text:
# Polarizations of 𝐽/𝜓 and 𝜓' in hadroproduction at Tevatron in the 𝑘_𝑡 factorization approach

## Abstract

We present a calculation for the polarizations of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ produced in the hadron collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron. Various color octet channels including $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ as well as contributions from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays are considered in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. We find that in a rather wide range of the transverse momenta of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$, the production rates could be dominated by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel, and the predicted polarizations from the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel and $`\chi _{cJ}`$ feeddown contributions are roughly compatible with the preliminary CDF data. This might provide a possible release from the conflict between the NRQCD collinear parton model calculations and the CDF data.

Heavy quarkonium production in high energy collisions provide important information on both perturbative and nonperturbative QCD. In recent years, heavy quarkonium production has attracted much attention from both theory and experiment. To explain the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ surplus problem of large transverse momentum production at the Fermilab Tevatron, the color-octet production mechanism was introduced for the description of heavy quarkonium production based on the NRQCD factorization framework. However, most recently the CDF collaboration has reported preliminary measurements on the polarizations of the promptly produced charmonium states, which appear not to support the color-octet predictions that the directly produced $`S`$-wave quarkonia have transverse polarizations at large $`p_T`$ . In , the authors further considered the feeddown contributions from $`\chi _c`$ decays, and found the prompt $`J/\psi `$ polarization disagree with the CDF data at large $`p_T`$ by 3 standard deviations. In , we have performed a calculation of the production rates for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ at Tevatron in the newly advocated $`k_t`$ factorization approach, and we find that within the color-singlet model the production rates of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ can be enhanced by a factor of 20 compared to the leading order predictions in the naive collinear parton model, but are still below the data by at least one order of magnitude. Therefore in order to explain the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ productions at Tevatron we still need to call for the contributions from color-octet channels. This conclusion has been confirmed by another independent study on the $`J/\psi `$ production in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. In this letter we will report a calculation for the contributions of color-octet channels not only to the cross sections but also to the polarizations of the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$.

The $`k_t`$-factorization approach differs greatly from the conventional collinear approximation because it takes the non-vanishing transverse momenta of the scattering partons into account. This approach was previously advocated for the study of heavy quark production at high energy hadron colliders. Recently, more phenomenological studies were performed along this direction by several groups, and some successes seem to be achieved by comparing the calculations with experimental data on heavy quark production at the DESY HERA and the Fermilab Tevatron . Especially for $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ production, the $`k_t`$ factorization approach may provides a successful resolution for the long standing conflict between the NLO collinear parton model prediction and the experimental data at the Tevatron . From these and the most recent studies on charmonium production , we see that for heavy quark and quarkonium production in the present $`p_T`$ region at the Tevatron, the improved $`k_t`$ factorization approach may play a very important role and bring significant enhancements compared with the conventional collinear parton model. For the $`b`$ quark production the enhancement is about a factor of $`2`$, while for the color-singlet $`J/\psi `$ production a more dramatical enhancement, which is about a factor of $`20`$, has been found . In this paper we will work along this line, to further study $`J/\psi `$ polarization at the Tevatron by including the color-octet channels. We find that the $`k_t`$ factorization approach may provide a possible way to understand both the observed production rates and polarizations of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$.

Under the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, a process can be factorized as the hard scattering cross section convoluted with the so called unintegrated gluon distribution of the proton. For example, the polarized cross section for a charmonium state $`H`$ at the Tevatron can be written as the following form,

$$\frac{d\sigma (p\overline{p}H^{(\lambda )}X)}{d^2P_Tdy}=𝑑x_1𝑑x_2d^2q_{1T}d^2q_{2T}\frac{f(x_1;q_{1T}^2)}{q_{1T}^2}\frac{f(x_2;q_{2T}^2)}{q_{2T}^2}\times \widehat{\sigma }(g_1^{}g_2^{}H^{(\lambda )}+X),$$
(1)
where $`P_T`$ and $`y`$ are the transverse momentum and rapidity of the charmonium state $`H`$, and $`\lambda `$ denotes its helicity. $`f(x;q_T^2)`$ is the unintegrated gluon distribution function, which can be related to the conventional gluon distribution by

$$xg(x,\mu ^2)=^{\mu ^2}\frac{dq_T^2}{q_T^2}f(x;q_T^2).$$
(2)
In Eq. (1), the hard scattering cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }(H^{(\lambda )})`$ describes the production of $`H`$ from two off-shell gluons fusion process, which will depend on the incident gluons’ longitudinal momentum fractions $`x_1,x_2`$ and transverse momenta $`q_{1T},q_{2T}`$. In the collinear approximation, the cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ does not depend on $`q_{1T}`$ and $`q_{2T}`$, and then Eq. (1) will go back to the conventional collinear parton model result for the production of state $`H`$. However, as mentioned above, the incident partons’ $`q_t`$ may play an important role for heavy quarkonium production, and may not be neglected. To derive the cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, we closely follow the BFKL approach in which gauge invariance of the interaction vertices is guaranteed order by order. For example, to get the gauge invariant amplitude for $`J/\psi `$ production from $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel, we must include extra term contributions (see Fig. 1(c) of ) which will finally result in an effective (Lipatov) vertex for three-gluon interaction.

For direct $`J/\psi `$ production at the Tevatron, because the color-singlet contribution underestimates the experimental data by at least an order of magnitude in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, we need to consider the color-octet contributions, for which we will have the LO (leading order) gluon fusion processes,

$$ggc\overline{c}[{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)},{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}]J/\psi +X,$$
(3)
where various possible color-octet channels for the $`c\overline{c}`$ are considered. Note that these $`21`$ subprocesses do not contribute to $`J/\psi `$ ($`\psi ^{}`$) production at large $`p_T`$ in the collinear parton model. However, in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, these processes contribute to large $`p_T`$ production, because the initial partons’ transverse momenta will lead to $`J/\psi `$ having transverse momentum. In this context, the transverse momentum of $`J/\psi `$ will be the sum of the transverse momenta of the two incident partons, $`\stackrel{}{P}_T^\psi =\stackrel{}{q}_{1T}+\stackrel{}{q}_{2T}`$. For $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production, the inclusive production rates have been calculated in , where they find there is no need for the color-octet contributions to $`\chi _{cJ}`$ production. So, in this paper we will also only consider the color-singlet contributions to $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarizations, and then calculate their feeddown contributions to $`J/\psi `$ polarization. For numerical calculations, we set $`m_c=1.5GeV`$ and choose the unintegrated gluon distribution of . We set the scales $`\mu ^2`$ for the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$ in the hard scattering cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ to be $`q_{1T}^2`$ for the interaction vertex associated with the incident gluon $`q_1`$, and $`q_{2T}^2`$ for the vertex associated with $`q_2`$.

