text:
# Constraints on the Space Density of Extragalactic HVCs

## 1. Introduction

The nature of high velocity clouds (HVCs) still remains a mystery. Several explanations of their origin have been set forth by Wakker & van Woerden (1997) in their review of forty years of HVC research. They conclude that no single origin can explain all observed HVCs and subdivide all known HVCs into different classes. Well established is the explanation for the Magellanic Stream, the largest H i structure observed in the sky, except for the gaseous disk of the Milky Way itself. This HVC is likely the result of tidal interaction between the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds, where LMC gas is stripped away and spread along an orbit around the Milky Way. However, this HVC is not typical for the large number of clouds presented by Wakker & van Woerden (1991), the standard catalog of HVCs. Most clouds require alternative explanations.

The main uncertainty in understanding the nature of the HVCs is that their distances are difficult to determine. The absence of starlight in HVCs prevents the use of spectroscopic parallax methods commonly-used to determine distances to stars in the nearest galaxies. Some distance brackets have been specified with the absorption line method where spectra of stars with known distances are checked for the presence of (e.g.) Ca, Fe, and Mg absorption features (Van Woerden et al. 1999). Recently, Balmer recombination line emission driven by reprocessing of the UV ionizing radiation originating from hot, young stars in the Galactic disk has been used to specify distances to a few clouds (Bland-Hawthorn et al. 1998, Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney 1999). These measurements require an accurate model for the Galactic ionizing field, and work best for clouds with large perpendicular distances from the Galactic disk. Braun & Burton (1999) present yet another distance estimator. For a cool HVC core they use the measured H i column density and the angular size to calculate an H i volume density which depends on the distance to the cloud. Assumptions about the thermodynamics of the H i gas yields a likely density and hence a distance.

Oort (1966) was the first to consider HVCs in an extragalactic context. His distance estimation assumed that the clouds are self-gravitating, stable entities. By comparing their solid angle on the sky, brightness temperature, and velocity dispersion Hulsbosch (1975) found that the typical distance would be approximately 10 Mpc, which places the clouds outside the Local Group (LG) and implies that their neutral hydrogen mass would be $`10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$, comparable to that of normal spiral galaxies. At these distances, the clouds should be participating in the Hubble expansion, rather than approaching the Milky Way.

Blitz et al. (1999) and Braun & Burton (1999) have recently revived the idea that HVCs are extragalactic. These authors show that the clouds’ distribution on the sky, as well as their kinematics as an ensemble are consistent with a model in which HVCs are distributed throughout the LG, at typical distances of a few hundred kpc (Braun & Burton) to 1 Mpc (Blitz et al.). In order to make the total mass of the HVCs consistent with the assumption of self-gravity, the authors suggest that, like galaxies, HVCs are dominated by dark matter. This dark matter provides the binding potential that keeps the clouds from falling apart; the only directly observable constituent, H i, is only 10% of the total mass. In this scenario, the HVCs are either remnants from the formation of the LG or representatives from an intergalactic population of dark matter dominated mini-halos in which hydrogen has collected and remained stable on cosmological time scales.

A theoretical basis for the LG explanation is provided by hierarchical clustering scenarios that explain the formation of galaxies by many generations of mergers of smaller masses. Large numbers of proto-galactic gas clouds might survive to the present day if the mergers are not fully efficient. However, only about ten percent of the predicted number of halos have been identified as dwarf galaxies (Klypin et al. 1999, Moore et al. 1999). The association of HVCs with this missing population makes an appealing picture for the LG explanation.

Clearly, if the HVC phenomenon is a common feature of galaxy formation and evolution, then extragalactic surveys of the halos and group environments of nearby galaxies should show evidence for this population. Also the incidence of QSO absorption line systems should be in agreement with this idea.

## 2. The H i Mass Function of HVCs in the Local Group

Determining the space density of gas-rich galaxies and possible intergalactic gas clouds as a function of H i mass has been, and continues to be, one of the main objectives of extragalactic 21cm surveys. At this meeting the results from several H i surveys with varying sensitivity and survey volume have been presented, and it is clear that at this moment there is still no consensus on the shape and normalization of the H i mass function (HiMF, see contributions by Henning, Schneider, Staveley-Smith, Verheijen, Webster). Especially at low H i masses ($`M_{\mathrm{HI}}<10^{7.5}h_{65}^2\mathrm{M}_{}`$), there is considerable uncertainty due to the small number of detections. Schneider, Spitzak & Rosenberg (1998) have found evidence for a steep upturn in the tail of the HiMF. Although this steep tail has a tantalizing similarity to the signature of massive HVCs, it appears that at least one of the two H i signals responsible for the rise comes from a normal galaxy, and the other is too close to a bright star to exclude faint optical emission (Spitzak & Schneider 1999).

In order to develop a reference frame for the number density of HVCs in the LG, we determine the LG HiMF from H i measurements of all known members as compiled by Mateo (1998). The top panel of Figure 1 shows the resulting HiMF, constructed from 22 LG galaxies in which H i has been detected. Also incorporated in this mass function are the recent H i detections in dwarf spheroidals (Blitz & Robishaw 2000). A simple correction for incompleteness due to obscuration by dust in the Zone of Avoidance has been made (see Zwaan & Briggs 2000). Also shown is the field HiMF determined by Zwaan et al. (1997), scaled vertically so as to fit the points around the knee in the HiMF where the curve has been measured accurately. Note that the HiMF of optically selected galaxies in the LG is remarkably flat, with $`\alpha 1.0`$. Dwarf galaxies with $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}<10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ contribute only $`2.5\%`$ to the total H i budget of the LG.

The second panel of Figure 1 shows the same curve, but overlaid is now the HiMF of HVCs if they were self-gravitating clouds distributed throughout the LG, as proposed by Blitz et al. (1999). We use the HVC parameters from the compilation of HVCs of Wakker & van Woerden (1991). For each cloud, the distance at which it is gravitationally stable is calculated, assuming that the ratio of baryonic to total mass if $`f`$. We choose to let $`f`$ vary from $`0.0125`$ to $`0.2`$ and calculate the mass functions. The virial distance of a cloud scales in direct proportion to $`f`$, and hence the mass with $`f^2`$. It is obvious from Figure 1 that high values of $`f`$ are in variance with the the observed field HiMF: 21cm surveys should have detected in the order of 10 dark H i clouds for every normal galaxy with the same H i mass in the range $`10^{7.5}`$ to $`10^9\mathrm{M}_{}`$. None of the H i surveys to date has found evidence for such a large population of H i clouds without optical identification.

The space density of HVCs in the LG can only be brought into agreement with the observed field HiMF if the median value of $`f`$ is lowered to $`0.02`$, a value much lower than what is normally observed in galaxies. The median distance of such clouds must be smaller than $`200`$ kpc. At these distances the clouds do not fit logically in a model in which they are distributed throughout the LG.

## 3. Expected HVC Detections in 21cm Surveys

More specific estimates of the expected number of extragalactic HVC detections can be made by simulating the cloud populations around known galaxies and groups. A number of 21cm surveys exist that are capable of sensing the presence of the extragalactic HVC population in the outskirts of external groups and galaxies.

For instance, the Arecibo H i Strip Survey (AHiSS, Sorar 1994, Zwaan et al. 1997), un unbiased drift-scan survey at two constant declination strips, is very suitable for assessing the HVC problem. Zwaan & Briggs (2000) use various redshift surveys and catalogs of galaxy groups to calculate that the strips probe the halos of some 300 galaxies and 14 groups with impact parameters of $`1`$ Mpc. The volumes around the galaxies and groups are filled with synthetic populations of HVCs, with properties similar to what is proposed by Blitz et al. (1999). The group halos are filled with 450 clouds, approximately the number of HVCs listed by Wakker & van Woerden (1991), excluding the large complexes which are excluded from the Blitz et al. analysis. To calculate the number of clouds around galaxies, the number of clouds associated with each galaxy is scaled in direct proportion to the ratio of the galaxy luminosity compared to the integral LG luminosity.

The number of expected detections was calculated taking into account the column density, size, and velocity width of the HVC population as measured by Wakker & van Woerden (1991). Several radial distribution functions for the clouds have been tested, but this does not seem to have a strong influence on the expected number of detections: $`70`$ HVC detections in groups and $`250`$ detection around galaxies should have been made. Note that the group member galaxies have not been removed from the list of galaxies, so these numbers should not be simply added to predict a total number of detections. The analysis is sensitive to clouds with H i masses $`>10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$, not only to the most massive ones.

These predictions are in sharp contrast with the results of the AHiSS analysis: all H i detections away from the Zone of Avoidance could be optically identified with galaxies containing stars. Other surveys have turned up a few instances of dark H i clouds, but these are all found to be confined to the gravitational potential of a bright optical galaxy, and are much too scanty to agree with the numbers calculated above. Kilborn et al. (2000) report on the first discovery of an isolated extragalactic H i cloud without optical identification, but this cloud too might be explained as a very high velocity cloud in the outskirts of the Milky Way-LMC system.

## 4. QSO Absorption Line Statistics

A completely independent way of investigating the idea of extragalactic HVCs is provided by QSO absorption line statistics. Charlton, Churchill & Rigby (2000) showed that the incidence of Mg ii and Lyman limit absorption systems is in conflict with the idea that extragalactic groups contain several hundreds of clouds with typical H i masses of $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We illustrate this same point here by plotting the column density distribution function of H i ($`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$) for the proposed HVC population. This function describes the chance of finding an absorber of a certain H i column density along a random line of sight per unit distance.

