text:
# The renormalization group for correlated scales: one-stage versus two-stage running

## Abstract

Nonrelativistic bound states have two low energy scales, a soft scale $`\mu _S`$ of order $`mv`$ and an ultrasoft scale $`\mu _U`$ of order $`mv^2`$. In two-stage running, the soft and ultrasoft scales are lowered from $`m`$ to $`mv`$, and then the ultrasoft scale is lowered from $`mv`$ to $`mv^2`$. In one-stage running, the two scales are lowered in a correlated way using a subtraction velocity. We compare these two methods of summing logarithms and show that only the correlated running in velocity space of the one-stage method correctly reproduces the logarithms in nonrelativistic bound states in QED. The argument for one-stage running is general, and should apply to any system with correlated scales.

preprint: UCSD/PTH 00-14

Nonrelativistic bound states have two important scales, a soft scale $`\mu _S`$ of order $`mv`$ and an ultrasoft scale $`\mu _U`$ of order $`mv^2`$, which are of order the typical momentum and energy of the bound state . In a Coulombic bound state such as Hydrogen, the typical velocity $`v`$ is of order the coupling constant $`\alpha `$. Logarithms of $`v`$ or equivalently $`\alpha `$ can be summed using renormalization group equations (RGE) . This is accomplished by constructing an effective theory below the scale $`m`$ that contains soft and ultrasoft modes , and then scaling the coefficients in the effective Lagrangian to low energies using the RGE. In a properly constructed effective theory, all the large logarithms should arise from renormalization group running, and there should be no large logarithms in the matching conditions. In QCD the summation of logarithms is important because $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}v1`$ and the RGE systematically accounts for the running of $`\alpha _s`$. In QED, $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ is small but higher order corrections are necessary to confront precision experiments.

In two-stage running, one first lowers the subtraction scale $`\mu `$ from $`m`$ to $`mv`$. At this point the soft modes, with energy-momentum of order $`mv`$, are integrated out of the theory. The ultrasoft modes are then lowered from $`mv`$ to $`mv^2`$. This is the definition of two-stage running that we will use in this article.***See, for example, Sec. 1.4 of Ref. . The running in Ref.  corresponds to the $`m`$ to $`mv`$ running of the two-stage method. In one-stage running , one introduces a subtraction velocity $`\nu `$, with $`\mu _S=m\nu `$ and $`\mu _U=m\nu ^2`$. The subtraction velocity $`\nu `$ is then lowered from $`\nu =1`$ to $`\nu =v`$, so that $`\mu _S=mv`$ and $`\mu _U=mv^2`$ at the end of the renormalization group evolution. The difference between the two methods can be seen in Fig. 1, where the path in the $`\mu _S\mu _U`$ plane is shown. In contrasting the two methods we will consider NRQED, where the analysis is simplified by the fact that the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ does not run below the electron mass. Both the two-stage and one-stage methods correctly reproduce observables with a single $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$, such as the $`\alpha ^5\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ Lamb shifts in Hydrogen and positronium . In Ref.  one-stage running was shown to correctly reproduce the $`\alpha ^7\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ hyperfine splittings for Hydrogen, positronium and muonium , the $`\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ ortho and para-positronium widths , and the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Hydrogen Lamb shift .Note that the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ term has also been calculated numerically in Refs.  and there is general agreement on the value of the 4-loop diagrams calculated analytically by Karshenboim in Ref. . However, Refs.  have an additional contribution from another graph. This is a highly non-trivial check of the one-stage method, and is the first time higher-order logarithms in QED bound states were computed using the renormalization group. In previous computations, higher order logarithms were obtained by direct computation of multi-loop diagrams . In this article, we explain why the two-stage method fails to reproduce the $`\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ terms, and why the one-stage method is essential for correctly summing all the logarithms using the renormalization group equations.

A loop graph computed in the effective theory below $`m`$ typically contains logarithms of the form $`\mathrm{ln}p/\mu _S`$, $`\mathrm{ln}E/\mu _U`$ and $`\mathrm{log}\sqrt{mE}/\mu _S`$, where $`E`$ and $`p`$ are the typical energy and momentum in the bound state. We will define the soft and ultrasoft anomalous dimensions $`\gamma ^S`$ and $`\gamma ^U`$ by differentiating with respect to $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$ respectively. Introducing both $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$ allows us to simultaneously discuss the one and two-stage running. In the effective theory the potential is the Wilson coefficient of a four-fermion operator and has an expansion in $`v`$. The coefficients $`\{U_i\}`$ in the potential have anomalous dimensions:

$`\mu _S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_i}{\mathrm{d}\mu _S}}=\gamma _i^S,\mu _U{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_i}{\mathrm{d}\mu _U}}=\gamma _i^U,`$ (1)
where $`\gamma ^S`$ and $`\gamma ^U`$ are functions of $`\alpha `$ and potential coefficients $`\left\{U_j\right\}`$.

In two-stage running, one sets $`\mu =\mu _S=\mu _U`$ and lowers $`\mu `$ from $`m`$ to $`mv`$. Thus, one runs the potentials between $`m`$ and $`mv`$ using the anomalous dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^S`$,In pNRQED, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^S`$ is called the soft anomalous dimension because it governs the running between the hard scale $`m`$ and the soft scale $`mv`$. In the one-stage approach, it is $`\gamma _i^S`$ which is called the soft anomalous dimension. This is merely a difference in terminology with no physical consequences.

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_i}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^S=\gamma _i^S+\gamma _i^Umv<\mu <m.`$ (2)
One then integrates out the soft modes at $`\mu =mv`$, and runs to $`mv^2`$ with the ultrasoft anomalous dimension

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_i}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}=\gamma _i^Umv^2<\mu <mv.`$ (3)
In one-stage running the subtraction scales $`\mu _S`$ and $`\mu _U`$ are different,§§§In dimensional regularization where $`d=42ϵ`$, factors of $`\mu _S^ϵ`$ and $`\mu _U^ϵ`$ appear along with interaction vertices involving soft and ultrasoft modes respectively . $`\mu _S=m\nu `$ and $`\mu _U=m\nu ^2`$. With the velocity renormalization group one runs from $`\nu =1`$ to $`\nu =v`$ with the anomalous dimension

$`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_i}{\mathrm{d}\nu }}=\gamma _i^S+2\gamma _i^Uv<\nu <1.`$ (4)
As an example, consider the running of the $`\delta `$-function contact potential for Hydrogen in the limit $`m_{\mathrm{proton}}\mathrm{}`$. The coefficient of this potential will be defined as $`U_2`$, using the notation of Ref. . $`U_2`$ plays a key role in NRQED since it is the lowest order coefficient that runs. With one-stage running $`U_2`$ has a velocity renormalization group equation of the form

$`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_2}{\mathrm{d}\nu }}=2\alpha ^2\lambda ^U+\alpha \lambda ^SU_2^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (5)
Here $`\lambda ^U=4/(3m^2)`$, $`\lambda ^S=m^2/\pi `$, and the matching value $`U_2(\nu =1)=\pi \alpha /(2m^2)`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass. The coefficient $`U_2`$ is of order $`\alpha `$, so the first term in Eq. (5) is the leading order (LO) anomalous dimension, and the second term belongs to the next-to-leading order (NLO) anomalous dimension. For Hydrogen, the first term is purely ultrasoft and the second term is purely soft, so

$`\gamma ^U=\alpha ^2\lambda ^U,\gamma ^S=\alpha \lambda ^SU_2^2.`$ (6)
In Eq. (5), we have only retained the NLO term relevant for the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Lamb shift in Hydrogen. The full equation is given in Ref.  and gives additional contributions to $`\alpha ^7\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^6\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$, but the simplified version in Eq. (5) will suffice for this paper.

In our example, integrating the renormalization group equation using the LO anomalous dimension and one-stage running gives

$`U_2(\nu =v)=U_2(1)+2\alpha ^2\lambda ^U\mathrm{ln}v,`$ (7)
which is the leading order series $`\alpha ^{n+1}\mathrm{ln}^nv`$ for $`U_2(v)`$ and determines the $`\alpha ^5\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ Lamb shift correction. There is only a single-log term since the LO anomalous dimension is a constant. To next-to-leading log order only the leading log value of $`U_2`$ is needed on the RHS of Eq. (5). Substituting Eq. (7) for $`U_2`$ into Eq. (5) and reintegrating gives

$`U_2(\nu =v)`$ $`=`$ $`U_2(1)+2\alpha ^2\lambda ^U\mathrm{ln}v`$ (9)
$`+\alpha \lambda ^SU_2(1)^2\mathrm{ln}v+2\alpha ^3\lambda ^U\lambda ^SU_2(1)\mathrm{ln}^2v+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha ^5\left(\lambda ^U\right)^2\lambda ^S\mathrm{ln}^3v,`$
which includes the LO series $`\alpha ^{n+1}\mathrm{ln}^nv`$ and the next-to-leading order series $`\alpha ^{n+2}\mathrm{ln}^nv`$. The highest logarithm in the NLO series is $`\mathrm{ln}^3v`$, since the NLO anomalous dimension has a $`U_2^2`$ term that contains $`\mathrm{ln}^2v`$ terms when the LO running for $`U_2`$ is used. The $`\mathrm{ln}^3v`$ term gives an $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Lamb shift for Hydrogen in agreement with Karshenboim .

Next we redo this example using two-stage running. In the first step, one integrates

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_2}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}=\alpha ^2\lambda ^U+\alpha \lambda ^SU_2^2,`$ (10)
to give

$`U_2(\mu =mv)`$ $`=`$ $`U_2(1)+\alpha ^2\lambda ^U\mathrm{ln}v`$ (12)
$`+\alpha \lambda ^SU_2(1)^2\mathrm{ln}v+\alpha ^3\lambda ^U\lambda ^SU_2(1)\mathrm{ln}^2v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha ^5\left(\lambda ^U\right)^2\lambda ^S\mathrm{ln}^3v,`$
where $`U_2(1)=U_2(\mu =m)`$. In the second step one integrates

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_2}{\mathrm{d}\mu }}=\alpha ^2\lambda ^U.`$ (13)
Since the $`\lambda ^S`$ term comes solely from the soft scale it does not appear in the RGE for the second step. Integrating Eq. (13) using Eq. (12) as the starting point gives the final result

$`U_2(\mu =mv^2)`$ $`=`$ $`U_2(1)+2\alpha ^2\lambda ^U\mathrm{ln}v`$ (15)
$`+\alpha \lambda ^SU_2(1)^2\mathrm{ln}v+\alpha ^3\lambda ^U\lambda ^SU_2(1)\mathrm{ln}^2v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha ^5\left(\lambda ^U\right)^2\lambda ^S\mathrm{ln}^3v.`$
Comparing Eqs. (9), and Eqs. (15), we see that the final expressions agree in the single-log term, but disagree in the higher-order logarithms.