We first give the numerical results for the $`P_T`$ distributions of the inclusive cross sections for direct $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ production at the Tevatron compared with the experimental data. Fig. 1 is for $`J/\psi `$, and Fig. 2 for $`\psi ^{}`$. As a qualitative estimate we will use just one individual color-octet channel to fit the cross sections observed by CDF. The solid lines correspond to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel by taking the color-octet matrix elements as: $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=0.10GeV^3`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ^{}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=0.03GeV^3`$ for $`\psi ^{}`$, while other matrix elements are set to be zero, $`𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})=𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})=0`$. The dashed lines correspond to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ channel: $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2=0.025GeV^3`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ^{}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})/m_c^2=0.005GeV^3`$ for $`\psi ^{}`$, while $`𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})=0`$. The dotted lines correspond to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel: $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})=0.007GeV^3`$ for $`J/\psi `$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ^{}({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})=0.0025GeV^3`$ for $`\psi ^{}`$, while $`𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})=𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})=0`$. For $`J/\psi `$ production, from Fig. 3 we can see that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ channels can both rather well describe the Tevatron data, especially for the shapes of the differential cross sections. Whereas the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel gives an inadequate shape for the differential cross sections compared with the experimental data. For $`\psi ^{}`$ production, at first sight all the three curves seem to roughly agree with data. However, we can still see that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel overestimates the production rate of $`\psi ^{}`$ at large $`P_T`$. For both $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ the theoretical predictions for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel drop more slowly as $`P_T`$ increases than the experimental data. This is mainly because for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel there are additional terms (see Fig. 1b and c of ), which give main contributions at large $`P_T`$, but these terms do not contribute to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ processes. The disagreements between theoretical predictions for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ contributions and experimental data show that in the present $`p_T`$ region ($`p_T<20GeV`$) at the Tevatron, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel may not be the dominant one to the direct $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ production in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. This result is very different from the collinear parton model calculations, where the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel overwhelmingly dominates the $`S`$-wave quarkonium production at moderate and large transverse momentum at the Tevatron.

This difference has significant consequence on the polarization predictions of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$. We recall that in the collinear parton model the NRQCD formalism predicts $`S`$-wave quarkonia being transversely polarized dominantly due to the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ gluon fragmentation contributions. However, in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel may not dominate the $`S`$-wave quarkonium production, so the previous conclusion of transverse polarization at large $`P_T`$ may be changed. In the following we will study the polarizations of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. In Fig. 3, we present our result for the $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization at Tevatron. Because it receives no feeddown contributions from higher lying charmonium states, the polarization of $`\psi ^{}`$ is only due to the direct production from the color-octet processes. In this figure, we give each individual contributions from these octet processes in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. The solid line is for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ contribution, the dashed line for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$, and the dotted-dashed line for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$. From this figure we can see that the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ channel contributes to the transversely polarized $`\psi ^{}`$ as it contributes in the collinear parton model approach. Whereas the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel contributes to the unpolarized, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ contributes to the longitudinally polarized. If $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ could dominate $`\psi ^{}`$ production at the Tevatron (see Fig. 2), the $`\psi ^{}`$ will be unpolarized. This is consistent with the experimental data, which show that in the available $`p_T`$ region the $`\psi ^{}`$ seems to be unpolarized (though with large errors). So, the experimental data on $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization support the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ dominance on $`\psi ^{}`$ production.

We then study the $`J/\psi `$ polarization. The polarization data of $`J/\psi `$ are for the prompt production, i.e., including the direct production and the feeddown contributions from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ decays. The $`\psi ^{}`$ feeddown contributions to $`J/\psi `$ polarization can be obtained from the above $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization calculations multiplied by the decay branching ratio of $`\psi ^{}`$ to $`J/\psi `$. (Note that the observed transitions of $`\psi ^{}`$ to $`J/\psi `$ involve no spin flips, so this part of contribution has the same behavior as $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization.) To obtain the feeddown contributions from the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays, we must convolute the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ polarized cross sections with their decay branching ratios of $`\chi _{cJ}J/\psi \gamma `$. We find that in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach $`\chi _{cJ}`$ feeddown contributes to $`J/\psi `$ being a little transversely polarized. The polarization parameter $`\alpha `$ for $`J/\psi `$ from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays approaches to $`0.5`$ at large $`p_T`$. This is different from the collinear parton model calculations which predict that $`\alpha `$ approaches to about $`0.24`$ at large $`p_T`$. (Note that the polarizations of $`\chi _{cJ}`$ themselves are very interesting for testing the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, and has been presented in). All of these contributions including the direct contributions and the feeddown contributions to the $`J/\psi `$ polarization are plotted in Fig. 4. As in Fig. 3 for $`\psi ^{}`$, we also plot in this figure the individual contributions from the three color-octet processes for the direct polarizations, and then combine them with the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ feeddown contributions for the prompt polarizations compared with the experimental data from the CDF collaboration. The thinner lines are for the direct polarizations, and the thicker lines for the prompt polarizations. The solid lines are for $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ contributions, the dashed lines for $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ , the dotted-dashed lines for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$, and the dotted line for the $`\chi _{cJ}`$ feeddown contribution. We see that in general the polarizations increase as $`p_T`$ increases. For example, for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ direct production the value of polarization parameter $`\alpha (\psi )`$ (being longitudinal) varies from $`0.63`$ at $`p_T=5GeV`$ to $`0.38`$ at $`p_T=20GeV`$. For the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ direct production $`\alpha (\psi )`$ (being transverse) varies from $`0.72`$ to $`0.96`$ in the same $`p_T`$ range. The $`\chi _c`$ feed down contribution will reduce the extremities of $`\alpha (\psi )`$ in direct productions. From this figure we find again that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ dominance together with the $`\chi _c`$ feed down contribution will lead to the predicted prompt $`J/\psi `$ polarization in rough agreement with the Tevatron data except the one at about $`p_T=16.7GeV`$ which, however, has very large errors. We note that this seemingly nontrivial behavior of $`J/\psi `$ polarization at $`p_T=16.7GeV`$ (being longitudinal) can not be explained consistently with the moderate $`p_T`$ data (being transverse) in our approach. If the CDF data at $`p_T=16.7GeV`$ is further confirmed by CDF or D0 experiments in the future with higher statistics, the above mechanism may fail.

