains over 5 orders of magnitude by matching experiments, theory and Brownian dynamics simulations. In passing we have made contact with nearby theories of both polymer models and non-Markovian formulations of anomalous diffusion. These results are attractive in particular because of the versatility and easy control of the experiments.