One can study the difference between one- and two-stage running in the general case, by integrating the renormalization group equations perturbatively. The single-log terms (i.e. proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}v`$) are obtained by integrating the renormalization group equations using the values for the anomalous dimensions at the matching scale, i.e. by substituting the tree-level values for $`\left\{U_i\right\}`$ in $`\gamma \left(\left\{U_i\right\}\right)`$, which will be denoted by $`\gamma (0)`$. In the two-stage approach, one finds that

$`U_i(\mu =mv^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^S(0)\mathrm{ln}v+\gamma _i^U(0)\mathrm{ln}v=\left[\gamma _i^S(0)+\gamma _i^U(0)\right]\mathrm{ln}v+\gamma _i^U(0)\mathrm{ln}v,`$ (16)
where the first term is the contribution between $`m`$ and $`mv`$, and the second term is the contribution between $`mv`$ and $`mv^2`$. In the one-stage approach, one finds

$`U_i(\nu =v)=\left[\gamma _i^S(0)+2\gamma _i^U(0)\right]\mathrm{ln}v.`$ (17)
Both methods give the same answer for the $`\mathrm{ln}v`$ term, since

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^S(0)+\gamma _i^U(0)=\left[\gamma _i^S(0)+\gamma _i^U(0)\right]+\gamma _i^U(0)=\left[\gamma _i^S(0)+2\gamma _i^U(0)\right].`$ (18)
This is to be expected, since the anomalous dimensions in both methods should reproduce the single logarithms in the graphs from which they were calculated. This is true of our Hydrogen example, cf. Eq. (9) and Eq. (15). We have also checked that this is true for the $`\alpha ^5\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ Lamb shift for positronium in which case the LO anomalous dimension has both an ultrasoft and soft contribution.

The non-trivial terms are the higher order logarithms, which are generated when one includes the running potentials in the expression for the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma ^{S,U}`$. The anomalous dimensions depend on $`t=\mathrm{ln}v`$ through their dependence on $`U_i`$. Consider expanding $`\gamma `$ in powers of $`t`$,

$`\gamma _j\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _j\left(0\right)+t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma _j}{\mathrm{d}t}}\right)_{t=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2\gamma _j}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}\right)_{t=0}+\mathrm{},`$ (19)
where the derivatives with respect to $`t`$ can be evaluated using the chain rule,

$`\gamma _j\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _j\left(0\right)+t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{U_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_k}{\mathrm{d}t}}\right)_{t=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\gamma _j}{U_kU_l}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_k}{\mathrm{d}t}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_l}{\mathrm{d}t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{U_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2U_k}{\mathrm{d}t^2}}\right)_{t=0}+\mathrm{}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\gamma _j\left(0\right)+t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{U_k}}\gamma _k\right)_{t=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\gamma _j}{U_kU_l}}\gamma _k\gamma _l+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _j}{U_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _k}{U_l}}\gamma _l\right)_{t=0}+\mathrm{}.`$ (21)
For Hydrogen, the $`\mathrm{ln}^2v`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}^3v`$ terms are generated from cross-terms of the form $`\gamma ^U\gamma ^S/U_2`$ and $`\left(\gamma ^U\right)^2^2\gamma ^S/U_2^2`$ that involve both soft and ultrasoft anomalous dimensions. In the one-stage approach, the renormalization group equations are integrated with the anomalous dimension in Eq. (4) between $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =v`$, so the cross-terms have the structure

$`(2\gamma ^U){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^S}{U_2}}\mathrm{ln}^2v,(2\gamma ^U)^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\gamma ^S}{U_2^2}}\mathrm{ln}^3v.`$ (22)
In the two-stage approach, one integrates Eq. (2) from $`m`$ to $`mv`$, after which $`\gamma ^S=0`$, so the corresponding terms have the structure

$`(\gamma ^U){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^S}{U_2}}\mathrm{ln}^2v,(\gamma ^U)^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\gamma ^S}{U_2^2}}\mathrm{ln}^3v,`$ (23)
which differ by a factor of two and four, respectively, from the one-stage running values.Recall that there are terms in the NLO anomalous dimension that are not shown in Eq. (5) which contribute to terms involving $`\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ in the energy. Including these additional terms makes the first term in Eq. (22) and in Eq. (23) more complicated, however the one- and two-stage $`\mathrm{ln}^2v`$ results still differ by an overall factor of $`2`$.

In general, one-stage and two-stage running give different values for the final answer. Define the anomalous dimension vector $`𝜸=(\gamma ^U,\gamma ^S)`$. The running is given by integrating the anomalous dimension vector along the path shown in Fig. 1. The integral is path dependent if $`\mathbf{}\times 𝜸\mathrm{𝟎}`$, i.e.

$`\mu _U{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma ^S}{\mathrm{d}\mu _U}}\mu _S{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma ^U}{d\mu _S}}.`$ (24)
In our Hydrogen example, $`\gamma ^U=\alpha ^2\lambda ^U`$ and $`\gamma ^S=\alpha \lambda ^SU_2^2`$, so that

$`\mu _U{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma ^S}{\mathrm{d}\mu _U}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha \lambda ^SU_2\mu _U{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U_2}{\mathrm{d}\mu _U}}=2\alpha ^3\lambda ^S\lambda ^UU_2,`$ (25)
$`\mu _S{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma ^U}{\mathrm{d}\mu _S}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (26)
and the integral is path-dependent.

In Ref. , one-stage running was shown to correctly give the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Lamb shift and $`\alpha ^7\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ hyperfine splitting for Hydrogen, muonium and positronium, as well as the $`\alpha ^3\mathrm{ln}^2\alpha `$ correction to the decay width for positronium. Since the answer differs from two-stage running, this implies that two-stage running does not sum all the logarithms of $`v`$. The reason can be seen by considering a diagram with mixed soft and ultrasoft divergences, such as the four-loop graph in Fig. 2. If we calculate logarithms of $`\alpha `$ directly by calculating matrix elements (using vertices at the hard scale), then this graph contributes to the $`\alpha ^8\mathrm{ln}^3\alpha `$ Lamb shift.

Calculating either ultrasoft subgraph in Fig. 2 gives a term of the form $`\mathrm{ln}(k^0/\mu _U)`$, whereas the two-loop potential subgraph gives a term of the form $`\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{mk^0}/\mu _S)`$, where $`k^0`$ is the time-component of a loop momentum. In the RGE, to make sure that both logarithms are small it is essential that $`\mu _U=\mu _S^2/m`$, so that the soft and ultrasoft scales are correlated. If one attempts to set $`\mu _S=\mu _U=\mu `$, then one cannot simultaneously minimize both soft and ultrasoft logarithms inside this four-loop graph. In the two-stage trajectory shown in Fig. 1, the logarithms $`\mathrm{ln}(k^0/\mu _U)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{mk^0}/\mu _S)`$ are made small at the endpoint of the path. However, both logarithms are not small everywhere along the integration path, so that the logarithms are not minimized inside subgraphs of the full graph. As a result, two-stage running gives the correct single log, but not the higher order logarithms. In the one-stage approach the logarithms are small along the entire integration path and the higher order logarithms are correctly reproduced.

Although two-stage running seems natural within the pNRQED framework , a single stage running can be implemented as well. The discussion above suggests that even though matching from QED to pNRQED can be done in a two-stage procedure through NRQED, the renormalization group improvement should be done in one stage. However, it may well be that a more sophisticated version of two-stage running does properly take into account the fact that the soft and ultrasoft scales are correlated.

The difference between one- and two-stage running is a generic feature of systems with correlated scales. In nonrelativistic bound states, the soft and ultrasoft scales are determined in terms of the velocity $`v`$, with $`\mu _S=mv`$ and $`\mu _U=mv^2`$, and one needs to use one-stage running in velocity space. We have illustrated this point using QED, but the arguments are obviously also valid for weak coupling nonrelativistic QCD bound states. Correlated scales also occur in the problem of Sudakov logarithms near kinematic endpoints (for effective theory approaches see Refs. ). In $`BX_s\gamma `$ decay, there are two correlated scales, the collinear scale $`m_b\sqrt{1x}`$ and the soft scale $`m_b(1x)`$ (here $`x=2E_\gamma /m_b`$) that are important as $`x1`$. To sum subleading Sudakov logarithms using the renormalization group one needs to run in $`x`$ (or equivalently moment) space. One-stage running might also be applicable to finite temperature field theory, where one has the correlated scales $`T`$, $`gT`$ and $`g^2T`$. This will be discussed elsewhere.

This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant DOE-FG03-97ER40546. I.S. was also supported in part by the National Science Foundation under award NYI PHY-9457911 and by NSERC of Canada. J.S. is also supported by the AEN98-031 (Spain), the 1998SGR 00026 (Catalonia) and the BGP-08 fellowship (Catalonia). He thanks A. Manohar and the high energy physics group at UCSD for their warm hospitality.


format: text

text:
# References

Characterizing the non-linear growth of large-scale structure in the Universe

Peter Coles,
School of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Nottingham,
University Park,
Nottingham NG7 2RD,
United Kingdom.

and

Lung-Yih Chiang,
Astronomy Unit,
School of Mathematical Sciences,
Queen Mary & Westfield College,
University of London,
London E1 4NS,
United Kingdom.

The local Universe displays a rich hierarchical pattern of galaxy clusters and superclusters1,2. The early Universe, however, was almost smooth, with only slight ’ripples’ seen in the cosmic microwave background radiation3. Models of the evolution of structure link these observations through the effect of gravity, because the small initially overdense fluctuations attract additional mass as the Universe expands4. During the early stages, the ripples evolve independently, like linear waves on the surface of deep water. As the structures grow in mass, they interact with other in non-linear ways, more like waves breaking in shallow water. We have recently shown5 how cosmic structure can be characterized by phase correlations associated with these non-linear interactions, but hitherto there was no way to use that information to reach quantitative insights into the growth of structures. Here we report a method of revealing phase information, and quantify how this relates to the formation of a filaments, sheets and clusters of galaxies by non-linear collapse. We use a new statistic based on information entropy to separate linear from non-linear effects and thereby are able to disentangle those aspects of galaxy clustering that arise from initial conditions (the ripples) from the subsequent dynamical evolution.

In most popular versions of the “gravitational instability” model for the origin of cosmic structure, particularly those involving cosmic inflation6, the initial fluctuations that seeded the structure formation process form a Gaussian random field7. Deviations from uniformity, expressed in terms of the density contrast $`\delta (𝐱)`$ defined by

$$\delta (𝐱)=\frac{\rho (𝐱)\rho _0}{\rho _0},$$
(1)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the average density and $`\rho (𝐱)`$ is the local matter density. Because the initial perturbations evolve linearly, it is useful to expand $`\delta (𝐱)`$ as a Fourier superposition of plane waves:

$$\delta (𝐱)=\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐱).$$
(2)
The Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)`$ is complex and therefore possesses both amplitude $`|\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)|`$ and phase $`\varphi _𝐤`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)=|\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi __𝐤).$$
(3)
Gaussian random fields possess Fourier modes whose real and imaginary parts are independently distributed. In other words, they have phase angles $`\varphi _k`$ that are independently distributed and uniformly random on the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$. When fluctuations are small, i.e. during the linear regime, the Fourier modes evolve independently and their phases remain random. In the later stages of evolution, however, wave modes begin to couple together4. In this regime the phases become non-random and the density field becomes highly non–Gaussian. Phase coupling is therefore a key consequence of nonlinear gravitational processes if the initial conditions are Gaussian and a potentially powerful signature to exploit in statistical tests of this class of models.