For the HVCs, we again use the Wakker & van Woerden catalog. The area covered by each cloud is calculated from its measured solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the sky, and its distance based on the assumption of virial equilibrium. An area function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ that describes the total area in $`\mathrm{Mpc}^2`$ that is covered by the ensemble of clouds as a function of $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ is calculated by binning the clouds in column density, and adding the areas. The column density distribution function can be calculated from

$$f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})=\frac{c}{H_0}\frac{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }(N_{\mathrm{HI}})}{dN_{\mathrm{HI}}},$$
(1)
where $`\varphi ^{}`$ is the space density of groups. Charlton et al. (2000) derive $`\varphi ^{}`$ from the CfA redshift survey by dividing the number of identified groups by the total survey volume and find $`\varphi ^{}=3\times 10^4`$. This is a conservative estimate since it does not incorporate a correction for incompleteness of the survey at higher redshifts. Ramella et al. (1999) compose a catalog of groups from the ESO Slice Project (ESP) redshift survey. Within the volume of $`1.9\times 10^5h_{100}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ at the effective depth of $`z=0.16`$ they identify 231 groups with at least three members. The space density of groups within that volume is therefore at least $`1.2\times 10^3h_{100}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. If we limit the calculation to the volume at the sensitivity peak of the survey at $`z=0.1`$ the value of $`\varphi ^{}`$ rises to $`2.0\times 10^3h_{100}^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, which illustrates the effect of incompleteness. As a conservative estimate we adopt $`\varphi ^{}=1.2\times 10^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ for the calculation of $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$. The resulting $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ is shown in Figure 2 as a dashed histogram.

The same calculation can be performed for individual galaxies. In this case we have to integrate over the luminosity function of galaxies, and the number of clouds associated with each galaxy is again scaled with the galaxy luminosity compared to the integral luminosity of the LG. For the luminosity function we adopt the average values from different large galaxy redshift surveys (see Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles 1998): $`M_B^{}=19.5\mathrm{mag}`$, $`\alpha =1.1`$ and $`\varphi ^{}=0.020\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$. The resulting $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ is shown as the solid histogram in Figure 2.

For comparison, the measured values of $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ are shown as points with errorbars. The leftmost points represent the high $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ part of the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest measured by Hu et al. (1995). The HVCs cover the Lyman limit regime, the point here is taken from Petitjean et al. (1991). The forest and Lyman limit points are all derived from high $`z`$ ($`>2`$) data, a low $`z`$ $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ is not available in this regime. The points for damped Lyman $`\alpha `$ systems at the highest $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ part are taken from Rao & Turnshek (2000) and are for $`z0.8`$. The straight line is the canonical fit to $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ at $`z=0`$ with a slope $`1.5`$. As was noted by Blitz et al. (1999), the shape of $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ for HVCs agrees well with the general observed trend. However, this plot clearly illustrates that the simulated $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$ for clouds exceeds the measured one by a large factor.

This points can be made more qualitatively by calculating $`dN/dz`$, the number of absorbers per unit redshift, by integrating over $`f(N_{\mathrm{HI}})`$. For the groups we derive $`dN/dz=6`$ and for clouds around individual galaxies we find $`dN/dz=27`$. Extrapolating the results of Stengler-Larrea et al. (1995) on Lyman limit systems to $`z=0`$ yields $`dN/dz=0.25\pm 0.15`$. The conclusions that we can draw from this exercise are similar to those of Charlton et al.: QSO absorption line statistics are inconsistent with the hypothesis that galaxies and galaxy groups are surrounded by a large population of $`M_{\mathrm{HI}}=10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ gas clouds.

## 5. Discussion

The hypothesis that most HVCs are primordial gas clouds with typical H i masses of a few $`\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at distances of $`1`$ Mpc from the Galaxy is not in agreement with observations of nearby galaxies and groups and with QSO absorption line statistics. Blind H i surveys of the extragalactic sky would have detected these clouds if they exist around all galaxies or galaxy groups in numbers equal to those suggested for the Local Group. These results are highly significant: the Arecibo H i strip survey would have detected approximately 250 clouds around individual galaxies and 70 in galaxy groups. Furthermore, the measured incidence of QSO absorption line systems $`dN/dz`$ is at least a factor 20 lower than what would be expected if all groups and galaxies were surrounded by a collection of H i clouds similar to what is proposed for the Local Group.

Several additional observations could help identifying the true nature of HVCs. Measuring the H$`\alpha `$ flux in HVCs can yield accurate distances, provided that the UV ionizing field around the Milky Way is accurately known (Bland-Hawthorn et al. 1998, Bland-Hawthorn & Maloney 1999). Also, determining metal abundances in HVCs is a useful method to distinguish between different HVC scenarios. If the clouds are primordial remnants of the formation of the Local Group they would not have been contaminated with these heavier elements and would retain a composition closer to the pristine environment of the early Universe.

Results to date have been confusing, since different teams report different measured metallicities, even in the same cloud. HST spectra of Complex C taken in the direction of background source Mrk 290 yield a sulphur abundance ten times lower than that of the gas layer of the Milky Way (Wakker et al. 2000). On the other hand, very recent data from FUSE, probing a different position in the same cloud, show an abundance of iron approximately half that found in the solar neighborhood (Murphy et al. 2000). Furthermore, Sembach et al. (2000) report on FUSE observations that show the first detection in a HVC of O vi, a high ionization level probably produced in interactions between the HVC and the halo gas of the Galaxy.

The conclusion that can be drawn at this moment is that HVCs are probably a mixture of several species with different origin. Some are clearly the result of gravitational interactions, some might be produced in a Galactic fountain where hot gas is blown out of the Galactic disk, into the halo, where it cools and precipitates on the Galaxy. Some might be primordial gas clouds distributed throughout the Local Group. Braun & Burton (1999, 2000) limit their calculations to a subsample of some 80 compact HVCs, and place them at a median distance of 650 kpc at which the H i mass would be $`10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$. For such a population, the limits from both QSO absorption line results and 21cm surveys are much weaker. Future deep 21cm surveys that reach minimal detectable H i masses of $`10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ in nearby groups will provide the definitive answer.

## References

Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Maloney, P. R. 1999, ApJ, 510, L33

Bland-Hawthorn, J., Veilleux, S., Cecil, G. N., Putman, M. E., Gibson, B. K., & Maloney, P. R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 611

Blitz, L., Spergel, D. N., Teuben, P. J., Hartmann, D., & Burton, W. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 818

Blitz, L. & Robishaw, T. 2000, astro-ph/0001142

Braun, R., & Burton, W. B. 1999, A&A, 341, 437

Braun, R., & Burton, W. B. 2000, astro-ph/0004033

Charlton, J. C., Churchill, C. W., & Rigby, J. R. 2000, astro-ph/0002001

Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518

Garcia, A. M. 1993, A&AS, 100, 47

Hu, E. M., Kim, T., Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A. & Rauch, M. 1995, AJ, 110, 1526

Hulsbosch, A. N. M. 1975, A&A, 40, 1

Kilborn, V. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0005267

Klypin, A. A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Mateo, M. L. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435

Moore, B., Ghigna, F., Governato, F., Lake, G., Stadel J., Tozzi, P. 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

Murphy, E. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0005408

Oort, J. H., Bull. Astr. Inst. Neth. 1966, 18, 421

Petitjean, P., Webb, J. K., Rauch, M., Carswell, R. F. & Lanzetta, K. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 499

Putman, M. E. et al. 1998, Nature, 394, 752

Rao, S. M., Turnshek, D. A. 2000, astro-ph/9909164

Ramella, M. et al. 1999, A&A, 342, 1

Schneider, S. E., Spitzak, & J. G., Rosenberg, J. L. 1998, ApJ, 507, L9

Sembach, K. R. et al. 2000, astro-ph/0005012

Sorar, E. 1994, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh

Spitzak, J. G., & Schneider, S. S. 1999, ApJS, 119, 159

Stengler-Larrea, E. A., et al. 1995, ApJ, 444, 64

Wakker, B. P., & van Woerden, H. 1991, A&A, 250, 509

Wakker, B. P., & van Woerden, H. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 217

Wakker, B. P. et al. 1999, Nature, 402, 388

van Woerden, H., Schwarz, U. J., Peletier, R. F., Wakker, B. P., & Kalberla, P. M. W. 1999, Nature, 400, L138

Zwaan, M. A., Briggs, F. H., Sprayberry, D., & Sorar, E. 1997, ApJ, 490, 173

Zwaan, M. A., & Briggs, F. H. 2000, ApJ, 530, L61


format: text

text:
# Relaxation of a Moving Contact Line and Landau–Levich Effect

## Abstract

The dynamics of the deformations of a moving contact line is formulated. It is shown that an advancing contact line relaxes more quickly as compared to the equilibium case, while for a receding contact line there is a corresponding slowing down. For a receding contact line on a heterogeneous solid surface, it is found that a roughening transition takes place which formally corresponds to the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film.

When a drop of liquid spreads on a solid suface, the contact line, which is the common borderline between the solid, the liquid, and the corresponding equilibrium vapor, undergoes a rather complex dynamical behavior. This dynamics is determined by a subtle competition between the mutual interfacial energetics of the three phases, dissipation and hydrodynamic flows in the liquid, and the geometrical or chemical irregularities of the solid surface .

A most notable feature of contact lines, which is responsible for their novel dynamics, is their anomalous elasticity as noticed by Joanny and de Gennes . For length scales below the capillary length, which is usually of the order of 1 mm, a contact line deformation of wavevector $`k`$, denoted as $`h(k)`$ in Fourier space, will distort the surface of the liquid over a distance $`|k|^1`$. Assuming that the surface deforms instantaneously in response to the contact line, the elastic energy cost for the deformation can be calculated from the surface tension energy stored in the distorted area, and is thus proportional to $`|k|`$, namely $`E_{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{\gamma \theta ^2}{2}\frac{dk}{2\pi }|k||h(k)|^2`$, in which $`\gamma `$ is the surface tension and $`\theta `$ is the contact angle .

The anomalous elasticity leads to interesting equilibrium dynamics, corresponding to when the contact line is perturbed from its static position, as studied by de Gennes . Balancing $`\frac{dE_{\mathrm{cl}}}{dt}`$ and the dissipation, which for small contact angles is dominated by the hydrodynamic dissipation in the liquid nearby the contact line, he finds that each deformation mode relaxes to equilibrium with a characteristic frequency (inverse decay time) $`\omega (k)=c|k|`$, in which $`c=\gamma \theta ^3/(3\eta \mathrm{})`$ where $`\eta `$ is the viscosity of the liquid and $`\mathrm{}`$ is a logarithmic factor of order unity . The relaxation is thus characterized by a dynamic exponent $`z`$, defined via $`\omega (k)|k|^z`$, which is equal to 1. The linear dispersion relation implies that a deformation in the contact line will decay and propagate at a constant velocity $`c`$, as opposed to systems with normal line tension elasticity, where the decay and the propagation are governed by diffusion. This behavior has been observed, and the linear dispersion relation has been precisely tested, in a recent experiment by Ondarcuhu and Veyssie .