Concluding our analysis, we find that the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel dominance is the only reasonable realization of the polarization data of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ in the $`k_T`$ factorization approach. To see this point more clearly, we can perform a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis for theoretical comparison with the experimental data. For $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization data, $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel gives the smallest value of $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2/dof=0.61`$) as expected. Moreover, inclusion of other channels does not improve the fit. For example, including the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ contribution would make the fit even worse, and when including $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ contribution the fit is in the same manner as $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ alone but with a little higher $`\chi ^2/dof`$ ($`=0.83`$). For $`J/\psi `$ polarization, the result for the fit is similar. I.e., $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ alone gives the smallest $`\chi ^2`$ value ($`\chi ^2/dof=1.85`$), and inclusion of $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$ gives a even worse fit, while inclusion of $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ gives the same quality fit as $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ alone with a little higher $`\chi ^2/dof`$ ($`=2.13`$). So, with the available statistics at present, the polarization data of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ may indicate a strong signal of $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ dominance for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ production.

The $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ dominance has a straightforward consequence that the other two matrix elements $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$ must be much smaller than $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$. This is quite different from the naive expectation based on the NRQCD velocity scaling rules, which predict no big difference between these three matrix elements ($`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ scales as $`v^6`$, while $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$ both scale as $`v^7`$). But, the values of $`𝒪_8^{\psi (\psi ^{})}({}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{})`$ we used in Figs. 1-2 are smaller than the relevant color-singlet matrix elements by about an order of magnitude (e.g., the observed $`J/\psi `$ leptonic decay width leading to $`𝒪_1^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})=1.06GeV^3`$). This is roughly consistent with the NRQCD velocity scaling rule estimate. As for the other two matrix elements $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{})`$ and $`𝒪_8^\psi ({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{})`$, there might be some dynamical reasons (associated with the nonperturbative evolution processes) to suppress their values and violate the velocity scaling rules, or there might be some new counting rules for charmonium system to suppress their values.

Some theoretical uncertainties must be addressed before concluding. First there is an uncertainty coming from the scale choice used for the numerical calculations. We have set the scales to be $`q_{1T}^2`$ or $`q_{2T}^2`$ which are also adopted by some previous studies . If we set these scales both equal to $`p_T^2(\psi )+m_c^2`$, the cross sections for the three color-octet channels will be lowered down with the normalization factor changing from $`1`$ to about $`0.6`$ both for $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$. But this change has little effects on the shapes of the curves in Figs. 1-2. So, our conclusion for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ dominance will not change with the scale changes. Another uncertainty may come from the parameterizations of the unintegrated gluon distributions, for which, however, it is difficult to give an estimate because we have little knowledge about it at present. On the other hand, we note that the parameterization provided by  are obtained from an excellent fit to $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$ in a very large window of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach, which may be viewed as a reliable determination of these quantities.

In conclusion, in this paper we have calculated the $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ production rates and polarizations in hadroproduction at the Tevatron in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. Various color-octet contributions including $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$ as well as contributions from $`\chi _{cJ}`$ decays are considered in this approach. We find that in a rather wide range of the transverse momenta of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$, the production rates could be dominated by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ channel, and the predicted polarizations are in rough agreement with the preliminary Tevatron data. However, to draw the final conclusion on heavy quarkonium production mechanism in high energy hadron collisions, we still need more accurate experimental data on large $`p_T`$ production cross sections and polarizations. We also need more solid theoretical calculations such as NLO corrections to the color-octet processes discussed above, and a more reliable estimate for the so-called unintegrated gluon distribution function. It is worthwhile to make further investigations along this direction.

While the calculation in this paper was finished we noticed a paper by Ph. Häegler et al. , who studied the $`J/\psi `$ production rate in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach with color octet channels. Their result is similar to ours for the calculation of cross sections.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Education Ministry of China, and the State Commission of Science and Technology of China.

Figure Captions

FIG. 1. The $`p_T`$ distribution of direct $`J/\psi `$ production cross section at the Tevatron in the $`k_t`$ factorization approach. The solid line is for $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{(8)}`$ contribution, the dashed line for $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{(8)}`$, and the dotted-dashed line for $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{(8)}`$.

FIG. 2. The same as Fig. 1 but for $`\psi ^{}`$.

FIG. 3. Prompt $`\psi ^{}`$ polarization at the Tevatron.

FIG. 4. Prompt $`J/\psi `$ polarization at the Tevatron. The thinner lines are for the direct polarizations, and the thicker lines for the prompt polarizations.


format: text

text:
# References

HZPP-0006

Sept. 5, 2000

A Monte Carlo Study of the Dynamical-Flucautation

Property of the Hadronic System Inside Jets111 Supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Project 19975021 .

Liu Lianshou, Chen Gang222Permanent address: Jingzhou Teacher’s College, Hubei 434100 China and Fu Jinghua

Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079 China

ABSTRACT

A study of the dynamical fluctuation property of jets is carried out using Monte Carlo method. The results suggest that, unlike the average properties of the hadronic system inside jets, the anisotropy of dynamical fluctuations in these systems changes abruptly with the variation of the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. A transition point exists, where the dynamical fluctuations in the hadronic system inside jet behave like those in soft hadronic collisions, i.e. being circular in the transverse plan with repect to dynamical fluctuations. This finding obtained from Jetset and Herwig Monte Carlo is encouraged to be checked by experiments.

PACS number: 13.85 Hd

Keywords: dynamical fluctuations, hadronic jet, hard and soft

processes

The presently most promissing theory of strong interaction — Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (qcd) has the special property of both asymptotic freedom and colour confinement. For this reason, in any process, even though the energy scale, $`Q^2`$, is large enough for perturbative qcd (pqcd) to be applicable, there must be a non-perturbative hadronization phase before the final state particles can be observed. Therefore, the transition or interplay between hard and soft processes is a very important problem.

Theoretically, the transition between perturbative and non-perturbative qcd is at a scale $`Q_0`$ 1–2 GeV. Experimentally, the transition between hard and soft processes is determined by the identification of jets through some jet-finding processes, e.g. Jade  or Durham  algorithm. In these processes there is a parameter — $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, which, in case of Durham algorithm, is essentially the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ squared ,

$$k_\mathrm{t}=\sqrt{y_{\mathrm{cut}}}\sqrt{s},$$
(1)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the center-of-mass energy of the collision. From the experimental point of view, $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ can be taken as the transition scale between hard and soft. Its value depends on the definition of “jet”.

Historically, the discovery in 1975  of a two-jet structure in e+e- annihilation at c.m. energies $`6`$ GeV has been taken as an experimental confirmation of the parton model, and the observation in 1979 of a third jet in e+e- collisions at 17 – 30 GeV has been recognised as the first experimental evidence of gluon . These jets, being directly observable in experiments as “jets of particles”, will be called in the following as “visible jets”. The aim of this paper is to find out the scale corresponding to these visible jets and discuss its meaning.