The information needed to fully specify a non-Gaussian field (or, in a wider context, the information needed to define an image12) resides in the complete set of Fourier phases. Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the behaviour of Fourier phases in the nonlinear regime of gravitational clustering13-18, but it is of great importance to understand phase correlations in order to design efficient statistical tools for the analysis of clustering data. A vital first step on the road to a useful quantitative description of phase information is to represent it visually. We do this using colour, as shown in Figure 2. To view the phase coupling in an N-body simulation one Fourier-transforms the density field to produce a complex array containing the real (R) and imaginary (I) parts of the transformed ‘image’ with the pixels in this array labelled by wavenumber $`𝐤`$ rather than position $`𝐱`$. The phase for each wavenumber, given by $`\varphi =\mathrm{arctan}(I/R)`$, is then represented as a hue for that pixel.

The rich pattern of phase information revealed by this method (see Figure 3) can be quantified and related to the gravitational dynamics of its origin. For example in our analysis of phase coupling5 we introduced a quantity $`D_k`$, defined by

$$D_k\varphi _{k+1}\varphi _k,$$
(4)
which measures the difference in phase of modes with neighbouring wavenumbers in one dimension. We refer to $`D_k`$ as the phase gradient. To apply this idea to a two-dimensional simulation we simply calculate gradients in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions independently. Since the difference between two circular random variables is itself a circular random variable, the distribution of $`D_k`$ should initially be uniform. As the fluctuations evolve waves begin to collapse, spawning higher-frequency modes in phase with the original22. These then interact with other waves to produce the non-uniform distribution of $`D_k`$ seen in Figure 3.

It is necessary to develop quantitative measures of phase information that can describe the structure displayed in the colour representations. In the beginning the phases $`\varphi _k`$ are random and so are the $`D_k`$ obtained from them. This corresponds to a state of minimal information, or in other words maximum entropy. As information flows into the phases the information content must increase and the entropy decrease. This can be quantified by defining an information entropy on the set of phase gradients5. One constructs a frequency distribution, $`f(D)`$ of the values of $`D_k`$ obtained from the whole map. The entropy is then defined as

$$S(D)=f(D)\mathrm{log}[f(D)]𝑑D,$$
(5)
where the integral is taken over all values of $`D`$, i.e. from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. The use of $`D`$, rather than $`\varphi `$ itself, to define entropy is one way of accounting for the lack of translation invariance of $`\varphi `$, a problem that was missed in previous attempts to quantify phase entropy23. A uniform distribution of $`D`$ is a state of maximum entropy (minimum information), corresponding to Gaussian initial conditions (random phases). This maximal value of $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{log}(2\pi )`$ is a characteristic of Gaussian fields. As the system evolves it moves into to states of greater information content (i.e. lower entropy). The scaling of $`S`$ with clustering growth displays interesting properties17, establishing an important link between the spatial pattern and the physics driving clustering growth. This phase information is a unique fingerprint of gravitational instability and it therefore also furnishes statistical tests of the presence of any initial non-Gaussianity24.

Figure 1. A numerical simulation of galaxy clustering (left) together with a version of the same picture generated by randomly reshuffling the phases between Fourier modes of the original picture. Since the amplitude of each Fourier mode is unchanged in this operation, these two pictures have exactly the same power-spectrum, $`P(k)|\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)|^2`$, but have totally different morphology. The shortcomings of $`P(k)`$ can be partly ameliorated by defining higher-order quantities such as the bispectrum4,8-10 or correlations11 of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }(𝐤)^2`$. The bispectrum and higher-order polyspectra vanish for Gaussian fields, but in a non-Gaussian field they may be non-zero. The usefulness of these and related quantities therefore lies in the fact that they encode some information about non-linearity and non-Gaussianity. The bispectrum, for example, measures the phase coupling induced by quadratic nonlinearities, and so on for higher orders. However, an infinite hierarchy of such moments is necessary to specify the properties of a general random field in a statistical sense. Since not every distribution is specified by its moments, even this need not be complete.

Figure 2. The representation of colour hue on a circle. In colour image display devices, each pixel represents the intensity and colour at that position in the image18,19. The quantitative specification of colour involves three coordinates describing the location of that pixel in an abstract colour space, designed to reflect as accurately as possible the eye’s response to light of different wavelengths. In many devices this colour space is defined in terms of the amount of Red, Green or Blue required to construct the appropriate tone; hence the RGB colour scheme. The scheme we are particularly interested in, the HSB scheme, is based on three different parameters: Hue, Saturation and Brightness. Hue is the term used to distinguish between different basic colours (blue, yellow, red and so on). Saturation refers to the purity of the colour, defined by how much white is mixed with it. A saturated red hue would be a very bright red, whereas a less saturated red would be pink. Brightness indicates the overall intensity of the pixel on a grey scale. The HSB colour model is particularly useful because of the properties of the ‘hue’ parameter, which is defined as a circular variable. On the colour circle shown, the primary hues (red, green and blue) are $`120^{}`$ apart from one another (at $`0^{}`$, $`120^{}`$ and $`240^{}`$ respectively), while the complementary tones yellow, cyan, and magenta are at $`60^{}`$, $`180^{}`$ and $`300^{}`$. Red, of course also appears at $`360^{}`$ and so on, so this parameter is truly circular in the same way as phases are. Our visualization method the hue parameter to encode the Fourier phases.

Figure 3. The evolution of phase coupling in a sequence of snapshots from a two-dimensional N-body simulation20,21 starting with Gaussian initial conditions. The initial power-spectrum was a power-law, $`P(k)k^n`$, with $`n=0`$. The left-hand column shows the development of hierarchical clustering through the emergence in the density field of the characteristic network of voids and filaments that typifies the action of gravitational instability. The next column shows the colour-coded phases, and the third and fourth columns show phase gradients in the $`x`$-direction and $`y`$-direction respectively. Each row corresponds to a particular timestep, with time flowing downwards. The early stages display no phase structure, but patterns emerge as time unfolds. The phase images develop a series of bands and stripes, first appearing as large-scale features in reciprocal space. As the simulation evolves, the characteristic $`k`$-space scale of these features gets smaller. This behaviour is related to the increasing characteristic scale of features in the density maps in the first column: larger features in real space correspond to smaller features in the reciprocal space. Phase correlations between $`k`$-modes reveal themselves as structure in the distribution of the $`D_k`$, chiefly through a domination of some hues over others. Starting from the initial data, in which they are distributed evenly, one sees the gradual appearance of regions where certain hues dominate. By the final stage, the third column is largely green and the last column is largely red indicating strongly coupled phases in both directions. Animations of this effect can be viewed at our website

```
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ppzpc/phases/index.html.

```

Please address correspondence to Peter Coles (Peter.Coles@Nottingham.ac.uk). Colour animations of phase evolution from a set of $`N`$-body experiments, including the one shown in Figure 3, can be viewed at

```
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ppzpc/phases/index.html.

```


text:
# NN Scattering Phase Shifts in a Chiral Constituent Quark Model

## Abstract

We study the nucleon-nucleon interaction within a chiral constituent quark model which reproduces succesfully the baryon spectra. We calculate the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shifts by using the resonating group method. They clearly indicate the presence of a strong repulsive interaction at short distance, due to the spin-flavour symmetry of the quark-quark interaction and of the quark interchange between the two interacting nucleons. A $`\sigma `$-meson exchange quark-quark interaction, providing a medium-range attraction, helps to get closer to the experimental phase shifts.

PACS number(s): 24.85.+p, 21.30.-x, 13.75.Cs

Keywords : chiral constituent quark model, pseudoscalar meson exchange interaction, nucleon-nucleon phase shifts, resonating group method

Introduction

The aim of the present work is to study the nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction and in particular the NN scattering phase shifts in the framework of a chiral constituent quark model which has proved succesfull in baryon spectroscopy . In the calculation of the NN phase shifts we employ the resonating group method (RGM)  which has been first applied to nuclear physics. This method is very convenient for treating the interaction between composite particles. In the NN problem each nucleon is supposed to be composed of three quarks and the interaction between quarks is here provided by the same chiral quark model, both for quarks belonging to the same nucleon or to different nucleons.

The study of the NN interaction in the framework of quark models has already some history. We restrict our discussion to nonrelativistic models where the RGM can be applied. Twenty years ago Oka and Yazaki  published the first nucleon-nucleon $`L=0`$ phase shifts calculated with the resonating group method. The work  and subsequent developments are revised in . Those results were obtained from models based on one-gluon exchange (OGE) interaction between quarks. Based on such models one could explain the short-range repulsion of the NN interaction potential as due to the chromomagnetic spin-spin interaction, combined with quark interchanges between $`3q`$ clusters. In order to describe the data, long- and medium-range interactions were added at the nucleon level.

Here we employ a constituent quark model where the short-range quark-quark interaction is entirely due to pseudoscalar meson exchange instead of one-gluon exchange. This is the chiral constituent quark model proposed in Ref.  and parametrized in a nonrelativistic version in Refs. . A semirelativistic version is also presented in Ref. . The present status of this model is summarized in Ref. . The spin-flavour symmetry structure of the model is getting support from the phenomenological analysis of $`L=1`$ negative parity baryon resonances . Also lattice  and $`1/N_C`$ QCD studies  have a consistent interpretation in a constituent quark model with pseudoscalar meson exchange interaction.

The origin of the model  is thought to lie in the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD which implies the existence of constituent quarks with a dynamical mass and Goldstone bosons (pseudoscalar mesons). According to the two-scale picture of Manohar and Georgi , at a distance beyond that of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, but within that of the confinement scale, the appropriate degrees of freedom should be the constituent quarks and the chiral meson fields. If a quark-pseudoscalar meson coupling is assumed, in a nonrelativistic limit one obtains a quark-meson vertex proportional to $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}\lambda ^F`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ the Pauli matrices, $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ the momentum of the meson and $`\lambda ^F`$ the Gell-Mann flavour matrices. This generates a pseudoscalar meson exchange interaction between quarks which is spin and flavour dependent. In the following, the model , based entirely on this interaction, is referred to as the Goldstone boson exchange (GBE) model.