As an interesting example for nonequilibrium cases, corresponding to when there is an overall relative motion between the liquid and the solid, Landau and Levich studied the wetting of a plate vertically withdrawn from a completely wetting liquid at a constant velocity $`v`$ . The case of partial wetting, where the liquid has a finite contact angle $`\theta _e`$ at equilibrium, has been studied by de Gennes . He finds that the velocity $`v`$ and the dynamic contact angle $`\theta `$ are related as $`v=c(\theta _e^2/\theta ^21)/2`$, and thus argues that a steady state is achieved in which the liquid will partially wet the plate with a nonvanishing dynamic contact angle for pull-out velocities less than $`c`$, while a macroscopic Landau–Levich liquid film, formally corresponding to a vanishing $`\theta `$, will remain on the plate for higher velocities, as depicted in Fig. 1 . Note that at the transition there is a jump in the “order parameter” $`\theta `$, from $`\theta _e/\sqrt{3}`$ to zero.

In the presence of defects and heterogeneities in the substrate, which could be due to (surface) roughness or chemical contamination, a contact line may become rough because it locally deforms so as to find the path with optimal pinning energy . This is in contrast to the case of a perfect solid surface, where the contact line is flat. The roughness can be characterized as a scaling law that relates the statistical width $`W`$ of the contact line to its length $`L`$, via $`WL^\zeta `$, with the so-called roughness exponent $`\zeta `$ being equal to $`1/3`$ for the case of surface disorder with short-range correlations . The contact line is also pinned by the defects, which means that a nonzero (critical) force is necessary to set the contact line to motion, through a depinning transition . It is also important to note that there may be numerous metastable states for the contact line due to the random disorder, leading to hysteresis in the contact angle .

Here we study the dynamics of the deformations of a nonequilibrium (moving) contact line. Using a balance between the hydrodynamic dissipation in the deformed moving liquid wedge and the rate of change of the interfacial energies, we find that the dynamical relaxation is described by

$`_th(k,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(cv)|k|h(k,t)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }\lambda (q,kq)h(q,t)h(kq,t)},`$
in which $`v`$ is the average velocity of the contact line, and $`\lambda (q,kq)=(2vc)q(kq)+3c|q||kq|+(cv)|k|(|q|+|kq||k|)`$ is the leading nonlinear correction. As compared to the equilibrium case ($`v=0`$), we thus find that the linear relaxation is faster for an advancing contact line ($`v<0`$), while it is slower for a receding one ($`v>0`$). In particular, for a contact line that is receding at the “terminal” velocity $`v=c`$, which coincides with the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film, linear relaxation becomes infinitely slow and the dominant relaxation is thus governed by the nonlinear terms.

We also take into account the effect of surface disorder on the moving contact line dynamics, which appears as a stochastic term in the right hand side of Eq.(2), and attempt to systematically study the dynamical phase transition using renormalization group (RG) techniques. We find that the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film formally corresponds to a roughening transition of the (receding) contact line, which for a random substrate with strength $`g`$ takes place at a critical velocity below $`c`$, corresponding to a dynamic contact angle

$$\frac{\theta _c}{\theta _e}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{(11\pi /3)^{1/3}}{2\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{g}{\gamma \theta _e^2}\right)^{2/3},$$
(3)
to the leading order. We combine our results with studies of the contact line depinning transition , and propose a phase diagram for the system as depicted in Fig. 2. In particular, we find that the phase boundaries corresponding to the dynamical phase transition and to the depinning transition meet at a triple point, and suggest that for stronger disorder a receding contact line will leave a Landau–Levich film immediately after depinning.

Let us assume that the contact line is oriented along the $`x`$-axis, and is moving in the $`y`$-direction with the position described by $`y(x,t)=vt+h(x,t)`$, as depicted in Fig. 3. If a line element of length $`dl=dx\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}`$ is displaced by $`\delta y(x,t)`$, the interfacial energy will be locally modified by two contributions: (i) the swept area in which liquid is replaced by vapor times the difference between the solid-vapor $`\gamma _{SV}`$ and the solid-liquid $`\gamma _{SL}`$ interfacial energies, namely, $`(\gamma _{SV}\gamma _{SL})dl\delta y/\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}`$, and (ii) the work done by the surface tension force, whose direction is along the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐓}`$ that is parallel to the liquid-vapor interface at the contact and perpendicular to the contact line, as $`\gamma \widehat{𝐓}\widehat{𝐲}dl\delta y`$. Note that we are interested in length scales below the capillary length, where gravity does not play a role. The overall change in the interfacial energy of the system can thus be written as

$$\delta E=𝑑x\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}\left[\frac{\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta _e}{\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}}\gamma \mathrm{cos}\alpha \right]\delta y(x,t),$$
(4)
in which $`\alpha (x,t)\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\widehat{𝐓}\widehat{𝐲}\right)`$, and we have made use of the Young equation: $`\gamma _{SV}\gamma _{SL}=\gamma \mathrm{cos}\theta _e`$. Note that both “forces” should be projected onto the $`y`$-axis when calculating the work done for a displacement in this direction. For small contact angles and deformations one obtains $`\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha 1\theta (x,t)^2/2`$, where $`\theta (x,t)`$ is the local contact angle.

To calculate the dissipation, we assume that the contact angle is sufficiently small so that the dominant contribution comes from the viscous losses in the hydrodynamic flows of the liquid wedge . For a slightly deformed contact line, we assume that the dissipation can be approximated by the sum of contributions from wedge-shaped slices with local contact angles $`\theta (x,t)`$. This is a reasonable approximation because most of the dissipation is taking place in the singular flows near the tip of the wedge . Using the result for the dissipation in a perfect wedge which is based on the lubrication approximation , we can calculate the total dissipation as

$$P=𝑑x\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}\left\{\frac{3\eta \mathrm{}\left[v+_th(x,t)\right]^2}{\theta (x,t)}\right\}.$$
(5)
We can now use Eqs.(4) and (5) to calculate $`\frac{dE}{dt}`$ and $`P`$, and set them equal to each other to derive the dynamical equation. It yields

$$3\eta \mathrm{}\left[v+_th(x,t)\right]=\frac{\gamma }{2}\frac{\theta (x,t)\left(\theta _e^2\theta (x,t)^2\right)}{\sqrt{1+(_xh)^2}}.$$
(6)
The above equation might simply be recovered by locally applying the result of Ref. for straight contact lines, with the additional geometrical factor, which is needed when the direction of motion is not perpendicular to the contact line, taken into account.

To complete the calculation, we need to solve for the profile of the surface and the corresponding angles as a function of $`h`$. One can show that the surface profile $`z(x,y)`$ near the contact line can be found as a solution of the Laplace equation $`(_x^2+_y^2)z(x,y)=0`$, so as to minimize the surface area. The solution reads $`z(x,y)=\theta y+\frac{dk}{2\pi }\beta (k)\mathrm{exp}\left(ikx|k|y\right)`$, where $`\beta (k)=\theta \left[h(k)+\frac{dq}{2\pi }|q|h(q)h(kq)+O(h^3)\right]`$ is found using the boundary condition $`z(x,h(x))=0`$ . We therefore find $`\theta (x)=\theta [1+\frac{dk}{2\pi }|k|h(k)e^{ikx}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }f(k,k^{})h(k)h(k^{})e^{i(k+k^{})x}]`$ with $`f(k,k^{})=|k+k^{}|(|k|+|k^{}|)(k+k^{})^2+kk^{}`$, which can then be used in Eq.(6) to yield Eq.(2), and the relation between $`v`$ and $`\theta `$ as described above and depicted in Fig. 1.

The linear relaxation of a moving contact line thus takes place at characteristic frequencies which obey the modified dispersion relation $`\omega (k)=(cv)|k|`$, and as the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film corresponding to $`v=c`$ is approached, the relaxaxtion becomes progressively slower.

In addition to dissipation and elasticity, the dynamics of a contact line is also affected by the defects and heterogeneities in the substrate, which are present in most practical cases. If the intefacial energies $`\gamma _{SV}`$ and $`\gamma _{SL}`$ are space dependent, a displacement of the contact line is going to lead to a change in energy as $`\delta E_\mathrm{d}=𝑑xg(x,vt+h(x,t))\delta y(x,t)`$, where $`g(x,y)=\gamma _{SV}(x,y)\gamma _{SL}(x,y)(\overline{\gamma }_{SV}\overline{\gamma }_{SL})`$. Incorporating this contribution in the force balance leads to a noise term on the right hand side of Eq.(2) of the form $`\eta (x,t)=\frac{\theta }{3\eta \mathrm{}}g(x,vt)`$ to the leading order. Note that this is a good approximation provided we are well away from the depinning transition, and the contact line is moving fast enough . Assuming that the surface disorder has short range correlations (so that the correlation length is a microscopic length $`a`$) with a Gaussian distribution described by $`g(x,y)=0`$ and $`g(x,y)g(x^{},y^{})=g^2a^2\delta (xx^{})\delta (yy^{})`$, we can deduce the distribution of the noise as: $`\eta (x,t)=0`$ and $`\eta (x,t)\eta (x^{},t^{})=\frac{c^2g^2a^2}{\gamma ^2\theta ^4|v|}\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{})`$.

In the presence of the noise, the contact line undergoes dynamical fluctuations. These fluctuations can best be characterized by the width of the contact line, which is defined as $`W^2(L,t)\frac{1}{L}𝑑xh(x,t)^2`$. Using the scaling form of the two-point correlation function, one can show that $`Wt^{\zeta /z}`$ for intermediate times, while it saturates to $`WL^\zeta `$ at long times. Similarly, we can study the fluctuations in the order parameter field $`\delta \theta (x,t)=\theta (x,t)\theta `$, and find

$$\delta \theta (x,t)^21B/t^{2(1\zeta )/z},$$
(7)
where $`B`$ is a constant. Note that the order parameter fluctuations approach a finite limit at long times provided $`\zeta <1`$.

Keeping only the linear term in Eq.(2), we calculate the width of the contact line as

$$W(L,t)\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\left[(cv)t/a\right]},\hfill & \frac{a}{(cv)}t\frac{L}{(cv)},\hfill \\ \sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\left(L/a\right)},\hfill & t\frac{L}{(cv)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
and, similarly, the order parameter fluctuations as

$$\delta \theta (x,t)^21B/t^2,$$
(9)
for $`t\frac{a}{(cv)}`$. We thus find $`\zeta =0`$ and $`z=1`$ within the linear theory.