For this purpose, let us remind that the qualitative difference between the typical soft process — moderate energy hadron-hadron collisions and the typical hard process — high energy e+e- collisions can be observed most clearly in the property of dynamical fluctuations therein. It is found recently  that the dynamical fluctuations in the hadronic systems from these two processes are qualitatively different — the former is anisotropic in the longitudinal-transvere plane and isotropic in the transverse planes while the latter is isotropic in three dimensional phase space. This observation inspired us to think that the dynamical-fluctuation property may provide a hint for the determination of the scale of the appearance of visible jets.

The dynamical fluctuations can be characterized as usual by the anomalous scaling of normalized factorial moments (nfm:

$`F_q(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_m(n_m1)\mathrm{}(n_mq+1)}{n_m^q}}`$
$``$ $`(M)^{\varphi _q}(M\mathrm{}),`$
where a region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in 1-, 2- or 3-dimensional phase space is divided into $`M`$ cells, $`n_m`$ is the multiplicity in the $`m`$th cell, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes vertically averaging over the event sample.

Note that when the fluctuations exist in higher-dimensional (2-D or 3-D) space, the projection effect  will cause the second-order 1-D nfm goes to saturation according to the rule333In order to elliminate the influence of momentum conservation , the first few points ($`M=1,2`$ or 3) should be omitted when fitting the data to Eq.(3).:

$$F_2^{(a)}(M_a)=A_aB_aM_a^{\gamma _a},$$
(3)
where $`a=1,2,3`$ denotes the different 1-D variables. The parameter $`\gamma _a`$ describes the rate of going to saturation of the nfm in direction $`a`$ and is the most important characteristic for the higher-dimensional dynamical fluctuations. If $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b`$ the fluctuations are isotropic in the $`a,b`$ plane; while when $`\gamma _a\gamma _b`$ the fluctuations are anisotropic in this plane. The degree of anisotropy is characterized by the Hurst exponent $`H_{ab}`$, which can be obtained from the values of $`\gamma _a`$ and $`\gamma _b`$ as

$$H_{ab}=\frac{1+\gamma _b}{1+\gamma _a}.$$
(4)
The dynamical fluctuations are isotropic when $`H_{ab}=1`$, and anisotropic when $`H_{ab}1`$.

For the 250 GeV/$`c`$ $`\pi `$(K)-p collisions from NA22 the Hurst exponents are found to be :

$$H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }=0.99\pm 0.01,H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}=0.48\pm 0.06,H_{y\phi }=0.47\pm 0.06,$$
(5)
which means that the dynamical fluctuations in this moderate energy hadron-hadron collisions are isotropic in the transverse plane and anisotropic in the longitudinal-transvere planes. This is what should be , because there is almost no hard collisions at this energy and the direction of motion of the incident hadrons (longitudinal direction) should be previleged. Note that the special role of longitudinal direction in these soft processes is present both in the magnitude of average momentum and in the dynamical fluctuations in phase space.

In high energy e+e- collisions, the longitudinal direction is chosen along the thrust axis, which is the direction of motion of the primary quark-antiquark pair. Since this pair of quark and antiquark move back to back with very high momenta, the magnitude of average momentum of final state hadrons is also anisotropic due to momentum conservation. However, the dynamical fluctuations in this case come from the QCD branching of partons , which is isotropic in nature. Therfore, although the momentum distribution still has an elongated shape, the dynamical fluctuations in this case should be isotropic in 3-D phase space.

A Monte Carlo study for e+e- collisions at 91.2 GeV confirms this assertion . The dynamical fluctuations are approximately isotropic in the 3-D phase space, the corresponding Hurst exponents being

$$H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }=1.18\pm 0.03,H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}=0.95\pm 0.02,H_{y\phi }=1.11\pm 0.02.$$
(6)
The present available experimental data for e+e- collisions at 91.2 GeV also show isotropic dynamical fluctuations in 3-D .

Now we apply this technique to the “2-jet” sub-sample of e+e-collision obtained from a certain, e.g. Durham, jet-algorithm with some definite value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. Doing the analysis for different values of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, the dependence of dynamical-fluctuation property of the “2-jet” sample on the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ can be investigated.

Two event samples are constructed from Jetset7.4 and Herwig5.9 generators, respectively, each consists of 400 000 e+e- collision events at c.m. energy 91.2 GeV. The results of 3-D $`F_2`$ for the full samples are shown in Fig.1 and the variation of $`\gamma `$’s of the 2-jet sample with $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$) are shown in Fig’s 2.

Fig.1 The log-log plot of 3-D nfm of the full event sample as function of partition number $`M`$

($`a`$) ($`b`$)

Fig.2 The parameter $`\gamma `$ of 2-jet sample as function of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$)

It can be seen from Fig.1 that after neglecting the first point to eliminate the influence of momentum conservation  the results from both Jetset and Herwig fit very well to straight lines with only slightly different slope. This means that the results from these two generators are qualitatively the same, showing that the full sample is self-similar (isotropic) fratal. This is just as expected . Quantitatively, they have slightly different fractal dimension.

The variation of the three $`\gamma `$’s of “2-jet” sample with the parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$), plotted in Fig.’s 2, show an interesting pattern. When $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$) is very small, the three $`\gamma `$’s are separate. As the increasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$), $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\gamma _\phi `$ approach each other and cross over each other sharply at a certain point. After that the three $`\gamma `$’s approach to a common value due to the fact that when $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is very large the “2-jet” sample coincides with the full sample and the dynamical fluctuations in the full sample is isotropic, cf. Eq.(6).

We will call the point where $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ crosses $`\gamma _\phi `$ as transition point. It has the unique property: $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$, i.e. the jets at this point are circular in the transverse plan with respect to dynamical fluctuations. These jets will, therefore, be called circular jets.

The above-mentioned results are qualitatively the same for the two event generators, cf. Fig.2 ($`a`$) and ($`b`$), only the $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$) values at the transition point are somewhat different. It is $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}0.0048`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}6.3`$ GeV) for Jetset and $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}0.0022`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}4.3`$ GeV) for Herwig. The values of $`\gamma `$’s and the corresponding Hurst exponents $`H`$, cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at the transition point are listed in Table I.