It is important to correctly describe both the baryon spectra and the baryon-baryon interaction with the same model. The model  gives a good description of the baryon spectra and in particular the correct order of positive and negative parity states, both in nonstrange and strange baryons, in contrast to the OGE model. In fact the pseudoscalar exchange interaction has two parts : a repulsive Yukawa potential tail and an attractive contact $`\delta `$-interaction. When regularized , the latter generates the short-range part of the quark-quark interaction. This dominates over the Yukawa part in the description of baryon spectra. The whole interaction contains the main ingredients required in the calculation of the NN potential, and it is thus natural to study the NN problem within the GBE model. In addition, the two-meson exchange interaction between constituent quarks reinforces the effect of the flavour-spin part of the one-meson exchange and also provides a contribution of a $`\sigma `$-meson exchange type  required to describe the middle-range attraction.

Preliminary studies with this interaction have been made in Refs. . This work is a natural extension of these previous studies. Ref.  was rather exploratory about the role of a spin-flavour dependent interaction in giving rise to a repulsive core. Within the parametrization  of the GBE model it was found that at zero-separation between two $`3q`$ clusters the height of the repulsive core is 0.830 GeV and 1.356 GeV in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channels respectively. The spin-flavour symmetry and the parametrization  of the GBE model favours the $`|[42]_O[51]_{FS}`$ state, which becomes highly dominant. In Ref. , instead of cluster model states, a better basis obtained from single-particle molecular type states, has been employed. The situation has been found to be similar, the repulsion being reduced by about 200 MeV in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel and by about 400 MeV in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel. This is natural because the molecular orbital basis gives a lower bound of the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the six-quark basis. In Ref.  an adiabatic NN potential was calculated based on the model . It was found that none of the bases, cluster or molecular, leads to an attractive pocket. An attraction was simulated by introducing a $`\sigma `$-meson exchange of an analytic form similar to that of the pseudoscalar meson exchange of .

To our knowledge, the present study is the first derivation of NN scattering phase shifts with the full SU(3) version of the GBE model which provides a comparison with the experimental data. Similar RGM calculations , where a simplified SU(2) version of the GBE model has been used, have also shown the presence of a short-range repulsion in the behaviour of the phase shifts in the $`L=0`$ channel. However that paper did not aim at a comparison with the experiment.

The model

The GBE Hamiltonian considered below has the form

$$H=\underset{i}{}m_i+\underset{i=1}{}\frac{p_i^2}{2m_i}K_G+\underset{i<j}{}V_{Conf}(r_{ij})+\underset{i<j}{}V_\chi (r_{ij}),$$
(1)
where $`K_G`$ is the kinetic energy of the center of mass. The linear confining interaction is

$$V_{Conf}(r_{ij})=\frac{3}{8}\lambda _i^c\lambda _j^c(Cr_{ij}+V_0)$$
(2)
and the spin-spin component of the GBE interaction in its $`SU_F(3)`$ form is

$$V_\chi (r_{ij})=\{\underset{F=1}{\overset{3}{}}V_\pi (r_{ij})\lambda _i^F\lambda _j^F+\underset{F=4}{\overset{7}{}}V_K(r_{ij})\lambda _i^F\lambda _j^F+V_\eta (r_{ij})\lambda _i^8\lambda _j^8+\frac{2}{3}V_\eta ^{}(r_{ij})\}\stackrel{}{\sigma _i}\stackrel{}{\sigma _j}.$$
(3)
The interaction (3) contains $`\gamma =\pi ,K,\eta ,`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ meson-exchange terms and $`V_\gamma (r_{ij})`$ is given as the sum of two distinct contributions: a Yukawa-type potential containing the mass of the exchanged meson and a short-range contribution of opposite sign, the role of which is crucial in baryon spectroscopy. For a given meson $`\gamma `$, the exchange potential is

$$V_\gamma (r)=\frac{g_\gamma ^2}{4\pi }\frac{1}{12m_im_j}\{\mu _\gamma ^2\frac{e^{\mu _\gamma r}}{r}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma ^2\frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma r}}{r}\},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\kappa \mu _\gamma `$. For a system of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks only, as is the case here, the $`K`$ exchange does not contribute. In the calculations below we use the parameters of Refs. . These are

$$m_{u,d}=340\mathrm{MeV},C=0.77\mathrm{fm}^2,$$

$$\mu _\pi =139\mathrm{MeV},\mu _\eta =547\mathrm{MeV},\mu _\eta ^{}=958\mathrm{MeV},$$

$$\frac{g_{\pi q}^2}{4\pi }=\frac{g_{\eta q}^2}{4\pi }=1.24,\frac{g_{\eta ^{}q}^2}{4\pi }=2.7652,$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=5.82\mathrm{fm}^1,\kappa =1.34,V_0=112\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(5)
The reason of using the parametrization , instead of , as in the previous work , is that it is more realistic. Its volume integral, i.e. its Fourier transform at $`\stackrel{}{q}=0`$, vanishes, consistently with the quark-pseudoscalar meson vertex proportional to $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{q}\lambda ^F`$. In addition this interaction does not enhance the quark-quark matrix elements containing $`1p`$ relative motion, as it is the case with the parametrization . This point has been raised in Ref. . As a net result, in the parametrization  the attraction due to the Yukawa-potential tail is overwhelmed by the repulsion resulting from the short-range part of the hyperfine interaction .

Some more comments are in order before proceeding further. 1) The above parametrization gives a good description of baryon spectra. We do not change any parameter obtained from the fit . Such a parametrization is, of course, only effective. However, irrespective of the parametrization, the flavour-spin symmetry is essential in this model. 2) There are also semirelativistic versions of the GBE model, as for example  but first one has to study whether or not the resonating group method is applicable to semirelativistic six-quark Hamiltonians. The present RGM approach  lies heavily on an $`s^3`$ structure of the nucleon wave function and such a simple description is inadequate for semirelativistic wave functions. Anyhow, for a fair comparison with results based so far on nonrelativistic OGE models a nonrelativistic version of the GBE model is desirable.

The nucleon

In the RGM approach the wave function of the ground state nucleon must be known (see next section). As indicated above, its orbital part $`\varphi `$ has an $`s^3`$ structure. This is a very good approximation to the exact wave function. The function $`\varphi `$ is fully symmetric with respect to any permutation of $`S_3`$ and is chosen of the form

$$\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}g(\stackrel{}{r}_i,b),$$
(6)
with $`g(\stackrel{}{r}_i,b)`$ given by

$$g(\stackrel{}{r},b)=(\frac{1}{\pi b^2})^{3/4}e^{\frac{r^2}{2b^2}},$$
(7)
The size parameter $`b`$ appearing in (7) is obtained variationally from the stability condition (see for example Ref.)

$$\frac{}{b}\varphi |H|\varphi =0,$$
(8)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian (1) written for a $`3q`$ system. This condition gives $`b=0.44`$ fm, which we use below.

The six-quark state

From symmetry considerations (see for example ) we can find which channels contribute to a totally antisymmetric six-quark state of a given spin $`S`$ and isospin $`I`$ when the orbital, spin, flavour and colour degrees of freedom of the nucleon are taken into account. For example for $`SI=(10)`$ or $`(01)`$ the channels are NN, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the hidden colour CC. In this work the discussion is restricted to NN channels only. Preliminary studies with coupled channels indicate that the influence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and CC channels on the phase shifts is very small .

The resonating group method

Here we shortly describe the resonating group method. A detailed account of its application to the NN scatering can be found in the original papers by Oka and Yazaki . The resonating group method is a well established method for studying the interaction between two composite particles. First it has been succesfully applied to the derivation nucleus-nucleus interaction (see e.g. ). Since the work of Oka and Yazaki, it is being used to calculate NN phase shifts assuming a quark structure for the nucleons. In the NN system each nucleon is treated as a $`3q`$ cluster. In the one channel approximation of the RGM the NN system is described by a $`6q`$ wave function of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{\xi }_A,\stackrel{}{\xi }_B,\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})=𝒜[\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)\chi (\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})],$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{}{\xi }_A=(\stackrel{}{\xi }_1,\stackrel{}{\xi }_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\xi }_B=(\stackrel{}{\xi }_3,\stackrel{}{\xi }_4)`$ are the internal coordinates of the clusters $`A`$ & $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R}_{AB}=\stackrel{}{R}_A\stackrel{}{R}_B`$ is the relative coordinate between the two clusters. Thus $`\varphi _i(i=A,B)`$ are the internal wave functions of the clusters which are supposed to be known and $`\chi `$ is the $`\mathrm{𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛}`$ wave function describing their relative motion. The development below is based on the assumption that $`\varphi _i`$ has a simple $`s^3`$ structure which is reasonable for nonrelativistic models. The antisymmetrization operator $`𝒜`$ is

$$𝒜=1\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{j=4}{\overset{6}{}}P_{ij}.$$
(10)
From the variational principle one can obtain the equation determining the relative wave function $`\chi (\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})`$ as

$$\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)(HE)\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{\xi }_A,\stackrel{}{\xi }_B,\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})d^3\xi _Ad^3\xi _B=0,$$
(11)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian (1) of the six-quark system. We introduce the Hamiltonian kernel

$$(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})=\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)\delta (\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})H𝒜[\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)\delta (\stackrel{}{R^{}}\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})]d^3\xi _Ad^3\xi _Bd^3R_{AB}$$
(12)
and the normalization kernel

$$𝒩(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})=\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi ^+(\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)\delta (\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})𝒜[\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_A)\varphi (\stackrel{}{\xi }_B)\delta (\stackrel{}{R^{}}\stackrel{}{R}_{AB})]d^3\xi _Ad^3\xi _Bd^3R_{AB}.$$
(13)
Then Eq. (11) can be written as

$$(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})\chi (\stackrel{}{R^{}})d^3R^{}=0,$$
(14)
where $`(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})=(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})E𝒩(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})`$. This is the RGM equation. Here it has been solved by using the method of Ref. . Accordingly, the relative wave function $`\chi (\stackrel{}{R})`$ has been expanded over a finite number of equally displaced Gaussians. For scattering states this expansion holds up to a finite distance $`R=R_c`$, where $`R_c`$ depends on the range of the interaction. Beyond $`R_c`$, $`\chi (\stackrel{}{R})`$ is written as the usual combination of Hankel functions containing the $`S`$-matrix. Then the phase shifts are determined by imposing the continuity of $`\chi (\stackrel{}{R})`$ and of its derivative with respect to $`R`$ at $`R=R_c`$. For the NN channel a number of 15 Gaussians is large enough to obtain convergence and the matching radius is $`R_c=4.5`$ fm. The size parameter of the Gaussians is fixed at $`b=0.44`$ fm, as discussed above. An important analytic step in solving the Eq. (11) is the calculation of two-body matrix elements contained in the Hamiltonian kernel $`(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})`$ and the normalization kernel $`𝒩(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{R^{}})`$. All relevant two-body matrix elements obtained by integration in the color, spin and flavor spaces are given in Table 1. Symbolically an upper index $`f`$ is introduced in order to distinguish between the color $`\lambda _i^c`$ and the flavor $`\lambda _i^f`$ $`SU(3)`$ matrices.