The nonlinear terms in Eq.(2) will modify the above results only when it becomes appreciable at long length scales, as compared to the linear term. The ratio of the two terms in Eq.(2) scales as $`\frac{c(L/a)^{2\zeta 1}}{(cv)(L/a)^\zeta }\frac{ac}{L(cv)}`$, and is thus appreciable only when the smallest time scale in the linear theory $`a/(cv)`$ becomes comparable to $`L/c`$. This happens near the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film.

Let us now attempt to systematically study the dynamical phase transition, corresponding to leaving a Landau–Levich film, using the RG scheme. The dynamical equation, which can be generally written in $`d`$ dimensions as $`_th(k,t)=\nu |k|h(k,t)\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^dq}{2\pi }\lambda (q,kq)h(q,t)h(kq,t)+\eta (k,t)`$, with $`\lambda (q,kq)=\lambda _1q(kq)+\lambda _2|q||kq|+\lambda _3|k|(|q|+|kq||k|)`$, belongs to the general class of Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equations . We take a noise spectrum given by $`\eta (k,t)=0`$ and $`\eta (k,t)\eta (k^{},t^{})=2D(2\pi )^d\delta ^d(k+k^{})\delta (tt^{})`$, and employ standard RG techniques following Ref.  to calculate the RG equations describing the flow of the coupling constants. We find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{dl}}=\nu \left[z1{\displaystyle \frac{S_d(\pi /a)^{d+1}(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)D}{2(2\pi )^d\nu ^3}}\right],`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda (q,kq)}{dl}}=\lambda (q,kq)\left(\zeta +z2\right),`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD}{dl}}=D\left[z2\zeta d+{\displaystyle \frac{S_d(\pi /a)^{d+1}(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)^2D^2}{4(2\pi )^d\nu ^3}}\right],`$ (12)
to the one-loop order, in which $`S_d`$ is the surface area of a unit sphere in $`d`$ dimensions.

To study the fixed point structure of the above set of flow equations, it is convenient to introduce the dimensionless coupling constant $`U=S_d(\pi /a)^{d+1}(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)D/[2(2\pi )^d\nu ^3]`$, and thus have $`z=1+U`$ and $`\zeta =1U`$ at the fixed points. The flow equation for $`U`$ reads: $`dU/dl=(d+1)U+\left[6+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)/(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)\right]U^2/2`$, which has two stable fixed points at $`U=0`$ (linear theory) and $`U=\mathrm{}`$ (strong coupling), as well as an intermediate unstable fixed point at $`U=U^{}\frac{2(d+1)}{6+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)/(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)}`$.

For $`U<U^{}`$, the nonlinearity is irrelevant and the exponents are given by the linear theory, i.e. $`\zeta =0`$ and $`z=1`$, while for $`U>U^{}`$ the behavior of the system is governed by a strong coupling fixed point which cannot be studied perturbatively. The fixed point at $`U^{}`$ corresponds to a roughening transition of the moving contact line. The exponents at the transition are $`z=1+\frac{2(d+1)}{6+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)/(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)}`$ and $`\zeta =1\frac{2(d+1)}{6+(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)/(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)}`$, which are nonuniversal. The strong coupling fixed point should presumably describe the Landau–Levich film.

We can also study how the transition is approached by linearizing the flow equation near the fixed point. Setting $`U=U^{}+\delta U`$, we find $`d\delta U/dl=(d+1)\delta U`$ that would imply divergence of the correlation length near the transition as $`\xi |\delta U|^\nu `$ with $`\nu =1/(d+1)`$. The correlation length corresponds to the typical size of rough segments in the contact line, which should diverge as the transition is approached.

Using the equation for the phase boundary $`U=U^{}`$ with $`d=1`$, and the values of the coupling constants that we can read off from Eq.(2), we map out the phase diagram of the system as depicted in Fig. 2. In particular, we find the asymptotic form of the phase boundary for weak disorder as reported in Eq.(3) above, and the nonuniversal exponents $`z=\frac{17}{11}+\frac{15}{121}(\frac{11\pi }{3})^{1/3}(\frac{g}{\gamma \theta _e^2})^{2/3}`$ and $`\zeta =\frac{5}{11}\frac{15}{121}(\frac{11\pi }{3})^{1/3}(\frac{g}{\gamma \theta _e^2})^{2/3}`$ to the leading order, and $`\nu =1/2`$. The order parameter fluctuations at the transition are given by Eq.(7) with the above choice for $`z`$ and $`\zeta `$, and remain finite since $`\zeta <1`$. We also find that the triple point is located at $`\theta _t/\theta _e=0.887`$ and $`g_t/(\gamma \theta _e^2)=0.138`$, which is interestingly still within the weak disorder limit.

It is important to note that since our approach is only valid when the system is away from the depinning transition, it is not clear that we can trust the prediction of our theory in the vicinity of the triple point. In particular, how the two phase boundaries merge at the triple point, and the nature of the third phase boundary (dashed line) remains to be clarified. Furthermore, the above calculation is only restricted to the case of small contact angles where the dissipation is dominated by the singular hydrodynamic flow near the tip of the liquid wedge. Should other mechanisms of dissipation become important, the above picture would be altered .

We finally mention that there could be two types of experiments to check these results, which we hope to motivate. The first type would be an analogue of the Ondarcuhu–Veyssie experiment , which could probe the relaxation of a moving contact line and measure the velocity dependence of the dispersion relation.

The second type of experiments would correspond to a systematic study of the onset of leaving a Landau–Levich film for receding contact lines on a disordered substrate. In particular, it would be interesting to look for a roughening of the contact line before the Landau–Levich film is formed.

We are grateful to J. Bico, R. Bruinsma, P.G. de Gennes, M. Kardar, and D. Quéré for invaluable discussions and comments. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. PHY94-07194 and DMR-98-05833.


text:
# Phase Transitions in “Small” Systems – A Challenge for Thermodynamics –11footnote 1Invited talk at CRIS 2000, 3rd Catania Relativistic Ion Studies “Phase Transitions in Strong Interactions: Status and Perspectives”, Acicastello, Italy, May 22-26, 2000

## 1 Fundamentals of thermo-statistics

Conventional (canonical) thermo-statistics addresses large (in the thermodynamical limit), homogeneous systems. Extensivity (i.e. if the system is divided into pieces their energy and entropy scale with the size of the pieces) is an important condition c.f..

Here we propose a new, easy, and more transparent access to the thermodynamics and especially to phase transitions which applies also to “Small” systems. Only the static geometrical and topological properties of the volume of energy-shell of the N-body phase-space is investigated. No thermodynamic limit has to be invoked. It is obvious that only by this extension of thermo-statistics it is possible to discuss phase transitions in nuclei, atomic clusters and astro-physical systems.

First order transitions are distinguished from continuous transitions by the appearance of phase-separations. Here the system becomes inhomogeneous and coexistent phases are separated by interfaces. Any system at phase separation is necessarily inhomogeneous and non-extensive. This is also the case for the majority of systems in nature: hot nuclei, hot atomic clusters and the real big ones: astrophysical systems under self-gravity. They are inhomogeneous even away from phase transitions. There the thermodynamic limit makes no sense. We will henceforth call these systems “Small” or “non-extensive”.

To describe these non-extensive systems, we have to go back to pre-Gibbsian times. Boltzmann’s famous epitaph

$`S=klnW`$

contains everything what can be said about equilibrium thermodynamics in its most condensed form. $`W`$ is the volume of the sub-manifold of sharp energy in the $`6N`$-dim. phase space. It defines entropy $`S`$ and with it thermodynamics entirely by mechanical quantities and geometry. No thermodynamic limit, no extensivity, no concavity (downwards bending) of the entropy have to be invoked. This was largely forgotten since hundred years.

## 2 Thermo-statistics as geometry and topology of the mechanical phase-space

Like Boltzmann we are led by mechanics as the safe guide when we want to extend thermodynamics here to non-extensive or “Small” systems. For “Small” systems the canonical ensemble and with it the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution have no support by mechanics anymore. A fact by the way Gibbs agreed fully with . Whereas Boltzmann’s definition above opens the way to interprete thermodynamics by the topological and geometrical properties of the N-body phase space. This is new and in marked contrast to e.g. the book of Balian  where the entropy is derived from information theory and its extensivity as well its concavity seems to be demanded from the beginning. Boltzmann’s definition as written above is free of this. It is a purely geometric definition and therefore simple. As it allows for convexity as well for non-extensivity without contradicting the Second Law of thermodynamics  it is much more suited for the purpose of non-extensive thermo-statistics of “Small” systems.

Another fairy tale told to us by most textbooks of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics says: “Phase transitions exist only in the thermodynamic limit.” There, we also learn that phase transitions get smeared in finite systems. Nevertheless though, phase transitions do exist in these systems. It was the result of experiments and theoretical thoughts especially in nuclear physics that paved the way to a new and much deeper understanding of equilibrium statistical mechanics and phase transitions in “Small” systems. I want to remind the pioneering attempts on nuclear multifragmentation, experimentally by the references , where finally Moretto  gave a concluding overview on the experimental situation of multifragmentation, even though he initially doubted the very existence of this new phenomenon in the paper entitled: “Complex fragment emission at 50 MeV/u - compound nuclei for ever” . This development was soon theoretically accompanied and stimulated:  and others. In fact the paper  is the first of some 500 papers on “multifragmentation” cited in the large citation database ISI “Web of Science”. Very early, multifragmentation was discussed as a real phase transition of first order in nuclei. E.g. in  it was argued that multifragmentation is a transition of first order distinct from the usual liquid-gas transition. And of course this was violently attacked also. I remember some experimental colleagues who claimed the intermediate mass fragments were coming from the silicon grease used in the vacuum chamber. Theoretically, it was warned that phase transitions cannot occur in such small systems like nuclei. They will be washed out and maybe not even recognizable. In contrast to phase transitions discussed so far in nuclear physics like the transition from spherical to deformed nuclei or the one from normal to superfluidity which are all entropy $`S=0`$ phenomena, here the real macroscopic signals of a transition in phase-space are seen where the entropy shows some anomaly: A sudden change of the configuration, a latent heat, even a negative heat capacity is seen c.f.  which is linked to a convexity of the entropy, forbidden in normal extensive thermodynamics by van Hove’s concavity rule .