Table I Parameters $`\gamma `$, Hurst exponents $`H`$, cut-parameters $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at the transition point

| Generator (GeV) | $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}^{\left(\mathrm{Durham}\right)}`$ | $`\gamma _y`$ | $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ | $`\gamma _\phi `$ | $`H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}`$ | $`H_{y\phi }`$ | $`H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }`$ | $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ | $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ GeV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Jetset7.4 | 0.0048 | 1.074 | 0.514 | 0.461 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.96 | 0.0048 | 6.32 |
|  | $`\pm `$0.0007 | $`\pm `$0.037 | $`\pm `$0.080 | $`\pm `$0.021 | $`\pm `$0.06 | $`\pm `$0.06 | $`\pm `$0.10 | $`\pm `$0.0007 | $`\pm `$0.03 |
| Herwig5.9 | 0.0022 | 1.237 | 0.633 | 0.637 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.0022 | 4.28 |
|  | $`\pm `$0.0008 | $`\pm `$0.066 | $`\pm `$0.064 | $`\pm `$0.051 | $`\pm `$0.05 | $`\pm `$0.05 | $`\pm `$0.07 | $`\pm `$0.0008 | $`\pm `$0.02 |

It is natural to ask the question: Is there any relation between the circular jets determined by the condition $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$ and the visible jets directly observable in experiments as “jets of particles”?

In order to answer this question, we plot in Fig.’s 3 the ratios $`R_2`$ and $`R_3`$ of “2-jet” and “3-jet” events as functions of the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ at different c.m. energies.

($`a`$) ($`b`$)

Fig.3 The ratios $`R_3`$ and $`R_2`$ of 3- and 2-jet events as functions of $`k_\mathrm{t}`$

at different c.m. energies, ($`a`$) from Jetset7.4; ($`b`$) from Herwig5.9

Let us consider the point where a third jet starts to appear. Historically, a third visible jet was firstly observed in e+e- collisions at c.m. energy 17 GeV. It can be seen from Fig.3 that, for $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 17 GeV, $`R_3`$ starts to appear at around $`k_\mathrm{t}=`$ 8–10 GeV, cf. the dashed vertical lines in Fig.’s 3. This value of $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ is consistent with the $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ value (4.3–6.3 GeV) of a circular jet within a factor of 2, cf. Table I. Thus we see that the circular jet, defined as a kind of jet circular in the trnasverse plan with respect to dynamical fluctuations, and the visible jet, defined as a kind of jet directly observable in experiments as “jets of particles”, have about the same scale — $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ 5–10 GeV.

This scale is to be compared with the scale $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ 1–2 GeV, which is the scale for the transition between perturbative and non-perturbative. It is interesting also to see what happens in the results of jet-algorithm at the latter scale.

It can be seen from Fig.3$`a`$ (Jetset7.4) that, at this scale ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$ 1–2 GeV) the ratio $`R_2`$ of “2-jet” events tends to vanish almost independent of energy, provided the latter is not too low. This can be explained as the following. Consider, for example, an event with only two hard partons, having no perturbative branching at all. Even in this case, the two partons will still undergo non-perturbative hadronization to produce final-state particles. If the $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ is chosen to be less than 1–2 GeV then the non-perturbative hadronization with small transverse momentum will also be considered as the production of new “jets” and this “should-be” 2-jet event will be taken as a “multi-jet” (more than two jets) ones too. This means that, when $`k_\mathrm{t}<`$ 1–2 GeV, events with small transverse momentum will also become “multi-jet” ones, and $`R_2`$ vanishes.

However, even when $`k_\mathrm{t}<`$ 1–2 GeV, a few 2-jet events may still survive if the hadronization is alomst colinear. This effect becomes observable when the energy is very low, see, e.g., the $`R_2`$ curve for $`\sqrt{s}=6`$ GeV in Fig.3$`a`$.

Similar picture holds also for the results from Herwig5.9, cf. Fig.3$`b`$, but the almost-colinear hadronization appears earlier.

Before closing the paper, let us give some comments on the physical picture behind the above-mentioned two scales. A circular (or visible) jet is originated from a hard parton. The production of this parton is a hard process. Its evolusion into final state particles includes a perturbative branching and subsequent hadronization. The hadronization is a soft process. The perturbative branching (sometimes called parton shower) in between the hard production and soft hadronization connects these two processes. The isotropic property of dynamical fluctuations provides a criterion for the discrimination of the hard production of circular jets and the parton shower inside these jets.

In this paper we found through Monte Carlo study that unlike the average properties of the hadronic systems inside jets, the anisotropy of dynamical fluctuations in these systems changes abruptly with the variation of the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`k_\mathrm{t}`$). A transition point exists, where the dynamical fluctuations in the hadronic system inside jets behave like those in soft hadronic collisions, i.e. being circular in the transverse plan with repect to dynamical fluctuations. The scale of these circular jets is about $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ 5–10 GeV in contrast to the scale of pqcd which is $`Q_0`$ 1–2 GeV. It is encouraged to check this observation using real experimental data.

This observation is not only meaningful in the study of jets in e+e- collisions but also enlightening in the jet-physics in relativistic heavy ion collisions, which will become important  after the operation of the new generation of heavy ion colliders at BNL (RHIC) and CERN (LHC-ALICE).

Acknoledgement

The authors are grateful to Wu Yuanfang and Xie Qubin for valuable discussions.


text:
# References

NORDITA-2000/77 HE

Gauge-Invariant Formulation of the $`d=3`$
Yang–Mills Theory

Dmitri Diakonov<sup>⋄∗</sup> and Victor Petrov

NORDITA, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark

St.Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina 188 350, Russia

## Abstract

We write down the Yang–Mills partition function and the average Wilson loop in terms of local gauge-invariant variables being the six components of the metric tensor of dual space. The Wilson loop becomes the trace of the parallel transporter in curved space, else called the gravitational holonomy. We show that the external coordinates mapping the $`3d`$ curved space into a flat $`6d`$ space play the role of glueball fields, and there is a natural mechanism for the mass gap generation.

PACS: 12.38.Aw, 12.38.Lg. Keywords: Wilson loop, glueballs, quantum gravity

1. The problem of formulating Yang–Mills (YM) theory in terms of gauge-invariant variables has been with us for the last 25 years. Several approaches have been suggested to trade the YM potential for some gauge-invariant variables. However, usually it is difficult to incorporate matter in such approaches as it couples not to gauge-invariant variables but to the gauge potential $`A_\mu `$.

The simplest but typical matter is the probe source, or the Wilson loop. It is given by a path-ordered exponent of $`A_\mu `$, and it is difficult to present it in terms of any gauge-invariant variables. At some point it has been suggested that Wilson loops themselves are the only reasonable gauge-invariant variables, and the theory should be reformulated in terms of loop dynamics . Because Wilson loops are non-local objects there have been no decisive success on this way, in spite of enormous efforts taken in twenty years.

In this Letter we suggest an approach which is opposite in spirit to loop dynamics. Namely, we reformulate the YM theory in terms of local gauge-invariant variables, such that Wilson loops are also expressible through these variables. We demonstrate it in a simple case of $`SU(2)`$ theory in $`d=3`$ Euclidean dimensions. Four dimensions and higher groups are, most probably, doable as well, and we comment on that at the end of the paper.