Results

In Figs. 1 and 2 we plot the calculated $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ as a function of $`E_{lab}`$. For a comparison, we add the corresponding results of  obtained with the spin-spin part of the one-gluon exchange (OGE) model. The phase shifts of both models reveal the presence of a short-range repulsion in the NN interaction. In the GBE model, without the long-range Yukawa part , the repulsion is stronger and corresponds to a hard core radius $`r_0^{GBE}=0.81`$ fm (versus $`r_0^{OGE}=0.35`$ fm) for $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ and $`r_0^{GBE}=0.68`$ fm (versus $`r_0^{OGE}=0.30`$ fm) for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$. This outcome is consistent with the findings of Ref.  where a simplified $`SU(2)`$ version of the GBE model has been used. Thus the GBE model can explain the short-range repulsion, as due to a flavour-spin quark-quark interaction and to the quark interchange between clusters. However, to describe the scattering data and the deuteron properties, intermediate- and long-range attraction potentials are necesary. In calculations based on OGE models they were phenomenologically simulated at the NN level by central and tensor potentials respectively  (see also Ref. ). However, for a consistent picture it is desirable to search for the origin of the attraction at the quark level. Here we incorporate a $`\sigma `$-meson exchange interaction at the quark level and study its effect on the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift. Note that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift is not influenced by a tensor potential. For the $`\sigma `$-meson exchange interaction we choose the following form

$$V_\sigma =\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }(\frac{e^{\mu _\sigma r}}{r}\frac{e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma r}}{r}),$$
(15)
with parameters discussed below. The introduction of such an interaction is consistent with the spirit of the GBE model. It simulates the effect of two correlated pions . The good quality of the baryon spectrum is not distroyed by the addition of this interaction which essentially leads to an overall shift of the spectrum . The sensitivity of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift with respect to the coupling constant $`\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }`$, the mass $`\mu _\sigma `$ and the cut-off parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ can be seen from Figs. 3-5. As expected, the attraction in the NN potential increases with $`\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }`$ and hence the value of $`E_{lab}`$ where the phase shift changes sign also increases with $`\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }`$, as shown in Fig. 3. Note that the potential $`V_\sigma `$ of (15) remains attractive as long as $`\mu _\sigma <\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$. However $`\mu _\sigma `$ cannot be too close to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$. As suggested by Fig. 4, the attractive pocket in the NN potential becomes too small for $`\mu _\sigma >`$ 0.65 GeV, making the repulsion dominant and leading to negative phase shifts at all energies, when $`\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }`$ = 1.24 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ = 0.830 GeV. A large difference between $`\mu _\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ is not good either. From Fig. 5 one can see that when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma >`$ 0.95 GeV and $`\mu _\sigma `$ = 0.6 GeV an undesired bound state in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ phase shift is accomodated at $`\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }`$ = 1.24. This is due to the fact that the contribution of the second term in the right hand side of (15) becomes negligible and $`V_\sigma `$ brings too much attraction in the NN potential.

In this way we found an optimal set of values

$$\frac{g_{\sigma q}^2}{4\pi }=\frac{g_{\pi q}^2}{4\pi }=1.24,\mu _\sigma =0.600\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma =0.830\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(16)
As one can see from Fig. 6, with these values the theoretical curve gets quite close to the experimental points without altering the good short-range behaviour, and in particular the change of sign of the phase shift at $`E_{lab}260`$ MeV. Thus the addition of a $`\sigma `$-meson exchange interaction alone leads to a good description of the phase shifts in a large energy interval. One can argue that the still existing discrepancy at low energies could possibly be removed by the coupling of the $`{}_{}{}^{5}D_{0}^{}`$ N-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ channel, suggested by Ref.  in the frame of a hybrid model, containing both gluon and meson exchange at the quark level. To achieve this coupling, as well as to describe the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ phase shift, the introduction of a tensor interaction is necessary.

Conclusion

This study shows that the GBE model gives good promise in describing the NN scattering properties, while offering a good description of baryon spectra. In the following step it will be interesting to include a tensor interaction at the quark level, which does not alter the quality of the spectrum  and which provides the long-range attraction in the NN potential.

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to Kiyotaka Shimizu for introducing us into the intricancies of the resonating group method and for help in checking some partial results.


text:
# EXTRASOLAR PLANETS AND THE ROTATION AND AXISYMMETRICAL MASS LOSS OF EVOLVED STARS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

About forty sun-like stars (i.e., main sequence mass of $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.3M_{}`$) are presently known to have close planets around them (for recent studies see, e.g., Marcy & Butler 2000; Santos et al. 2000). In several billions years these stars will start their evolution along the red giant branch (RGB), reaching radii of $`100R_{}`$ on the upper RGB. Most of the known extrasolar planets will be engulfed by their evolving parent (central) star. Those planets which survive the RGB evolution will be engulfed by their central stars as the latter evolve to become asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, when they reach radii of $`>200\mathrm{AU}`$. Even if the initial separation of a planet is larger than the maximum radius of the star on the AGB, tidal forces will cause all known extrasolar planets to spiral-in into the envelope of their evolved parent stars (see eq. 6 by Soker 1996). The evolution of planets inside the envelopes of evolved stars was studied long before the detection of extrasolar planets (e.g., Eggleton 1978; Livio 1982; Livio & Soker 1984; Harpaz & Soker 1994) as well as after several extrasolar planets have been detected (e.g., Siess & Livio 1999a,b). The most obvious effect of planets will be the spinning-up of the evolved stellar envelopes. This is because RGB and AGB single stars are expected to rotate very slowly, so that even an Earth-like planet may more than double the rotational velocity of AGB stars (see $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ below). In several earlier papers (e.g., Soker & Harpaz 1992; Soker 1996, 1997, and references therein), I suggested that the spinning-up of evolved stars by substellar objects (i.e., brown dwarfs and planets) may lead to axisymmetrical, rather than spherical, mass loss on the upper AGB. As a result of this axisymmetrical mass loss, the descendent planetary nebulae (PNs) will be moderately elliptical rather than spherical. By moderately elliptical PNs I refer to those with a small to moderate deviation from sphericity, and not to PNs which contain lobes (i.e., bipolar PNs), rings (i.e., extreme elliptical PNs), and other structures with large departure from sphericity, and which I believe require stellar companions (Soker 1997).

The planet-induced axisymmetrical mass loss model for the formation of elliptical PNs had led to three major predictions: (1) Many planets will be more massive and closer to their parent stars than Jupiter is (Soker 1994, 1996). (2) For many stars to engulf a planet at their late evolutionary stages with a high probability, several substellar objects must be present in most of the systems (Soker 1996). (3) About half of all progenitors of PNs have planetary systems, containing Jupiter-like, or more massive, planets (Soker 1997). This prediction is based on the notion that singly evolved stars rotate too slowly when they become AGB stars, and hence have spherical mass loss. Since most PNs are axisymmetrical rather than spherical, but only $`3050\%`$ have stellar companions in the appropriate range of masses and orbital separations, most other PNs’ progenitors were spun-up by planets (Soker 1997).

The first two predictions were made before extrasolar planets were found, and the third was made when only a small number of extrasolar planets were known. Presently, more than 40 extrasolar planets around solar-like stars are known. These planets show indeed that planets more massive than Jupiter and at much closer orbits do exist. The first prediction was therefore confirmed. The second prediction has not been disproved or confirmed yet, since the detection sensitivity is too low for any meaningful conclusion. Only one system, upsilon Andromedae, was found to be composed of at least three planets (Butler et al. 1999). The third prediction was disproved. With current detection limits, only $`5\%`$ of the stars in the different samples were found to have Jupiter-like planets (Marcy & Butler 2000), and a very small number of systems do have brown dwarfs (Halbwachs et al. 2000). Even if I consider the detection sensitivity and allow for orbital separations twice as large as the detection limit and masses down to $`0.3M_J`$, where $`M_J`$ is the mass of Jupiter, the fraction of such extrasolar planetary systems is $`<10\%`$ among all sun-like stars.

The solution to the conflict between the third prediction above and the properties of known extrasolar planets may be one of the following. (a) If most stars of masses above those for which planets have been searched, i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}>1.3M_{}`$, possess Jupiter-like planets, and if these more massive stars form most PNs, while only a small fraction of stars having main sequence mass of $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.3M_{}`$ form PNs, then the statistics of known extrasolar planets has only slight implication for the progenitors of PNs. Allen, Carigi, & Peimbert (1998) argue that most stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.3M_{}`$ do not form PNs. They claim that only $`50\%`$ of stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.3M_{}`$ form PNs, with decreasing probability for lower masses. One problem with this solution is that many of the stars in the known extrasolar planetary systems will not form PNs at all. Instead, I expect them to lose most of their envelope on the RGB, becoming blue horizontal branch (BHB) stars, and then fading as WD without an observable nebula. The rest of the sun-like stars, those that have no Jupiter-like planets, are more likely to form PNs. This solution seems unlikely, therefore.
(b) If singly evolved AGB star rotate fast enough to induce axisymmetrical mass loss. Following the results of $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ below, where I follow the evolution of the rotation velocity of AGB stars, I consider this possibility to be very unlikely (section 3).
(c) Planets of masses as low as a few times Earth mass, i.e., $`M_p0.01M_J`$, are sufficient to spin-up AGB stars for the planet-induced axisymmetrical mass loss model to work. In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ I suggest that this is indeed the case, and that $`50\%`$ of PNs progenitors do have planetary systems, but in most cases the most massive planet has a mass in the range of $`0.01M_J<M_p<0.1M_J`$. Summary of main results and predictions are in $`\mathrm{\S }4`$.

## 2 ANGULAR MOMENTUM EVOLUTION

I concentrate on stars with main sequence mass in the range of $`1.3M_{}<M_{\mathrm{ms}}<2.4M_{}`$. The major reason is that in this mass range the transition from slow main sequence rotators to fast rotators occurs (e.g., Wolff & Simon 1997). These stars will clearly demonstrate the evolution of angular momentum, while avoiding some uncertainties with lower mass stars. The uncertainties with lower mass stars are in the total mass that is lost during the RGB, and later during the early AGB. As is evident from BHB stars in globular clusters, low mass stars may lose almost their entire envelope on the RGB (Dorman, Rood, & O’Connell 1993; D’Cruz et al. 1996). Stars having $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}11.3M_{\mathrm{ms}}`$ will retain most, but still lose a substantial fraction, of their envelopes on the RGB as well. Following in detail only the $`1.32.4M_{}`$ mass range is sufficient for the present goals since it seems that a large fraction of all PNs result from these stars (Allen et al. 1998). To make possible analytical integration of the angular momentum loss, I approximate the observations presented by Wolf & Simon (1997; e.g., their figures 3 and 4) for the average angular velocity of these main sequence stars by

$`v=200(M_{\mathrm{ms}}1.2)\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (1)
where the mass is given in solar mass units. This approximation takes into account the inclination effect ($`\mathrm{sin}i`$), and the possibility that the massive stars in this range retain some extra angular momentum in their cores. Therefore, this velocity function is somewhat higher than $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ given in figure 4 of Wolff & Simon (1997) in most of the mass range. To obtain a simple expression for the total angular momentum, I take the radii of these stars to be $`R_{\mathrm{ms}}=M_{\mathrm{ms}}^{0.75}`$, where masses and radii are in solar units. I also take the ratio of the moment of inertia to $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}R_{\mathrm{ms}}^2`$ to be $`0.07`$, as for the sun. Using these two approximations I find for the average total angular momentum of these stars on the main sequence

$`J_{\mathrm{ms}}M_{\mathrm{ms}}^{1.75}(M_{\mathrm{ms}}1.2)J_J,\mathrm{for}1.3<M_{\mathrm{ms}}<2.4,`$ (2)
where the masses are in solar mass units, and $`J_J=1.9\times 10^{50}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ is the orbital angular momentum of Jupiter.