## 3 The whole “zoo” of phase transitions exists in “Small” systems

In this talk I will show just for demonstration how the whole “zoo” of phase transitions: first order transitions including the interphase surface tension, continuous transitions, critical and even multi-critical points are unambiguously and sharply defined in “Small” systems of some hundred particles by the curvatures of the micro-canonical entropy surface $`s(e,n)`$. Details can be found in . For an example, I show (figs.1 and 2) here only the phase diagram of the determinant of curvatures of $`s(e,n)=S/V`$ vs. energy per volume (lattice point) $`e=E/V`$ and density (occupation) $`n=N/V`$ for a Potts lattice gas of $`5050`$ lattice points with three spin components ($`q=3`$):

$$det(e,n)=\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2s}{e^2}& \frac{^2s}{ne}\\ \frac{^2s}{en}& \frac{^2s}{n^2}\end{array}=\begin{array}{cc}s_{ee}& s_{en}\\ s_{ne}& s_{nn}\end{array}=\lambda _1\lambda _2,\lambda _1\lambda _2$$
(1)
The eigenvectors of the curvature matrix define the main curvature directions. Notice, the smaller of the two eigenvalues is here always $`\lambda _2<0`$. The larger eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$ may be positive or negative. The direction of the eigenvector $`\text{v}_1`$ belonging to $`\lambda _1`$ gives a natural and unambiguous definition of the order parameter of the system. It is by a progression in this direction that the system changes from one phase over a region of phase-separation to the other phase. In figure (3) we see the phase transition of first order is controlled by variation roughly parallel to the ground-state (similar to the magnetization axis in the Ising model) and the phase transition of second order in the pure Potts-model by a variation $``$ the energy. As can be well seen the order parameter is not always a straight line in the parameter space.

The systematics of micro-canonical phase transitions will be listed in the conclusion. The multi-critical point $`P_m`$ is most interesting: Here the largest curvature eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$ and therefore also the curvature determinant $`det(e,n)`$ vanishes in a two-dimensional neighborhood. The entropy surface $`s(e,n)`$ has the topology of the surface of a cylinder inside this neighborhood.

As is discussed in all details in ref. this new and more extended definition of phase transitions agrees with the Yang-Lee definition in the thermodynamic limit but it allows to define phase transition also in the much larger world of non-extensive systems. Applications of thermodynamic arguments to these systems and of course to hot nuclei make sense only within the micro-canonical theory. This is also a serious reminder for many contributions to this conference. Moreover, thermodynamics of “Small” systems like hot nuclei is naturally probabilistic and therefore requires normally a Monte Carlo kind of treatment.

## 4 Conclusion

Micro-canonical thermo-statistics describes how the entropy $`s(e,n)`$ as defined entirely in mechanical terms by Boltzmann depends on the conserved “extensive” variables: energy $`e`$, particle number $`n`$, angular momentum $`L`$ etc. In contrast to the conventional theory, we can study phase transitions also in “Small” systems or other non-extensive systems. They are sharply defined for finite systems without invoking the thermodynamic limit. We classify phase transitions in a “Small” system by the topological properties of the determinant of curvatures $`det(e,n)`$, eq.(1), of the micro-canonical entropy-surface $`s(e,n)`$:

* A single stable phase by $`det(e,n)>0`$. Here $`s(e,n)`$ is concave (downwards bended) in both directions and there is a one to one mapping of {e,n} $``${T,$`\nu `$} or between the micro and the grand-canonical ensemble.
* A transition of first order with phase separation by $`det(e,n)<0`$ or the largest curvature $`\lambda _1>0`$. Here the entropy surface $`s(e,n)`$ has a convex intruder. The depth of the intruder is a measure of the inter-phase surface tension . This region is bounded by a line with $`det(e,n)=0`$.
* On this line $`P_m`$ is a critical end-point where additionally $`\text{v}_1\mathbf{}det=0`$ in the direction of the eigenvector of $`det(e,n)`$ with the largest eigenvalue $`\lambda _1`$. I.e. $`det(e,n)`$ has here a minimum. There, the transition is continuous (“second order”) with vanishing surface tension, and no convex intruder in $`s(e,n)`$. Here two neighboring phases become indistinguishable, because there are no interfaces. Moreover, we found a further line ($`\widehat{P_mC}`$, critical) with $`\text{v}_1\mathbf{}det=0`$ which does not border a region of negative $`det(e,n)`$. Presumably $`det(e,n)`$ should be $`0`$ also. This needs further tests in other systems. It may further be that these lines signalize transitions of first order in another, but hidden non-conserved order parameter, e.g. the staggered magnetization c.f..
* Finally a multi-critical point $`P_m`$ where more than two phases become indistinguishable by the branching of several lines with $`det=0`$ or with $`\text{v}_1\mathbf{}det=0`$ to give a cylindrical region of $`s(e,n)`$ with additionally $`\mathbf{}det=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, here the largest curvature $`\lambda _1=0`$ has a maximum in a 2-dim. neighborhood.
* All regions with $`det(e,n)0`$ lead to the catastrophes of the Laplace transform from the micro to the grand-canonical ensemble and thus to the Yang-Lee singularities of the grand-canonical partition sum in the thermodynamic limit.

It is fair to say that the discovery of nuclear multi-fragmentation as a real phase transition of first order in a “Small” many-body system is a challenge for statistical mechanics to understand its foundation better and to become able to describe also the thermodynamics of inhomogeneous and non-extensive systems . It opens thermo-statistics for so many applications from small systems like nuclei up to the largest like astro-physical ones. Boltzmann’s definition of entropy allows for a geometrical and topological interpretation of thermo-statistics with the virtue of great conceptional clarity and to be free of invoking the thermodynamic limit. Nuclear collisions are a beautiful testing ground of these new ideas. This is of course an idealized description. Dynamical non-statistical features are certainly also there.


text:
# Nonrelativistic Quark Model Calculation of the 𝑆 parameter

## I Introduction

Parameters like $`S`$ have a twofold interest: first in the case of the Physics Beyond the Standard Model (SM)  where it is used to account for deviations from the Standard Model predictions due to possible new Physics, and second in the case of QCD where $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}=16\pi L_{10}`$ and $`L_{10}`$ is the QCD Chiral Parameter . Calculations for simple QCD models agree roughly with the experimental values , but when these results are scaled to obtain Technicolor (TC)  theoretical predictions  conflict with experimental results arise and one may conclude that TC models are excluded (although people has been able to find several models where $`S`$ is negative ). However many critics  are unavoidable to the methods used to obtain $`S`$ in the cases where Strong Interactions are present, in particular when extrapolations are done to obtain TC predictions by scaling QCD results due to our poor understanding of nonperturbative QCD contributions. Let us review shortly these estimations and the critics they have received.

The first attempt to compute $`S`$ in the case of TC Models was done by scaling the QCD results . Although this estimation is reviewed in section II let us mention that one of the defects of this approach is the fact that the results are, once scaled independent of the Strong Interactions themselves! (the result is independent of the coupling constant and of the quark or Techniquark masses). The same result is obtained by using the very simple Quark Model  with constituent free quarks. In this model interactions are not considered and the result is essentially independent of the quark masses.

Another attempt was done by using Phenomenological Lagrangians  in order to compute the pseudogoldstone mesons contributions, in the same way this is done in the case of the low energy QCD . Critics in this case arise because if the number of degenerate technidoubles, $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}`$ is large the masses of the resonances and the symmetry breaking scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi 4\pi F_\pi /\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{TD}}}`$  become too low and the energy expansion is not valid anymore . Besides in Walking Technicolor (WTC)  the Technipions may not be the Goldstone Bosons ($`m_{\pi _{\mathrm{TC}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{TC}}`$). Finally the result $`SN_{\mathrm{TD}}^2`$ disagrees with the other estimations where $`SN_{\mathrm{TC}}N_D`$ because these two terms represent very different physics , the low and high energy contributions so they have to be added. The Analytic Continuation by Duality (ACD) method  was also used but its confidence level is not very clear . In this method one computes mainly the contribution from short distances physics and the result should be added to the low energy contributions.

Numerical estimations have been done by solving the Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE)  or the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) in the Improved Ladder Approximation (ILA) . It is interesting that both methods obtain similar results, even if they are very different and do not include the same physics, for example the BSE approach includes resonances while the DSE do not take them into account. Both calculations use a running coupling constant $`\alpha (s)`$  that may not be realistic because it does not have the usual long distance properties like Confinement. More will be said below. Simpler versions are models like the Gauged Nonlocal Constituent Quark Model (GNC)  and the Extended Nambu Jona-Lasinio Models  where $`S`$ and other parameters can be estimated. However they are too simple to predict resonance parameters, for example. The results are shown in table 1.

| Parameter | $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ | $`L_{10}10^3`$ | $`F_\pi `$ \[MeV\] | $`S^{\mathrm{WSM}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Exper. | $`0.28\pm 0.035`$  | $`5.6\pm 0.3\text{[5]}`$ | 94 | $`0.49\pm 0.18`$  |
| Free CQ  | 0.16 | 3.2 | 128 | 0.21 |
| VMD  | 0.38 | 7.6 | 93 | 0.51 |
| $`(\rho _V\rho _A)_{\mathrm{Ex}.}`$  | 0.33 | 6.6 | 98 | 0.44 |
| ACD  | 0.26 | 5.1 | - | 0.35 |
| DSE  | 0.3 | 6 | - | 0.4 |
| BSE  | 0.43-0.48 | 8.6-9.5 | - | 0.24 |
| GNC  | 0.24-0.36 | 4.7-7.1 | 100 | 0.32-0.48 |
| ENJL | 0.26-0.31 | 5.1-6.1 | 83-89 | 0.35-0.41 |

TABLE 1. Experimental data and Model predictions for $`L_{10}`$ parameter (and $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}=16\pi L_{10}`$) and $`F_\pi `$ in the QCD case and for TC models (for $`N_{TD}=1`$ and $`N_{TC}=4`$).