2. The basis for our analysis is the reformulation of the $`SU(2)`$ YM theory in $`d=3`$ in terms of quantum gravity. This has been performed both in the continuum  by using the first-order formalism and on the lattice  by making duality transformation on the lattice and then passing to the continuum limit. We start by briefly outlining the first derivation.

The YM partition function can be written with the help of an additional Gaussian integration over the ‘dual field strength’ $`G_i^a`$ (a=1,2,3 are color and i=1,2,3 are Euclidean indices):

$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle DA_i^a\mathrm{exp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_3^2}}{\displaystyle d^3xF_{ij}^a(A)F_{ij}^a(A)}\left[F_{ij}^a(A)=_iA_j^a_jA_i^a+ϵ^{abc}A_i^bA_j^c\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle DG_i^aDA_i^a\mathrm{exp}d^3x\left[\frac{g_3^2}{2}G_i^aG_i^a+\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{ijk}F_{ij}^a(A)G_k^a\right]}.`$
Gaussian integration over $`A_i^a`$ can be easily performed, the saddle-point $`\overline{A}_i^a`$ being defined by the equation

$$ϵ^{ijk}(_j\delta ^{ab}+ϵ^{acb}\overline{A}_j^c)G_k^b=ϵ^{ijk}D_j^{ab}(\overline{A})G_k^b=0.$$
(2)
This equation is generally satisfied if

$$D_j^{ab}(\overline{A})G_k^b=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^iG_i^a$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is symmetric in subscripts. Eq. (3) is known to be satisfied in general relativity, provided one makes the following identification:

* $`G_i^ae_i^a`$ where $`e_i^a`$ is a dreibein such that the metric tensor is the standard

$$g_{ij}=e_i^ae_j^a,g^{ij}=e^{ai}e^{aj},e_i^ae^{bi}=\delta ^{ab},dete_i^a=\sqrt{g};$$
(4)
* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the standard Christoffel symbol,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i,jk}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_kg_{ik}+_jg_{ik}_ig_{jk}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=g^{il}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,jk};$$
(5)
* $`\overline{A}_i^c\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}\omega _i^{ab}`$ where $`\omega `$ is the spin connection,

$$\omega _i^{ab}=\omega _i^{ba}=\frac{1}{2}e^{ak}(_ie_k^b_ke_i^b)\frac{1}{2}e^{bk}(_ie_k^a_ke_i^a)\frac{1}{2}e^{ak}e^{bj}e_i^c(_ke_j^c_je_k^c).$$
(6)

It is easy to check that with the above definitions eq. (3) and hence eq. (2) are fulfilled. Eq. (6) gives an explicit solution for the saddle-point potential $`\overline{A}_i^a`$ through the dual field strength $`G_i^a=e_i^a`$.

Pursuing further the analogy with Riemannian geometry one can define the covariant derivative in curved space,

$$\left(_i\right)_l^k=_i\delta _l^k+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^k,$$
(7)
whose commutator is the Riemann tensor,

$`[_i_j]_l^k=R_{lij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^k_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^k+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{im}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jm}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{il}^m`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`ϵ^{abc}F_{ij}^a(\overline{A})e^{bk}e_l^c,e_l^cG_l^c,`$ (9)
related, as we see, to the YM field strength at the saddle point $`\overline{A}`$. More directly, we get from eq. (9) the YM field strength at the saddle point expressed in terms of gravity quantities,

$$F_{ij}^a(\overline{A})=\frac{1}{2}R_{lij}^mϵ^{abc}e_m^be^{cl}.$$
(10)
Therefore, the second term in eq. (1) is, at the saddle point, nothing but the Einstein–Hilbert action:

$$ϵ^{ijk}F_{ij}^a(\overline{A})G_k^a=\sqrt{g}R,RR_{lmn}^mg^{ln},$$
(11)
where we have used the identity

$$ϵ^{abc}e_k^ae_m^b=\sqrt{g}ϵ_{kmn}e^{cn}.$$
(12)
The first term in eq. (1) is

$$G_i^aG_i^a=e_i^ae_i^a=g_{ii}.$$
(13)
Integrating over $`A_i^a`$ in eq. (1) gives a pre-exponential factor $`(detG_i^a)^{\frac{3}{2}}=g^{\frac{3}{4}}`$. The resulting integral in eq. (1) is over the 9 components of the dreibein $`G_i^a`$ which can be rotated by the 3-parameter gauge transformation $`O^{ab}`$. However, both the action and the measure depend on $`G_i^a(x)`$ only through the metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$ which is gauge-invariant. Writing $`d^{(9)}e_i^a=d^{(3)}O^{ab}d^{(6)}g_{ij}g^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ one can pass to integrating over the metric. One gets finally the YM partition function (1) identically rewritten in terms of 6 gauge-invariant variables :

$$𝒵=Dg_{ij}g^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{exp}d^3x\left[\frac{g_3^2}{2}g_{ii}+\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{g}R(g)\right].$$
(14)
The second term, the Einstein–Hilbert action, is diffeomorphism-invariant and depends actually only on three variables. The first term is not, and we call it the ‘ether’ term  as it corresponds to an isotropic and homogeneously distributed ‘matter’ which, however, spoils the general covariance. It distinguishes the YM theory from the pure gravity theory (which is a topological field theory ), and is responsible for the propagation of transverse gluons in the perturbative regime . We note that the integration measure also differs from the diffeomorphism-invariant measure $`_{ij}dg_{ij}g^2`$.

It is instructive to rewrite the partition function (14) further introducing 6 external coordinates $`w^\alpha (x),\alpha =1,\mathrm{}6`$, describing the embedding of a general 3-dim Riemannian manifold into 6-dim flat space. The metric induced by embedding is

$$g_{ij}=_iw^\alpha _jw^\alpha .$$
(15)
Quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i,\sqrt{g}`$ and $`R`$ written in terms of $`w^\alpha `$ can be found in ref..

The Jacobian for the change of integration variables from the 6 components $`g_{ij}(x)`$ to 6 external coordinates $`w^\alpha (x)`$ is the $`6\times 6`$ determinant made of second derivatives, $`Dg_{ij}=Dw^\alpha det(w_{ij}^\alpha )`$. It is zero in the degenerate case when the manifold can be embedded in less than 6 dimensions. It terms of the external coordinates the YM partition function has the following form (it is in this form the partition function has been derived in ref. from making a duality transformation on the lattice and then passing to the continuum limit):

$$𝒵=Dw^\alpha (x)det(_i_jw^\alpha )g(w)^{\frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{exp}d^3x\left[\frac{g_3^2}{2}_iw^\alpha _iw^\alpha +\frac{i}{2}\sqrt{g(w)}R(w)\right].$$
(16)
3. Let us now consider the average of the Wilson loop in representation $`J=\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$ along a closed contour $`x^i(\tau )`$, defined as

$$W_J=\frac{1}{2J+1}\text{Tr}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}i𝑑\tau \frac{dx^i}{d\tau }A_i^aT^a$$
(17)
where $`T^a`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ generators in representation $`J`$. It is not at all clear that one can rewrite it in terms of local gauge-invariant variables $`g_{ij}`$ or $`w^\alpha `$. A hint that it may be possible comes from the dual formulation on the lattice where the Wilson loop appears to be a product of certain $`9j`$ symbols along the contour , each of which is gauge-invariant. We shall show that in the gravity formulation the average $`W_J`$ becomes the average of a parallel transporter in curved space, else called the holonomy, taken in the appropriate representation (spinor, vector, etc.)