For the angular momentum evolution I follow an earlier paper (Soker & Harpaz 2000), and use the same notations and derivation of the angular momentum loss. Not considering magnetic influence beyond the stellar surface, and assuming a solid body rotation through the stellar envelope, the angular momentum loss rate from stars is

$`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{wind}}=\beta \omega R^2\dot{M},`$ (3)
where $`\omega ,J,R,M`$ are the stellar angular velocity, angular momentum, radius, and mass, respectively, and $`\beta `$ depends on the mass loss geometry. For a constant mass loss rate per unit area on the surface $`\beta =2/3`$, while for an equatorial mass loss $`\beta =1`$. The angular momentum of the star is $`J_{\mathrm{env}}=I\omega `$, where $`I`$ is the moment of inertia given by

$`I=\alpha M_{\mathrm{env}}R^2,`$ (4)
where $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the envelope mass, and I neglect the core’s moment of inertia relative to that of the envelop and the change in the core mass at late AGB stages. Dividing equation (3) by equation (4) multiplied by $`\omega `$, gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}J_{\mathrm{env}}}{d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha (M_{\mathrm{env}})}}\delta .`$ (5)
In order to integrate equation (5) along the evolution of the star, we turn to find the variation of $`\alpha `$ with the envelope mass. We only consider mass loss on the upper RGB and upper AGB, where most of the mass loss occurs. Soker & Harpaz (2000) find the value of $`\alpha `$ on the RGB for sun-like stars to be (if the envelope mass is not too low) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{RGB}}0.1`$. For spherical mass loss $`\beta =2/3`$, hence on the RGB I take $`\delta _{\mathrm{RGB}}=6.7`$. We expect the envelope mass to be lost on the RGB to be $`0.2M_{}`$. Along the AGB we find from the models presented by Soker & Harpaz (1999; their figures 1-5; note that the density scale in figures 1-5 is lower by a factor of 10; the correct density scale is in their fig. 6)

$`\alpha ^110M_{\mathrm{env}}^{0.3}\mathrm{for}0.01<M_{\mathrm{env}}<0.5\mathrm{on}\mathrm{upper}\mathrm{AGB},`$ (6)
again, all masses are in solar mass units. At earlier AGB stages when $`M_{\mathrm{env}}>0.5M_{}`$ I take $`\alpha =8.25`$. For the core mass I take $`M_c=0.6M_{}`$ for all the calculations, since most of the mass loss occurs on the upper AGB, during a phase when the core mass does not increase substantially. Since the core mass on the RGB is smaller than $`0.6M_{}`$, using a core mass of $`0.6M_{}`$ means a lower envelope mass, hence for a given mass loss the angular momentum loss will be overestimated. To compensate, I take a lower value of $`\delta `$, namely $`\delta =5.5`$ instead of $`6.7`$. Although crude, this approximation simplifies the calculation substantially, while still being adequate for the present goals. As noted earlier, for lower mass stars, $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.3M_{}`$, these approximations are not applicable, since the mass loss on the RGB is significant.

Using these values of $`\alpha `$ and taking spherical mass loss $`\beta =2/3`$, I derive the following approximation for $`\delta `$ (defined in equation 5)

$`\delta 5.5(M_{\mathrm{env}}/0.5)^{0.3}\mathrm{for}0.01<M_{\mathrm{env}}<0.5`$ (7)
$`5.5\mathrm{for}M_{\mathrm{env}}0.5`$
Substituting $`\delta `$ from last equation allows analytical integration of equation 5. For envelope masses of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}<0.5M_{}`$ (again, for an assumed core mass of $`0.6M_{}`$ during the stage when most of the mass is being lost), the angular momentum is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{J_J}}M_{\mathrm{ms}}^{1.75}(M_{\mathrm{ms}}1.2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{ms}}0.6}{0.5}}\right)^{5.5}\mathrm{exp}[22.6(0.5^{0.3}M_{\mathrm{env}}^{0.3})]0.01<M_{\mathrm{env}}<0.5.`$ (8)
The angular momentum as a function of main sequence mass is plotted on Figure 1 for envelope masses of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.4`$, $`0.2`$ and $`0.1M_{}`$. The peak near $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.4M_{}`$ is not real. It seems rather that the angular momentum on the upper AGB does not depend much on the initial mass for stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.4M_{}`$. Even for the sun we get similar values. Since some of the early assumptions do not hold for a star with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.3M_{}`$, I assume the following instead. A sun-like star loses $`0.2M_{}`$ on the RGB, and then another $`0.05M_{}`$ on the early AGB. With an average core mass of only $`0.4M_{}`$ on the RGB, and $`\delta =6.7`$ as mentioned above, the sun will retain only $`(0.4/0.6)^\delta =0.066`$ of its angular momentum when leaving the RGB. Then with $`M_{\mathrm{core}}=0.6M_{}`$ and $`\delta =5.5`$ on the early AGB, the angular momentum will be reduced by another factor of $`5`$ when the envelope reaches mass of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.15M_{}`$. At this stage the sun’s angular momentum will be $`0.014`$ times it main sequence value. Since the angular momentum of the sun is $`0.01J_J`$, the sun will have $`J10^4J_J`$ when $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.15M_{}`$. This is very similar to the value for stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.4M_{}`$. Therefore, it seems that the lines in Figure 1 will become horizontal when continued to the left down to $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}1M_{}`$.

The angular velocity is given by $`J=\omega I`$. Taking $`I`$ from equation (4) and $`\alpha `$ from equation (6) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}}}=1.1\times 10^4M_{}^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{0.1}}\right)^{0.7}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{\mathrm{AU}}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{J}{10^3J_J}}\right)0.01<M_{\mathrm{env}}<0.5,`$ (9)
where masses are in solar units, $`\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}=(GM_{}/R^3)^{1/2}`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity on the stellar equator $`R`$, and $`M_{}=0.6+M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the total stellar mass, where $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is in solar units. This equation is correct for any envelope angular momentum, and is not restricted to a single star evolution as is equation (8).

Figure 2 shows the evolution of the angular velocity (solid line), in units of $`\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$, and the angular momentum (dashed line), in units of $`J_J`$, as a function of the envelope mass along the upper AGB for a single star with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.8M_{}`$. The angular momentum is according to equation (8), while the angular velocity is according to equation (9), with $`J`$ from equation (8), and for $`R=1\mathrm{AU}`$, hence the lower limit on the envelope mass of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.03M_{}`$, below which the stellar radius decreases much below $`1\mathrm{AU}`$. We note the fast decrease of the angular velocity as envelope mass decreases due to mass loss.

## 3 THE CONSTRAINTS ON ANGULAR VELOCITY AND PLANETS

For the formation of elliptical PNs the question is what angular velocity should an AGB envelope have in order to possess some mass loss rate contrast between equatorial and polar directions. For mechanisms which are based on dynamical effects of rotation, i.e., due to the centrifugal force, the envelope should rotate at $`\omega >0.1\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ (e.g., Dorfi & Höfner 1996; Garcia-Segura et al. 1999). These models require, therefore, that the AGB star be spun-up by stellar companions (Soker & Harpaz 1999), and are not relevant to the present discussion. This holds true for mechanisms based on dynamical effects of magnetic fields (e.g., Chevalier & Luo 1994; Garcia-Segura 1997; Pascoli 1997). Noting that the envelope of a singly evolved AGB star rotates very slowly, some works examine the role of a fast rotating core. Garcia-Segura et al. (1999) assume that the core retains a high rotational velocity, and only at the very end of the AGB does the core transfer its angular momentum to the envelope; by this stage the envelope contains a very low mass, and hence is efficiently spun-up by its coupling to the core. This scenario was criticized in a previous paper (Soker & Harpaz 1999; their $`\mathrm{\S }3.2`$). Pascoli (1997) proposes that the asymmetric mass loss is caused by a strong magnetic field which is amplified in the core, and then transported to the AGB stellar surface. Therefore, only the core and the envelope close to the core are required to rotate fast, so that the total stellar angular momentum is very small. There are several problems I see with Pascoli’s (1997) model. Among them are the too strong magnetic pressure on the stellar surface, which is about equal to the thermal and convective pressure there. Others problems are the too strong magnetic field and too fast rotation assumed on the core’s surface, $`10^6\mathrm{G}`$ and $`\omega _c=10^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ (i.e., orbital period of $`10`$ minutes). Single white dwarfs have much weaker magnetic fields; only $`4\%`$ of all white dwarfs have a magnetic field of strength $`B>3\times 10^4\mathrm{G}`$, and they are much slower rotators, having orbital periods of $`1hr`$ (Schmidt & Smith 1995). Despite the problems with the scenario proposed by Pascoli (1997), the idea that the axisymmetric magnetic field on the AGB surface results from an amplification close to the core deserves further study, in particular in models which require much weaker surface magnetic fields. Such is the cool magnetic spots model (Soker & Harpaz 1999; Soker 2000), where it is assumed that a weak magnetic field forms cool stellar spots, which facilitate the formation of dust closer to the stellar surface, hence increasing the mass loss rate. If spots due to the dynamo activity are formed mainly near the equator, an enhanced equatorial mass loss is obtained. One problem still remains with the idea of magnetic field transport from the core, since AGB stars have strong convection, which extends from the surface down to $`1R_{}`$. It is not clear that such a deep convective envelope with strong convection can maintain the axisymmetric structure of the core’s magnetic field without any envelope rotation. It is more likely that the convection will smear the magnetic field, so that on average the surface magnetic field will be spherical.