Given that interactions are strong and nonperturbative contributions may be large one has to use methods like the Dyson-Schwinger equation (DSE) , Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE)  or Lattice QCD. It seems the best method is the BSE in the ILA, besides Lattice that is not considered here. Arguments in favor are that it includes both the Techni-quarks (TQ) self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2)`$ from DSE and the Vector and Axial vertex form factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{V,A}^\mu (p,q)`$ (including the resonances) from BSE. These two contributions are dominant in the large-N expansion  over for example pseudogoldstone mesons contributions. On another side BSE equation is able to explain correctly most of the known properties of QCD like the spectra, the partial decay widths, etc. .

A very popular TC model assumes $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}`$ techniquark doublets  interacting through a new strong force, Technicolor. It is supposed that the TQ are light enough so Chiral Symmetry is preserved. This is then broken dynamically to produce the Goldstone Bosons, absorbed by the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ to adquire their known masses. A second possibility is to have heavy TQ, so Chiral Symmetry is broken explicitely. In this case the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ masses are produced because their self-energies do not vanish at $`s=m_W^2<<m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_A(0)0`$ in eq. (2)), even if they do not interact (see eq. (4)). At present nobody knows which possibility is realized by nature, if any. In the case of QCD both, light and heavy quarks produce contributions to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A(0)`$: for light quarks Chiral Symmetry seems to be broken dynamically, while for the heavy ones is obviously broken explicitely. The first case was treated for TC within several approximations by authors of refs. . Perhaps in that case scaled estimations are a good approximation but the complete calculation has to be done. In the present work it is assumed that the second case is realized in nature so light TQ are absent. If TQ are heavy the Nonrelativistic Quark Model (NRQM)  is a good approximation like in the case of bottomonium and charmonium physics . It should be emphasized that the light TQ contribution (if any) can not be computed by using the NRQM, due to large relativistic effects so one has to solve the complete BSE. In the general case of having light and heavy TQ both contributions have to be added.

The purposes of the present work is to review shortlely the calculations  where QCD is used as an analog computer to show their shortcomings and second to compute the parameter $`S`$ by using the NRQM for several potentials, constrained by the fact that they have to reproduce the correct electroweak vacuum expectation value $`v^2=\sqrt{2}/G_F(0.245\mathrm{TeV})^2`$ (from $`m_W^2=g^2v^2/4`$, and $`v`$ has to be replaced by $`F_\pi `$ for QCD) and predict a reasonable spectra. First I will work out the simple but physically appealing Cornell potential  and its particular case, the Coulomb potential. Finally the more realistic Richardson Potential  is used to get values for $`S`$ not excluded by experimental data.

The parameter $`S`$ is given by the equations

$`S=4\pi \left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{VV}^{}(0)\mathrm{\Pi }_{AA}^{}(0)\right]=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}s}{s}}\left[\rho _V(s)\rho _A(s)\right]`$ (1)
$`v^2=\mathrm{\Pi }_{VV}(0)\mathrm{\Pi }_{AA}(0)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds\left[\rho _V(s)\rho _A(s)\right]`$ (2)
with $`i\left(g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_{VV}(q^2)+B_{VV}q^\mu q^\nu \right)\delta ^{ab}\mathrm{d}^4x<(J_V(x))_\mu ^a(J_V(0))_\nu ^a>\mathrm{exp}(iqx)`$ the two point functions, $`\rho _V=\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{VV}^{}(s)\right)/\pi `$, and similarly for the axial ones . The currents are $`(J_V)_i^a=\overline{q}T^a\gamma _\mu q`$, $`(J_A)_i^a=\overline{q}T^a\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q`$ with $`\overline{q}=(\overline{u},\overline{d})`$ the light quarks doublet for QCD and for TC one has to replace $`\overline{q}`$ by $`\overline{Q}=(\overline{U},\overline{D})`$, the corresponding Tecniquark doublet. Finally, $`T^a`$ are the Isospin generators. In the case of QCD eqs. (2) correspond to the ‘zeroth’ and first Weinberg Sum Rules  and both are consequences of Chiral Perturbation Theory valid only for the light quarks $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ . In the case of the Physics Beyond the SM $`S`$ was already mentionated and the relation for $`v`$ is obtained from the fact that $`W`$ and $`Z`$ masses are generated dynamically due, for example to the presence of new physics like the Higgs or TQ bounded scalars, etc . Other equivalent definitions in the case of Physics Beyond the SM have been given: $`Sh_{AW}h_{AZ}4s_W^2ϵ_3/\alpha `$ . The QCD and TC Physics may be different but there are many potential analogies and the formulas are the same, so it is interesting to compare and whenever it is possible do both calculations at the same time.

## II QCD as an analog computer

### A Constituent Quarks estimation

The simplest case is to consider one free constituent quark (or TQ) loop contribution to the two point functions. In the case of TC with $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}`$ degenerate technidoublets and $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}`$ technicolors the result is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}N_{\mathrm{TD}}}{6\pi }}`$ (3)
$`v^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}N_{\mathrm{TD}}}{4\pi ^2}}m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2)`$ (4)
For QCD $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}=1`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}=3`$, and the $`L_{10}`$ obtained is close to the expected value. On another side $`F_\pi `$ diverges and a cut-off, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has to be used. If $`m_q=0.3`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ GeV are used one obtains the $`F_\pi `$ shown in table 1. For TC we see that models with $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}>4`$ are forbidden by experimental data.

The physics here is too simple and interquark forces are obviously negleted. A simple improving is obtained by computing the two loops contribution , however it is small and in particular no resonances (the main contribution  in QCD!) are obtained, an indication that nonperturvative contributions are large. It is remarkable, however how this very simple constituent quark model and other ones like GNC , ENJL , DSE, BSE, etc., where interactions are somehow taken into account predict values for $`L_{10}`$ close to experimental data. It seems that $`L_{10}`$ does not depend on the interactions neither on the quark masses, at least for QCD but in general this may not be true.

### B Scaling VMD results

In the case of QCD we see from experimental data of fig. 1, for $`\rho _V`$ and $`\rho _A`$ that the main contributions to the sum rules of eq. (2) are from the two lightest resonances: $`\rho (770)`$ and $`a_1(1260)`$. On another side it is found that the contributions of the resonance widths are very small and a good approximation is to take $`\rho _V=F_\rho ^2\delta \left(sm_\rho ^2\right)`$ and $`\rho _A=F_A^2\delta \left(sm_A^2\right)`$, this is the so called narrow resonance approximation. In this case, for two resonances one has

$`S=4\pi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_\rho ^2}{m_\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_A^2}{m_A^2}}\right]v^2F_\pi ^2=F_\rho ^2F_A^2`$ (5)
The usual approach  is to estimate $`S`$ for TC theories (at least for QCD-like ones)  by using the following relations: 1) the second Weinberg sum rule $`m_\rho ^2F_\rho ^2=m_A^2F_A^2`$ , 2) the KSRF relation $`m_{\rho _T}^2/m_{A_T}^2=m_\rho ^2/m_A^2=1/2`$  and 3) the scaling ($`N_C=3N_{TC}`$) relation $`F_{\mathrm{TC}}^2/m_{\rho _{\mathrm{TC}}}^2=N_{\mathrm{TD}}(N_{\mathrm{TC}}/3)F_\pi ^2/m_\rho ^2`$ . Notice that the first two relations are approximately satisfied in the QCD case. Using the first and second Weinberg sum rules and the KSRF relation one obtains $`S=6\pi F_\pi ^2/m_\rho ^2`$ (or $`L_{10}=3F_\pi ^2/8m_\rho ^2`$) and after scaling

$`S=6\pi {\displaystyle \frac{F_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2}}6\pi N_{TD}{\displaystyle \frac{N_C}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_\pi ^2}{m_\rho ^2}}=N_{TD}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{TC}}{3}}S_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ (6)
To evaluate $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ one has several alternatives: compute it directly form $`F_\pi `$ and $`m_\rho `$, so $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}0.28`$. An intermediate possibility is to use several of the relations mentioned above to get values for the constants that may not be very well known experimentally, like $`F_A`$ and so on. Another possibility is to use the experimental values  in eq. (5): $`F_V=154\pm 3`$ MeV obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Vl^{}l^+)=4\pi \alpha ^2F_V^2/3m_V(6.9\pm 0.3)\mathrm{KeV}`$ and $`F_A=123\pm 25`$ MeV from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_1\pi \gamma )=(\alpha F_A^2m_a/24F_\pi ^2)\left(1m_\pi ^2/m_a^2\right)^3(0.64\pm 0.25)\mathrm{MeV}`$. Using these values one obtains $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.38`$ ($`L_{10}=0.0076`$) and $`F_\pi =93`$ MeV in agreement with the QCD experimental results. Finally one can use directly the measured spectral functions $`\rho _V(s)\rho _A(s)`$ (see fig. 1) , to obtain $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}=0.33`$ and $`F_\pi =98`$ MeV in agreement with the expectations. Alternative approaches are the VMD in the Lagrangian version  but the physics is the same. In any case the value for $`S_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ are not very different from the one obtained in the free constituent TQ case and again TC models with $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}>4`$ are excluded.

FIG. 1. Experimental values for $`\rho _{V,A}`$ and the ‘best fit’ line for the integrands of the sum rules in eq. (2), from ref. .

### C Critics

As mentioned before there are several critics to this approach, let’s see. The first objection is to the scaling hypothesis: this relation is only the leading contribution, in the large-N expansion  and we do not know if it is valid for a general theory, specially when Strong Interactions and their nonlinear character may produce large nonperturbative contributions. In any case an explanation is due to the fact that the result is independent of the interactions for a general theory. A second objection is to the KSRF relation that in the case of heavy quarks is clearly wrong because the hyperfine splitting is certainly smaller. The second Weinberg sum rule may be wrong in the general case too. Another difficulty is the fact that the QCD Sum Rules are saturated by only two resonances, the $`\rho (770)`$ and $`a_1(1260)`$ so heavier resonances were not taken into account to get $`S`$. However this may not be the case in TC Models, even in QCD-like ones and even less in WTC models (For Walking Technicolor  the coupling constant ‘walks’ as $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}(s)`$ constant for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TC}1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}<\sqrt{s}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{ETC}}`$ so Asymptotic freedom is retarded and high energy physics, like heavy resonances may produce large contributions to low energy parameters).