To that end it is convenient to write down the Wilson loop in a form where the path ordering is traded for an additional functional integration over a unit 3-vector $`𝐧`$ ‘living’ on a surface spanned on the contour ,

$`W_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[iJ𝑑\tau \frac{dx^i}{d\tau }(A_i^an^a)+\frac{iJ}{2}d^2S^{ij}ϵ^{abc}n^a_in^b_jn^c\right]}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D𝐧(\sigma ,\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iJ}{2}d^2S^{ij}\left(F_{ij}^an^a+ϵ^{abc}n^a\left(D_in\right)^b\left(D_jn\right)^c\right)\right]}.`$ (19)
This representation for the Wilson loop is convenient because $`A_i^a`$ comes linearly in the exponent. The second line is a ‘non-Abelian Stokes theorem’; it is written down in an explicitly gauge-invariant form but actually the terms quadratic in $`A_i^a`$ cancel out.

One defines the average Wilson loop by inserting eq. (17) or, equivalently, eq. (18) into the partition function (1). Since the integral over $`A_i^a`$ is Gaussian and since the source term $`A_i^an^a`$ is linear in $`A_i^a`$, it is sufficient to replace $`A_i^a`$ in the Wilson loop by the saddle-point value $`\overline{A}_i^a`$. One can disregard the quadratic point-like self-interacting term emerging from this replacement, as being independent of the dynamics.

Meanwhile, $`\overline{A}_i^a`$ is given by the spin connection, see eq. (6). The path-ordered exponent of the spin connection determines the parallel transporter of spinors in curved space. Parallel transporters of higher spins can be always built from spinors. We, thus, come to the conclusion that in the quantum-gravity formulation of the YM theory one can calculate the Wilson loop as the trace of a parallel transporter along a closed contour in curved space.

4. Spin connection $`\omega _i^{ab}`$ is defined by the dreibein $`e_i^a`$ which is not uniquely determined by the metric tensor. In principle, for a given metric one can use any dreibein to calculate the Wilson loop, but this is not very satisfactory. Since Wilson loops are gauge-invariant and so is the metric tensor one would expect that parallel transporters are expressible through the metric tensor (and its derivatives) only.

Let us first consider Wilson loops in integer-$`J`$ representations. In this case the problem of expressing them through the metric tensor is immediatelly solved by the observation  that the holonomy defined via the spin connection is equal to that defined via Christoffel symbols. For example, for the $`J=1`$ (vector) representation one has :

$$W_{J=1}=\frac{1}{3}\left[\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}𝑑\tau \frac{dx^i}{d\tau }\omega _i(e)\right]^{aa}=\frac{1}{3}\left[\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}𝑑\tau \frac{dx^i}{d\tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(g)\right]_k^k.$$
(20)
For half-integer representations the problem is more difficult as there is no way to define the parallel transporter of spinors other than via the spin connection. Nevertheless, this problem has been solved in ref. with the help of the ‘gravitational non-Abelian Stokes theorem’ similar to eq. (19). It is only for parallel transporters of spinors along a closed loop and only when written down in a surface form that the spinor holonomy can be expressed through the metric tensor and its derivatives. Actually, one can write a unified formula for the holonomy for any spin $`J`$; it is given by a functional integral over a covariantly unit vector $`𝐦`$ ‘living’ on a surface spanned on the contour :

$`W_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D𝐦\sqrt{g}\delta (m^im^jg_{ij}1)}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}i{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑S_k\sqrt{g}\left[\left(R\delta _p^k2R_p^k\right)m^p+ϵ^{ijk}ϵ_{pqr}m^p(_im)^q(_jm)^r\right]}`$
where $`R_p^k`$ is the Ricci tensor, $`R=R_k^k`$ is the scalar curvature and $`_i`$ is the covariant derivative in curved space (7). Despite its surface form, eq. (21) is independed of the way one draws the surface.

Eq. (21) gives a general solution to the problem of expressing the YM Wilson loop in terms of the metric tensor; it should be inserted into the partition function (14) for calculating the average Wilson loop over the ensemble of YM configurations. If external coordinates $`w^\alpha (x)`$ are used as dynamical variables instead of $`g_{ij}(x)`$ one has to express $`R_k^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ through $`w^\alpha `$ first, and plug them in eq. (16). In both cases the average Wilson loop is expressed through local gauge-invariant variables, be it $`g_{ij}`$ or $`w^\alpha `$.

5. So far we have presented exact results, and now we would like to speculate on how the expected mass gap for glueballs and the area behavior of the Wilson loop might be achieved. We also give an example where eq. (21) is considerably simlified.

A characteristic feature of the partition function (16) is the purely imaginary Newton constant. It damps field configurations leading to fast oscillations. A trivial way to get rid of those oscillations is to put $`R=0`$, which leads to the perturbative regime . A less trivial example of how to avoid fast oscillations is to have the Einstein–Hilbert action quantized so that the oscillating factor becomes $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi in)=1`$. This is achieved e.g. in de Sitter $`S^3`$ spaces of constant (quantized) curvature $`R=54\pi ^2/n^2`$.

Indeed, the de Sitter space with curvature $`R`$ can be generally parametrized by 4 external coordinates $`w^A(x),A=1,\mathrm{},4`$, restricted to the $`S^3`$ sphere of radius $`\sqrt{6/R}`$:

$$\underset{A=1}{\overset{4}{}}w^A(x)w^A(x)=\frac{6}{R}.$$
(22)
The square root of the metric determinant becomes a determinant itself being equal to

$$\sqrt{g}=\frac{1}{6}\sqrt{\frac{R}{6}}ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{ABCD}_iw^A_jw^B_kw^Cw^D,$$
(23)
so that the Einstein–Hilbert term in eq. (16) is

$$\frac{i}{2}d^3x\sqrt{g}R=i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\pi ^2\sqrt{\frac{6}{R}}N_{\mathrm{wind}},$$
(24)
where $`N_{\mathrm{wind}}`$ is the properly normalized winding number of the mapping $`S^3S^3`$ realized by $`w^A(x)`$. Putting it to be an integer $`n`$ and demanding that the l.h.s. of eq. (24) is $`2\pi in`$ we arrive to the quantization condition written above for the scalar curvature. Such values of $`R`$ are preferred because there are no damping oscillations then.