It seems therefore that some envelope rotation is required. The role of the slow envelope rotation is only to trigger another process which directly causes the axisymmetrical mass loss. In the cool magnetic spots model the role of the rotation is mainly to shape the magnetic field into an axisymmetrical configuration (on average), and it may operate efficiently even for an envelope rotating as slowly as $`\omega 10^4\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ (Soker & Harpaz 1999). For such slow envelope rotations, very low mass planets, down to $`0.01M_J`$, are sufficient, if they enter the AGB envelope at late stages. For example, a planet of mass $`0.01M_J`$ at an orbital separation of $`2\mathrm{AU}`$ has an angular momentum about equal to that of an AGB star with envelope mass of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.4M_{}`$ which had a main sequence mass of $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.8M_{}`$. If such a planet enters the envelope when $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.2M_{}`$, for example, it will increase the AGB envelope angular momentum by a factor of $`30`$. Taking the solar evolution to the AGB as described in section 2, I find that when the envelope mass becomes $`0.15M_{}`$, the angular momentum of the AGB sun is $`10^4J_J`$, or $`0.1`$ the angular momentum of Earth. By that time the orbital separation will be $`1.33\mathrm{AU}`$ (or $`290R_{}`$). If the sun at this stage goes through a helium shell flash, so that the radius increases, say, to $`1.3\mathrm{AU}`$ (e.g., Boothroyd & Sackmann 1988; note that they use too short a mixing length, and consequently their radii are overestimated by a factor of $`2`$ on the RGB and AGB), then another $`10\%`$ increase during the maximum radius in the pulsation cycles may reach the location of Earth, causing the Earth to spiral inside the solar envelope. A detailed analysis of the evolution of the Earth-sun system, until the sun leaves the AGB, for different assumptions and models, is given by Rybicki & Denis (2000). As a result of the deposition of the Earth’s orbital momentum, the solar envelope will rotate $`10`$ times faster, or at $`\omega 10^4\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$. If this occurs indeed in about 7 billion years, then the Earth may be responsible for the PN of the sun being elliptical rather than spherical. However, it is not clear that the sun will engulf the Earth, or that it will form a PN at all (Rybicki & Denis 2000).

To have a high probability that a planet will enter the AGB envelope at late stages, i.e., for it to occur in many stars, two things should happen. First on average there should be several planets around each star (as is the case in the solar system), and second, there should be a fast and significant increase of the stellar radius on the upper AGB. Numerical simulations of AGB stars show that after thermal pulses (helium shell flashes) on the upper AGB, the envelope increases by $`2030\%`$ (e.g., Boothroyd & Sackmann 1988). This is in addition to the increase in the average AGB stellar radius as the core mass increases. So the second condition is fulfilled for upper AGB stars. The first condition is a requirement, and hence a prediction, of the planet-induced axisymmetrical mass loss model for the formation of elliptical PNs. The new addition of the present paper is the relaxation of the minimum mass demand on planets from $`1M_J`$ (Soker 1996) to $`0.01M_J`$. The motivations for reducing the lower mass limit are the new finding that only $`5\%`$ of sun-like stars have Jupiter-like planets around them, and a new model for axisymmetrical mass loss, the cool magnetic spots model, which was constructed to work for very slowly rotating AGB stars by the author and a few collaborators (e.g., Soker 2000).

Finally, it should be noted that many of the known sun-like stars that have planets around them will not form PNs at all. This is since their orbiting planet will spin-up the envelope and deposit energy already on the stellar RGB, hence mass loss on the RGB is expected to be high, and most of the stellar envelope will be lost already on the RGB. No observable nebula will be formed. Hence, while in most cases planet companions will lead to the formation of an elliptical rather than a spherical PN, in some cases Jupiter-like planets in close orbits around low mass stars, $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.2M_{}`$, will prevent the stars from forming a PN. This process, of planet-induced envelope loss on the RGB, is interesting for globular clusters where there are many blue horizontal branch (BHB) stars. The BHB stars are thought to result from stars which lost most of their envelope on the RGB (e.g., Dorman et al. 1993; D’Cruz et al. 1996). It is not clear yet what causes this higher mass loss rate on the RGB, but one possibility is the presence of close planets (Soker & Harpaz 2000). The question here, again, is what is the minimum planet’s mass required to substantially enhance the mass loss rate. Some hints come from the angular momentum of BHB stars, which indicate that planets with masses of $`0.110M_J`$ are sufficient to induce the enhanced mass loss rate (Soker & Harpaz 2000). The planet-induced high mass loss rate model predicts that main sequence stars in globular clusters with no BHB will have no massive planets around them, while many main sequence stars in globular clusters with many BHB will have planets around them. It is interesting that in a recent work Brown et al. (2000) report that no planets were found around main sequence stars in the globular cluster 47 Tuc (NGC 104). This globular cluster contains no (or only a few) BHB (Rich et al. 1997), and therefore I do not expect the stars in this globular cluster to have massive and close planets around them. It will be interesting to repeat such observations for globular clusters which have many BHB, for which I do expect the presence of planets around many main sequence stars.

## 4 SUMMARY

The goal of the present work was to update some earlier results of the author and collaborators regarding the planet-induced axisymmetrical mass loss model for the formation of elliptical PNs. To do so I followed the angular momentum evolution of single stars in the main sequence mass range of $`1.3M_{\mathrm{ms}}2.4M_{}`$ (section 2). The main results of the present paper can be summarized as follows.
(1) Single stars will rotate extremely slowly when they reach the upper AGB (Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, they are not likely to form elliptical PNs, but spherical PNs.
(2) If a planet with a mass of $`M>0.01M_J`$ is engulfed by the star as it reaches the AGB, the star will be spun-up substantially by the deposition of the planet’s angular momentum. The rotation by itself will not deform the AGB wind, but may trigger another process that will lead to axisymmetrical mass loss, e.g., weak magnetic activity, as in the magnetic cool spots model (Soker 2000). The required angular velocity in that model is only $`10^4`$ times the Keplerian velocity on the stellar surface.
(3) Stars which have close stellar companions are likely to form bipolar PNs, i.e., those with two lobes and an equatorial waist between the lobes, or elliptical PNs with extreme equatorial to polar density contrast, e.g., a ring-like PN. However, these systems can add up to no more than $`50\%`$ of all PNs, while $`90\%`$ of all PNs are aspherical. This led me in earlier papers (e.g., Soker 1997) to suggest that $`50\%`$ of all progenitors of PNs have Jupiter-like planets around them. This is in contradiction with recent findings that only $`5\%`$ of sun-like stars have Jupiter-like planets around them at close orbits (Marcy & Butler 2000). I still maintain my claim that $`50\%`$ of all progenitors of PNs have planets around them, but now I suggest that the lower mass on the planets’ masses be reduced to $`0.01M_J`$.
(4) In order for such low mass planets to substantially spin-up the stellar envelope, they should enter the envelope when the star reaches the upper AGB. This “fine-tuning” can be avoided if there are several planets on average around each star, as is the case in the solar system, so that one of them is engulfed when the star reaches the upper AGB. Therefore I retain earlier predictions (Soker 1996) that on average several planets are present around $`50\%`$ of progenitors of PNs.
(5) I argue that most known sun-like stars that have planets around them will not form PNs at all, but the deposition of planets’ orbital angular momentum and energy will cause most, or even all, of the envelopes of these stars to be lost already on the RGB (Soker & Harpaz 2000). This is the case for main sequence stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.2M_{}`$ with a close Jupiter-like planet around them, as are most of the presently known extrasolar planets. These stars will not reach the upper AGB after the horizontal branch, and no observable nebulae will be formed. This scenario should be examined by searching the main sequence stars of globular clusters with many blue horizontal branch stars for close planet companions.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.
FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: The angular momentum on the upper AGB as a function of main sequence mass, for envelope masses of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.4`$, $`0.2`$ and $`0.1M_{}`$ as indicated. $`J_J`$ is the orbital angular momentum of Jupiter, and envelope masses are in units of $`M_{}`$. The peak near $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.4M_{}`$ is not real, but the angular momentum on the upper AGB does not depend much on the initial mass for stars with $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}<1.4M_{}`$.

Figure 2: Evolution of the angular momentum (eq. 8) and angular velocity (eq. 9 with $`R=1\mathrm{AU}`$) as a function of the mass left in the AGB stellar envelope. Angular momentum is in units of Jupiter’s orbital angular momentum, and angular velocity in units of the Keplerian angular velocity on the stellar equator. The assumption of $`R=1\mathrm{AU}`$ is not accurate for post-AGB stars, i.e., very low envelope mass, hence the plots do not continue below $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.03M_{}`$.


text:
# Molecular motor that never steps backwards

## Abstract

We investigate the dynamics of a classical particle in a one-dimensional two-wave potential composed of two periodic potentials, that are time-independent and of the same amplitude and periodicity. One of the periodic potentials is externally driven and performs a translational motion with respect to the other. It is shown that if one of the potentials is of the ratchet type, translation of the potential in a given direction leads to motion of the particle in the same direction, whereas translation in the opposite direction leaves the particle localized at its original location. Moreover, even if the translation is random, but still has a finite velocity, an efficient directed transport of the particle occurs.

A particle subject to a spatially asymmetric but on large scale homogeneous potential displays a symmetric diffusive motion, since the sole violation of the $`xx`$ symmetry is not sufficient to cause a net directional transport. As already noted more than 100 years ago by Curie , the additional breaking of time reversal $`tt`$ symmetry \[e.g. by dissipation\] may lead to a macroscopic net velocity, so that in this case directed motion can result in the absence of any external force. Such systems, known as thermal ratchets , have been subject of much activity, both theoretical  and experimental , partly motivated by possible applicability to biological motors .

In this Letter we study the classical dynamics of a particle in a one-dimensional two-wave potential. The total potential is composed of two periodic potentials, that are time-independent and of equal amplitudes and periodicities. One of the potentials is externally driven performing a translational motion with respect to the other. It is shown that if, in addition to the broken time reversal symmetry, the spatial symmetry is broken for one of the potentials, the relative translation can result in a two-fold behavior: (i) Translation in one direction causes a deterministic motion of the particle in the same direction, whereas (ii) translation in the opposite direction leaves the particle localized at its original location. Thus, the total potential acts as a ratchet in the original sense. Moreover, an efficient directed transport occurs even if the translation is random but still has a finite velocity. The reason for the directed transport is the existance of points of irreversibility in the particle trajectory. The high rate transport stems from the fact that if the particle once gains a distance which is an integer multiple of the potential period, this distance is preserved, different from former ratchet systems driven by random fluctuations.

We consider a simple ratchet type potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, which is assumed to be continuous but not necessarily differentiable. It has a periodicity $`b`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x+b)=\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ $`x`$, an amplitude $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)=\mathrm{min}\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, and one minimum is located at $`x=0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)=\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. We also assume that the potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ has only one minimum and one maximum per period $`b`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)/x`$ changes sign only twice for $`x[0,b)`$, cf. . The total potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$ is composed of two, not necessarily identical potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(x)`$, i.e. $`V(x,\gamma )\mathrm{\Pi }(x)+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(x\gamma )`$, where $`\gamma `$ defines the translation. Because of the periodicity of the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, the potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$ is periodic in both arguments, so that $`V(x,\gamma +b)=V(x,\gamma )`$ $`\gamma `$. In this potential landscape, the deterministic equation of motion of a particle of mass $`m`$ reads as

$$m\ddot{x}+\eta \dot{x}+\frac{V(x,\gamma )}{x}=0,$$
(1)
where the damping is denoted by $`\eta `$. It should be emphasized that, through the translation, energy is being permanently fed into the system, and that this energy has to be dissipated, i.e. $`\eta >0`$. Otherwise the particle will gain energy until it decouples from the potential.