According to the scaled results heavy TQ do not decouple from the Standard Model Physics . This is not the case in QCD where for example hadronic physics is completely blind to the top quark physics. One can imagine that heavy TQ form new $`W`$-s and $`Z`$-s ($`W^{}`$, $`Z^{}`$, etc), but they do not contribute to the masses of the known ones. This is the case in QCD where for example $`b`$ quarks form $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances but they do not contribute to the mass of the $`\rho (770)`$ for example. It may be that TQ doublets are grouped in ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ ones, and their contributions decreases when their masses become large.

On another side calculations assume Isospin is a good symmetry . One can argues that in general this could not be the case so doublets may not be degenerate. For the known quarks and leptons doublets non degeneracy is the rule and only the first quark doublet is approximately degenerate!. Isospin seems to be present due to two accidents: the smallness of the fine structure constant and the approximate degeneracy of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, thus $`\rho 1`$ even if $`m_t>>m_b`$. In order to take into account these facts Extended Technicolor theories  assume that Physics present at energies of the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ETC}`$ should conserve Isospin to keep $`m_um_d`$ and $`\rho 1`$, and the Physics at energies of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{TC}`$ should break it to explain the top quark mass. Taking this in mind $`S`$ is computed and a negative value can be obtained . One should be aware too, that TQ may not belong to doublets but to higher dimensional representations having in general large mass differences.

Finally, it was assumed that all TQ doublets are degenerate without having any reason for that. This is a very strong hypothesis, specially when in the case of known quarks and leptons degeneracy is not the rule but on the contrary, there are large mass differences between for example neutrinos and top quark.

## III Nonrelativistic Quark Model

As mentioned before the main purpose of this paper is to work out the NRQM prediction for $`S`$ by modeling the TQ-TQ interaction with a potential, obtained by extrapolating the QCD one. Before going to the calculation I want to argue in favor of this approach. If the TQ-s are heavy enough the relativistic effects are very small, the coupling constant becomes small due to Asymptotic freedom and the TQ Self-Energies become constant and equal to the TQ masses, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(q^2)m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$. Finally it has been found that using relativistic equations do not improve necessarily the results because the parameters can be redefined . In order to compute $`S`$ and $`v^2`$ one can use eqs. (5), once the contributions from all the resonances are considered. According to the NRQM the $`F_V`$ and $`F_A`$ are given by .

$`F_V^2={\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|R_{ns}(0)|^2}{m_V}}F_A^2={\displaystyle \frac{24N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|R_{np}^{}(0)|^2}{m_a^3}}`$ (7)
for each doublet and $`R(r)`$ satisfy the radial Schrödinger Equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}r}}\right]\mathrm{R}(r)+\left[V(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2\mu r^2}}\right]\mathrm{R}(r)=E\mathrm{R}(r)`$ (8)
with $`\mu `$ the reduced mass and $`\mathrm{R}(r)`$ satisfy the usual boundary and normalization conditions.

### A Cornell and Coulomb Potentials

The Cornell Potential  is $`V=2m_{TQ}(d1)+Fra/r`$, with $`a=C_2(R)\alpha _s`$, $`C_2(R)=(N^21)/2N`$ and $`F`$ is the ‘String tension’. The first term is some kind of background not considered in the literature that may be turned off by taking $`d=1`$. Redefining $`\mathrm{R}=(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}F)^{1/2}u/r`$ and $`x=(2\mu F)^{1/3}r`$ we have

$`u^{\prime \prime }+V_{\mathrm{eff}.}uu^{\prime \prime }+\left[xb/x+l(l+1)/x^2\right]u=ϵ_{nl}u`$ (10)
with $`u(0)=u(\mathrm{})=0`$, $`u(x)`$ normalized to unity and $`b=a((2\mu )^2/F)^{1/3}`$. The wavefunction and its first derivative at the origin are $`|\mathrm{R}_{ns}(0)|^2=m_{\mathrm{TQ}}F|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{R}_{np}^{}(0)|^2=(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}F)^{5/3}|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2/4`$, respectively. Notice that $`ϵ_{nl}`$, $`u_{nl}^{}(0)`$ and $`u_{nl}^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ depend only on the parameter $`b`$ and can be obtained by solving eq. (10) numerically . The masses of the vector ($`l=0`$), the axial vector ($`l=1`$) resonances and the hyperfine splitting are

$`m_{nl}=2m_{\mathrm{TQ}}d+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}F)^{2/3}}{m_{\mathrm{TQ}}}}ϵ_{nl}`$ (11)
$`m(n^3\mathrm{s}_1)m(n^1\mathrm{s}_0)={\displaystyle \frac{2(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}F)^{4/3}}{3m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^3}}b|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$ (12)
where the second relation was obtained from the spin-spin potential $`V_{ss}=8\pi C_F\alpha _S(\stackrel{}{𝐬_\mathrm{𝟏}}\stackrel{}{𝐬_\mathrm{𝟐}})\delta ^{(3)}(\stackrel{}{𝐫})/3m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2`$ .

For $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}`$ degenerate doublets we have

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{4}}t^{3/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2}{(d+tϵ_{ns}/2)^3}}3t{\displaystyle \frac{|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2}{(d+tϵ_{ns}/2)^5}}\right]`$ (13)
$`v^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{G_F}}=N_{\mathrm{TD}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{4\pi }}m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2t^{3/2}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2}{d+tϵ_{ns}/2}}3t{\displaystyle \frac{|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2}{(d+tϵ_{ns}/2)^3}}\right]`$ (14)
where $`t=(F/m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2)^{2/3}`$.

FIG. 2. Values for $`S`$ and $`v^2`$, for $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}=4`$, $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}=1`$. The dotted, continuous and dashed lines are for $`d=0.5,1`$ and 1.5, respectively. In the case of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}=0.2`$, following the explanation given in the text for $`S0.4`$ and $`d=1`$ we get $`t0.5`$ and from it $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}0.22`$ TeV and $`F0.017`$ TeV<sup>2</sup>. The mass for the Techni-$`\rho `$ is then 0.64 TeV and the hyperfine splitting 0.04 TeV, so relativistic corrections are small and the NRQM is valid for these values. Notice that for $`d=1.5`$ one obtains $`S0`$ for all the values of $`t`$. The case of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}=0.5`$ and $`d=1`$ may be rule out because $`S0.9`$ for the whole intervale. Light TQ contributions were not considered.

In order to analyze eq. (14) it is reasonable to keep $`N=N_{\mathrm{TC}}=4`$, $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}=1`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}`$ and $`d`$ fixed so $`S`$ and $`v^2`$ depend only on $`t`$ ($`b=a/\sqrt{t}`$). Fig. 2 illustrate the behavior of $`S`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$, for two values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}`$: for a given value of $`S`$ one obtains the corresponding $`t`$, then from the second graph the $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$ needed to have the correct $`v^2`$ and the ‘String tension’, $`F`$ can be found. From them the spectra can be computed. A good place to test these predictions is of course in the case of light quarks in QCD, but unfortunately for light quarks large relativistic correction are present and NRQM is not a good approximation. If one ignore this difficulty a value of $`S0.28`$ is obtained, that is no far from the experimental result.

One important limit of the Cornell potential is the very heavy TQ case. There one can see that $`b`$ grows like $`m_Q^{2/3}`$ and the potential becomes coulombic at short distances, independent on the confinement phenomena. Now it is easy to obtain analytic solutions for the spectra: $`m_{nl}=2m_{\mathrm{TQ}}[d(a/n)^2/8]`$, for the wave function $`|R_{ns}(0)|^2=4(a\mu /n)^3`$ and for its first derivative $`|R_{ns}^{}(0)|^2=4(n^21)(a\mu /n)^5/9`$. From these expresions $`S`$ and $`v^2`$ are

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a/n}{d(a/n)^2/8}}\right]^3\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a/n)^2(n^21)}{[d(a/n)^2/8]^2}}\right]`$ (15)
$`v^2`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_{\mathrm{TC}}}{8\pi }}m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a/n)^3}{d(a/n)^2/8}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a/n)^2(n^21)}{[d(a/n)^2/8]^2}}\right]`$ (16)
The behavior of $`S`$ and of the TQ mass, needed to have the correct $`v`$ are shown in Fig. 3 for the case of the Coulomb potential. Notice that at large distances the confining potential is still present and no continuum contribution is obtained.

FIG. 3. Values for $`S`$ and $`v^2`$ for the Coulomb case, as in fig. 2. We see that $`S0`$ when $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}\mathrm{}`$ (so $`\alpha _{\mathrm{TC}}(m_{\mathrm{TQ}})0`$).

In the limit of heavy TQ it is easy to see that $`m_{V,A}m_Q`$, $`R(0)^2\alpha _S^3(m_Q)m_Q^3`$ and $`F_V^2\alpha _S^3(m_Q)m_Q^2`$, so one obtains finally that $`S\alpha _S^3(m_Q)0`$ (see fig. 3) and very heavy quarks decouple, in agreement with Appelquist-Carazzone theorem  and contradicting scaling assumptions. However the Coulomb potential is a simple one bare gluon exchange approximation that has to be corrected even at very high energies .

### B Richardson Potential

As mentioned before the calculations done by now, using the DSE and BSE equations use a running coupling constant $`\alpha (s)`$ that may not be realistic because it does not have the usual long distance confinement properties , thus in order to break Chiral Symmetry dynamically  a very strong potential is needed. Besides the $`\alpha (s)`$ is in disagreement with lattice calculations for QCD . A more realistic potential is the so called Richardson potential . In general the potential is given by

$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{e}^{iqr}V(q)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2r}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}V(q^2)q\mathrm{sin}(qr)dq`$ (17)
with $`V(q^2)=C_2(R)4\pi \alpha (q^2)/q^2`$. The Richardson potential is obtained by extrapolating the Asymptotic freedom expression to the infrared region as $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{AF}}(q^2)=4\pi /\beta _0\mathrm{log}\left(q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)\alpha ^{\mathrm{Rich}.}(q^2)=4\pi /\beta _0\mathrm{log}\left(1+q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)`$ , with $`\beta _0=11C_2(G)/32n_F/3`$, $`C_2(G)=N`$ and $`C_2(R)=(N^21)/2N`$. Then one has for the Richardson potential

$`V_{\mathrm{Rich}.}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8C_2(R)}{\beta _0r}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}\left(1+q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(qr)}{q}}dq`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`Fr{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi C_2(R)f(\mathrm{\Lambda }r)}{\beta _0r}}\{\begin{array}{cc}2\pi C_2(R)/3\beta _0r\mathrm{log}(1/\mathrm{\Lambda }r),\hfill & \text{if }r0\hfill \\ Fr\hfill & \text{if }r\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
with the ‘String tension’, $`F=2\pi C_2(R)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\beta _0`$ and

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(kx)}{k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1+k^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\right]=14{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(kx)}{\pi ^2+[\mathrm{log}(k^21)]^2}}`$ (20)
The linear part explains confinement as well as the Regge trajectories  and it is able to produces the Dynamical Chiral Symmetry breaking . Besides Richardson potential agrees with lattice calculation  as is shown in fig. 4. Finally it is able to explain correctly the heavy quarks spectra and their leptonic widths .

FIG. 4. Cornell (dashed line)  and Richardson (continuous one)  potentials compared with lattice calculations of the CP-PACS group  (dots), for QCD.

Transforming the wavefunction as $`R(r)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}u(x)/x`$, with $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }r`$ one obtains eq. (10) for $`u(x)`$ with $`V_{\mathrm{eff}.}(x)=(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda })V_{\mathrm{Rich}.}/\mathrm{\Lambda }+l(l+1)/x^2`$. One important property of eq. (10), in the case of the Richardson potential is that it has only one input parameter, $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The boundary and normalization conditions for $`u`$ are the same of the Cornell potential case. The masses of the vectorial resonances are then $`m_{nl}=2m_{\mathrm{TQ}}+E_{nl}=2m_{\mathrm{TQ}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2ϵ_{nl}/m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$, where $`ϵ_{nl}`$ are obtained from (10). The wavefunction and its first derivative are $`|R_{ns}(0)|^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^3|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$, $`|R_{np}^{}(0)|^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^5|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2/4`$, respectively. Finally, the hyperfine splitting and the decay constants are

$`m(n^3\mathrm{s}_1)m(n^1\mathrm{s}_0)={\displaystyle \frac{2C_2(R)\alpha ((2m_{\mathrm{TQ}})^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{3m_{\mathrm{TC}}^2}}|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$ (21)
$`F_V^2={\displaystyle \frac{N_C\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{2\pi m_V}}|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2F_A^2={\displaystyle \frac{6N_C\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}{\pi m_a^3}}|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2`$ (22)
Notice that $`ϵ_{nl}`$, $`u_{ns}^{}(0)`$, $`u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ and therefore $`S`$ and $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ depend only on $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The Schödinger equation (10) was solved numerically and the results are given in tables 2 and 3 for two specific values of $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In order to get $`S`$ and $`v`$ the first 10 resonances were taken into account assuming that the series converge rapidly due to the fact that for example the widths of the heavier resonances are large enough so their contributions can be negleted. This is the case in QCD where only the first two resonances contribute to the sum rules. Notice that for the Cornell and Richardson potentials there is no continum part in the spectra because there are no free quarks (or TQ). From tables like 2 and 3, the corresponding value for $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ and again constraining $`v`$ to its experimental value one obtains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Now, from the input parameter $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one obtains $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$ and from it the respective spectra can be calulated.

| n | $`ϵ_{ns}`$ | $`|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$ | $`ϵ_{np}`$ | $`|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2`$ | $`m_V/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`(F_V/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ | $`m_a/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`(F_a/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1.4639(7) | 1.6927 | 2.6594(8) | 1.5202 | 3.46 | 0.311 | 4.66 | 0.115 |
| 2 | 3.3048(9) | 1.3590 | 4.1548(9) | 2.3018 | 5.3 | 0.163 | 6.15 | 0.076 |
| 3 | 4.7168(10) | 1.2514 | 5.4252(11) | 2.8966 | 6.72 | 0.119 | 7.43 | 0.054 |
| 4 | 5.9373(12) | 1.1973 | 6.5658(13) | 3.3894 | 7.94 | 0.096 | 8.57 | 0.041 |
| 5 | 7.0465(13) | 1.1732 | 7.6256(13.5) | 3.8734 | 9.05 | 0.083 | 9.63 | 0.033 |
| 6 | 8.0823(14) | 1.1497 | 8.6169(15) | 4.1787 | 10.08 | 0.073 | 10.62 | 0.027 |
| 7 | 9.0439(15) | 1.1108 | 9.5419(16) | 4.4944 | 11.04 | 0.064 | 11.54 | 0.022 |
| 8 | 9.9533(16) | 1.1040 | 10.4275(16.5) | 4.7889 | 11.95 | 0.059 | 12.43 | 0.019 |
| 9 | 10.8208(17) | 1.0829 | 11.2727(17.5) | 5.0570 | 12.82 | 0.054 | 13.27 | 0.016 |
| 10 | 11.6548(18) | 1.0743 | 12.0878(18.5) | 5.2437 | 13.65 | 0.05 | 14.09 | 0.014 |

TABLE 2. Energy eigenvalues and wavefunctions at the origin for the Richardson potential. The input parameters are $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.0`$, $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}=4`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}=1`$. The results are $`S0.37`$ and $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^20.7`$ so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.3`$ TeV, $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}0.3`$ TeV and the lightest vectorial resonance mass is $`m_{\rho _{TC}}=1`$ TeV. Besides $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{H.F.}0.38`$ TeV and $`\alpha (2m_{\mathrm{TQ}})0.6`$ so relativistic effects are small.

| n | $`ϵ_{ns}`$ | $`|u_{ns}^{}(0)|^2`$ | $`ϵ_{np}`$ | $`|u_{np}^{\prime \prime }(0)|^2`$ | $`m_V/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`(F_V/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ | $`m_a/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`(F_a/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | -48.61(1.5) | 552.85 | -11.78(2) | 5843.74 | 58.38 | 6.029 | 59.61 | 0.211 |
| 2 | -4.56(2.1) | 206.93 | 12.25(2.4) | 5399.83 | 59.85 | 2.201 | 60.41 | 0.187 |
| 3 | 17.69(2.7) | 139.92 | 29.33(3) | 5042.46 | 60.59 | 1.47 | 60.98 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 33.99(3.2) | 112.97 | 43.31(3.4) | 4859.84 | 61.13 | 1.176 | 61.44 | 0.16 |
| 5 | 47.50(3.8) | 98.36 | 55.49(4) | 4672.26 | 61.58 | 1.017 | 61.85 | 0.151 |
| 6 | 59.38(4) | 89.12 | 66.50(4.2) | 4625.49 | 61.98 | 0.915 | 62.22 | 0.147 |
| 7 | 70.16(4.6) | 82.57 | 76.65(4.8) | 4457.64 | 62.34 | 0.843 | 62.56 | 0.139 |
| 8 | 80.14(4.8) | 77.79 | 86.16(5) | 4419.81 | 62.67 | 0.79 | 62.87 | 0.136 |
| 9 | 89.50(5.2) | 73.98 | 95.15(5.4) | 4305.79 | 62.98 | 0.748 | 63.17 | 0.13 |
| 10 | 98.37(5.4) | 70.94 | 103.71(5.6) | 4260.79 | 63.28 | 0.714 | 63.46 | 0.127 |

TABLE 3. Same as in table 2 but now the input parameters are $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }=30.0`$ $`N_{\mathrm{TC}}=4`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{TD}}=1`$. The results are $`S0.05`$ and $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^214.3`$ so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.066`$ TeV, $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}1.98`$ TeV and $`m_{\rho _{TC}}=3.85`$ TeV. Besides $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{H.F.}0.006`$ TeV and $`\alpha (2m_{\mathrm{TQ}})0.11`$ so relativistic effects are very small.

The dependence of the relevant parameters on the TQ mass, $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is shown in table 4. and fig. 5. One can see how very heavy TQ-s decouple and do not contribute to $`S`$.

| $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ | $`S`$ | $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ | $`(F_V/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ | $`(F_a/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 0.37 | 0.7 | 0.311 | 0.115 |
| 5 | 0.235 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.27 |
| 10 | 0.15 | 5.2 | 2.11 | 0.236 |
| 20 | 0.076 | 9.96 | 3.97 | 0.212 |
| 30 | 0.05 | 14.3 | 6.03 | 0.211 |
| 40 | 0.037 | 18.6 | 8.25 | 0.216 |
| 50 | 0.029 | 22.9 | 10.6 | 0.22 |

TABLE 4. $`S`$, $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2`$, etc., for several values of the TQ mass, $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

FIG. 5. $`S`$ and $`v^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ for the Richardson Potential. The points are fitted by the formula $`S=0.016+0.4/(1+0.05(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }))^{2.63}`$, decreasing with $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$ and $`v^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0.45+0.45(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Finally $`F_V^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0.02+0.21(m_{\mathrm{TQ}}/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Light TQ contributions were not considered.

## IV Conclusions

I found, using the NRQM that it is possible to produce values for $`S`$ consistent with experimental constrains for simple QCD-like TC models. The vacuum expectation value $`v`$ was kept equal to its experimental value. Two potentials were used: the Cornell one and the more realistic Richardson potential.

It was obtained that $`S`$ decrease with $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$ like $`\alpha ^3(m_{\mathrm{TQ}})`$ in the case of the Cornell Potential and approximately like $`1/m_{\mathrm{TQ}}^{2.63}`$ for the Richardson Potential. This contradicts scaling results  where no dependence was obtained and agrees with decoupling theorem . In this way we can obtain simple TC Models that are not rule out by experimental constrains on $`S`$. For more general models (WTC) more parameters are involved and this situation should be reproduced without major problems. For $`v`$, and for the Leptonic decay constants, $`F_V`$ and $`F_A`$ it is found that in the NRQM limit both grow for the Richardson potential as $`\sqrt{m_{\mathrm{TQ}}}`$, a softer dependence that the case of the free quark, where they grow like $`m_{\mathrm{TQ}}`$ and in the case of the Cornell potential where they growing is intermediate between these two cases. The result for $`S`$ is more solid because it is less sensitive to high energy physics and the sum rule used to compute it converges rapidly. Finally, it was found that $`S`$ depends on the Interactions and on the TQ masses, as expected.

###### Acknowledgements.

I want to thank to J. Donoghue for the original idea on which this article was developed. This research was supported in part by Colciencias (Colombia).