First, we restrict ourselves to the case characterized by an overdamped motion with $`\eta /[(2\pi /b)\sqrt{m\mathrm{\Pi }_0}]1`$ and by a slow translation with $`|\dot{\gamma }|/[2\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/m}]1`$, where $`\dot{\gamma }`$ is the translation velocity, and relax these restrictions towards the end. In this limit, as the translation $`\gamma `$ is varied, the particle either (i) moves slowly remaining at the local potential minimum or (ii) if the minimum ceases to exists, it jumps to the next minimum following the potential slope. The latter happens instantaneously on the time scale of the translation. In order to obtain the observables, which are the trajectory $`x`$ and the average velocity $`\overline{\dot{x}}`$, it is therefore sufficient to study the behavior of the total potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$ and evaluate the positions of the minima. Below this limit is refered as ‘quasistatic’. The initial conditions at $`t=0`$ are chosen as $`x=0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, so that the particle is located at a potential minimum. In what follows, we use the abbreviations $`\stackrel{~}{x}x/bmod1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma /bmod1`$.

For simplicity, we start the discussion with a particular example for the potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi (x)\mathrm{\Pi }_0\{\begin{array}{cc}1+2\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}}{\xi }\hfill & \text{if }\stackrel{~}{x}\xi \hfill \\ 12\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}\xi }{1\xi }\hfill & \text{if }\stackrel{~}{x}>\xi \hfill \end{array},$$
(2)
which is piecewise linear, although the arguments below

apply analogously for other ratchet type potentials as well. The parameter $`\xi (0,1)`$ determines the asymmetry of the potential, with $`\xi =1/2`$ being the symmetric case. In Fig. 1 two realizations are shown for $`\xi =2/5`$ and $`\xi ^{}=1/2`$. In order to introduce only one asymmetry, we choose the translated potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi ^{}^{}(x)`$ to be symmetric, i.e. $`\xi ^{}=1/2`$. For the other potential $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi (x)`$ we use $`\xi <1/2`$, since the case $`\xi >1/2`$ can be mapped on the case $`\xi <1/2`$ by replacing the asymmetry $`\xi `$ by $`1\xi `$ and the translation $`\gamma `$ by $`\gamma `$. The case $`\xi =\xi ^{}=1/2`$, where both potentials are symmetric, is excluded, since then the total potential $`V_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}(x,\gamma )`$ becomes piecewise flat, and the ‘quasistatic’ treatment of eq. (1) is no longer valid .

Let us first discuss a translation with a constant translation velocity $`\dot{\gamma }=\mathrm{const}`$, so that $`\gamma =\dot{\gamma }t`$, where the velocity can be either $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ or $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$. In Fig. 2 shown is one cycle of a translation by $`b`$ \[$`\dot{\gamma }<0`$\] and $`b`$ \[$`\dot{\gamma }>0`$\] for an example with $`\xi =2/5`$ and $`\xi ^{}=1/2`$. In the case $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ \[the open circles in Fig. 2, the time evolves from (h) to (a)\] the particle moves a distance $`b`$, whereas in the case $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$ \[the full circles in Fig. 2, the time evolves from (a) to (h)\] the particle, although moving locally, returns to its starting point. After that, the whole cycle starts over again. Hence, the particle moves either with average velocity $`\overline{\dot{x}}=\dot{\gamma }`$ for $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ or $`\overline{\dot{x}}=0`$ for $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$. For the opposite asymmetry $`\xi >1/2`$, the particle remains at $`x=0`$ for $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ and moves with average velocity $`\overline{\dot{x}}=\dot{\gamma }>0`$ in the case of an opposite translation.

This behavior can be generally understood from the properties of the total potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$. In Fig. 3 shown are the potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$ and, for both $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ \[left side\] and $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$ \[right side\], the particle position $`x`$ for a particle located at $`x=0`$ for translation $`\gamma =0`$, as it follows the changes of the potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$. Due to the asymmetry of one of the constituting potentials, there are points of instability $``$ in the $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$ plane, where a local minimum of the potential $`V(x,\gamma )`$ ceases to exist. Hence, when the minimum disappears, a particle located at such a point performs an irreversible motion jumping to the next minimum, see Figs. 2(c),(f) and Fig. 3. In the example considered here, this new minimum moves in the direction of the jump and a net transport occurs in the case $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$, whereas in the case $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$ it moves in the opposite direction and cancels the distance

gained by the jump. Under our restrictions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, in particular due to the equality of the potential amplitudes, all points $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$ satisfy $`V(x,\gamma )=0`$. Let $`𝒞\{(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })|V(x,\gamma )=0\}`$ be the set of all pairs $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$ for which the potential $`V(x,\gamma )=0`$. Since the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ are continuous, the topology of $`𝒞`$ is such that it consists of connected points, that form paths and intersections, see Fig. 3. The intersections correspond to the points of irreversibility $``$ in which a minimum of $`V(x,\gamma )`$ with respect to $`x`$ ceases to exist. For the particular choice of the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ given by eq. (2) one obtains the two points $`_{\xi ,\xi ^{}}=\{(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })|(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{\gamma })=(0,1\xi ^{}),(\xi ,\xi )\}`$. Within the ‘quasistatic’ limit, jumps in the direction given by the potentials’ asymmetry occur if the particle reaches these points .

In order to decide in general, if for a given choice of potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ a directed transport is possible within the ‘quasistatic’ limit, one has to examine the set $`𝒞`$ around the intersection points $``$. In Fig. 4 the possible scenarios are shown, each with sketched ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ lines corresponding to $`V(x,\gamma )=0`$ around the intersection points. Concerning the question of irreversible jumps, namely if the particle reaches

the points of irreversibility as the translation is monotonously varied, one has to examine the behavior of the horizontal line, i.e. how this line is bent at the intersection point with respect to the direction of the translation. In the upper left part of Fig. 4 the horizontal line is bent downwards towards smaller values of $`\gamma `$ and hence opposite to the direction of the translation $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$ on both sides of the intersection point. This means that (i) the minimum in which the sketched particle is located moves towards the intersection point as $`\gamma `$ is increased \[because of the downward bending on the particle’s side\], and (ii) the minimum ceases to exist at the intersection point with a local slope such that the particle performs a jump leftwards to smaller values of $`x`$ \[because of the downward bending on the side opposite to the paricle\]. In the lower left part of Fig. 4 the horizontal line is bent upwards on the particle’s side of the intersection point, so that the minimum does not move towards the intersection as $`\gamma `$ is increased, but remains always right to it at larger values of $`x`$. This behavior is independent of the bending on the side of the intersection point opposite to the particle, either upward, as shown in the figure, or downward. In the upper right part of Fig. 4 a third theoretically possible topology is shown. In this case, the particle reaches the intersection point \[because of the downward bending on the particle’s side\], but the intersection point is not a point where the

minimum ceases to exist \[because of the upward bending on the side opposite to the particle\]. However, this topology cannot occur under our restrictions on the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$. For the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ given by eq. (2) and for $`\xi 1/2`$ or $`\xi ^{}1/2`$ the resulting topology of $`𝒞`$ is always such that the points of irreversibility are reached within the ‘quasistatic’ limit. Hence, depending on the asymmetry of the potentials, one observes transport for either $`\dot{\gamma }<0`$ or $`\dot{\gamma }>0`$, and no transport in the case of an opposite translation.

We can extend the model beyond the translation with a constant velocity, by assuming for instance another simple scenario with an oscillatory translation of the form $`\gamma =\gamma _0+\gamma _1\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \omega t)`$ with a driving frequency $`\omega `$ and $`\eta |\gamma _1|\omega b/\mathrm{\Pi }_01`$. In this case, one finds an average velocity $`\overline{\dot{x}}=\pm nb\omega `$ with $`n0`$ integer, where the sign depends on the asymmetry of the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$. The actual value of $`n`$ depends on the offset $`\gamma _0`$ and on the amplitude $`\gamma _1`$, since these values determine how many times the points of irreversibility $``$ are reached during one cycle. For the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$ given by eq. (2) with $`\xi =2/5`$ and $`\xi ^{}=1/2`$, a choice of $`\gamma _0=45b/100`$ and $`\gamma _1=b/20`$ results in an average velocity of $`\overline{\dot{x}}=b\omega `$. This means that in order to make the particle gain a distance $`b`$, the translation has only to be varied twice by $`b/10`$.

As a third possible scenario for the translation $`\gamma `$, we assume $`\gamma `$ to vary randomly by following the trace of a random walker $`y`$ that has locally a finite constant velocity $`0<|\dot{y}|=\mathrm{const}`$, but an average velocity $`\overline{\dot{y}}`$ = 0. For this scenario we relax the restriction of overdamped motion to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the ‘quasistatic’ treatment, and numerically integrate eq. (1) with a finite damping and a finite translation velocity. However, one has to keep the restriction $`|\dot{\gamma }|/[2\pi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/m}]1`$, since otherwise the changes in the potential due to the translation are too fast for the particle to follow, and the particle decouples from the potential. In Fig. 5 a realization of a random walker trace $`y`$ and the resulting particle trajectory $`x`$ for $`\xi =2/5`$ and $`\xi ^{}=1/2`$ are shown. We would like to emphasize that, despite the relatively small damping, the numerically obtained trajectory differs from the one obtained under overdamped conditions only by small oscillations. Although the random walker, and hence the

translation, have an average velocity $`\overline{\dot{y}}=0`$ resp. $`\overline{\dot{\gamma }}=0`$, the particle’s average velocity $`\overline{\dot{x}}`$ is nonzero. The sign of the velocity depends on the asymmetry of the potentials $`\mathrm{\Pi }(x)`$, for our choice of asymmetry one finds $`\overline{\dot{x}}<0`$ as expected. The transport is much more efficient than in former ratchet systems driven by random fluctuations. Here, if the particle gains a distance $`d(t)|x(t)|`$ equal to an integer multiple of the potential period $`b`$ at a time $`t_n`$, $`d(t_n)=nb`$, the distance will never become smaller again, and $`d(t)nb`$ $`tt_n`$. Putting this in the context of molecular motors, it means that the suggested molecular motor never executes a step backwards. These backward steps usually limit the efficiency of the motor .

Different realizations of the model can be thought of. One possibility is to put a small particle in a potential created by an optical tweezer such as in , but with two time-independent potentials added on top of each other at the same place and having a certain phase shift. Although the phase shift is changed randomly, but with a finite velocity, an efficient transport of the particle is predicted in a certain direction determined by the asymmetry of one of the potentials. It is possible, for instance, to induce the translation of the potential through the coupling of a varying internal degree of freedom of the particle to the non-translated potential . This opens various possibilities for the construction of micro- and nanoscale devices such as pumps and motors based on the presented ratchet type system.

Financial support from the Israel Science Foundation, the German Israeli Foundation, and DIP and SISITOMAS grants is gratefully acknowledged. M.P. gratefully acknowledges the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Feodor Lynen program) for financial support.