The ‘ether’ term is the kinetic energy term for four fields $`w^A(x)`$ subject to the constraint (22), therefore we are left with a low-energy $`O(4)`$ sigma model. The large-$`N`$ sigma models are known to develop a mass gap; technically it is achieved by introducing a Lagrange multiplier for the constraint and then finding a saddle-point value of this multiplier, which is justified at large $`N`$. It is not clear if one can consider 4 as being much much larger than 1 but this scenario seems probable. That would give a mass gap to glueballs which we identify with the $`w^A`$ field.

Whether this dynamical regime leads to an area law for the holonomy in half-integer representations, is less clear. On one hand it is intuitively a rather natural outcome: the constant curvature is a gauge-invariant analog of a constant field strength usually leading to the area law. On the other hand we have not been able to prove it directly so far, and the question remains open.

We would like to remark that a constant-curvature background is a gauge-invariant analog of the long-sought master field leading to a nonzero gluon condensate.

Another interesting regime is a cylindric space $`S^2\times `$ also of constant curvature $`R`$ but with one eigenvalue of the Ricci tensor being zero. Such spaces are generally parametrized by four coordinates $`w`$ with only three of them subject to the constraint

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}(w^a)^2=\frac{2}{R},w^4\mathrm{arbitrary}.$$
(25)
In this case we have managed to find a general expression for an arbitrary Wilson loop. It is given by the $`SU(2)`$ character whose argument is the winding number of $`w^a(x)`$ :

$$W_J=\frac{1}{2J+1}\underset{m=J}{\overset{J}{}}\mathrm{exp}im\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\frac{2}{R}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{1}{2}𝑑S_kϵ_{abc}ϵ^{ijk}_iw^a_jw^bw^c,$$
(26)
where $`dS_k`$ is the dual element of the surface spanned on the contour. We note that eq. (26) gives an example of the Wilson loop being expressed through local gauge-invariant variables, though it is less general than eq. (21).

For cylindric spaces the Einstein–Hilbert action is a full derivative,

$$\frac{i}{2}d^3x\sqrt{g}R=\frac{i}{8}R^{\frac{3}{2}}d^3x_k\left[w^4ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{abc}_iw^a_jw^bw^c\right],$$
(27)
and can be reasonably set to be zero, therefore there are no oscillations in the partition function, too. The $`O(3)`$ sigma model we are left with in this case may also develop a mass gap for glueballs. However, this regime most probably does not lead to the area law. The reason is that for large areas inside the Wilson loop the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in eq. (26) becomes the winding number of the mapping $`S^2S^2`$ but with the coefficient $`4\pi `$, therefore non-trivial mappings $`w^a(x)`$ are not ‘felt’ even in half-integer representations. A more careful analysis in the spirit of the $`CP^{N1}`$ model shows that the static potential has a logarithmic, not linear, behavior.

6. In conclusion, we have reformulated both the YM partition function and the average Wilson loop in terms of local gauge-invariant variables, being actually the metric of the dual space. It looks as a promising starting point for studying two features expected in YM theory: the mass gap for glueballs and the area law. Generalization to higher gauge groups and to $`d=4`$ is possible e.g. along the lines suggested in refs.. In $`d=4`$ a formula similar to eq. (21) exists, expressing the holonomy through the metric tensor .


text:
# Discovery of the Orbit of the Transient X ray Pulsar SAX J2103.5+4545

## 1 Introduction

About 50 accretion powered X-ray pulsars are known. Although most of them are in binary systems, binary orbital parameters are known for only half of them (Bildsten et al. 1997). The optically identified companions are generally high mass stars (van Paradijs 1995). Among the high mass companions half of them are giant or supergiant stars and the other half are Oe and Be stars with episodic mass loss events.

The X-ray source SAX J2103.5+4545 was discovered using the BeppoSAX X-ray satellite (Hulleman, in’t Zand, and Heise 1998). Pulsations at 358.61 s were found. The X-ray spectrum was a power law with photon number index of 1.27, typical of accreting high–field pulsars. In analogy to other X-ray pulsars this object was proposed to be a neutron star in a binary. It was noted that the B8 star HD 200709 was at the edge of the BeppoSAX error box.

In this work, we report on X-ray observations made with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) during an outburst two years later. We determine the orbital parameters using pulse arrival time analysis (see also Baykal, Stark, and Swank 2000).

## 2 Observations

SAX J2103.5+4545 was observed during 1999 November 19 and December 27 for an RXTE guest observer proposal to study the decays of transient pulsars. The results presented here are based on data collected with the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) (Jahoda et al. 1996) and All Sky Monitor (ASM) (Levine et al. 1996). The PCA instrument consists of five identical multi-anode proportional counter units (PCUs). The PCA operates in the 2-60 keV energy range, with a total effective area of approximately 7000 cm2 and a field of view $`1^{}`$ FWHM. The ASM consists of three identical Scanning Shadow Cameras (SSCs) each of which has a net active area for detecting X-rays of $``$30 cm2. The ASM sensitive range is 2 to 12 keV. It perform sets of 90 sec pointed observations, covering $``$80$`\%`$ of the sky every $``$ 90 minutes.

## 3 Results

Background light curves were generated by using the background estimator models based upon the rate of very large events, spacecraft activation, and cosmic X-ray emission with the standard PCA analysis tools. The background light curves were subtracted from the source light curves which were obtained from the Good Xenon event data. The background subtracted light curve is presented in figure 1. The observation times were corrected with respect to the barycenter of the Solar system. Then summed power spectra were used to estimate the average pulse frequency. Pulse profiles were obtained by folding the lightcurves at the pulse period deduced from the power spectra. A template pulse profile is presented in figure 2. Pulse arrival times were found by cross-correlating the pulse profiles. In the pulse timing analysis, we have used the harmonic representation of pulse profiles (Deeter $`\&`$ Boynton 1985). The pulse profiles were expressed in terms of harmonic series and cross-correlated with the template pulse profile. Figure 3, presents the pulse arrival times. The pulse arrival times showed a quadratic trend superposed on orbital Doppler delays. The pulse arrival times can be written as (Deeter, Boynton, $`\&`$ Pravdo 1981)

$$\delta t=\frac{\delta P}{P}(tt_0)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{P}}{P}(tt_0)^2+x\mathrm{sin}(l)\frac{3}{2}xe\mathrm{sin}(w)+\frac{1}{2}xe\mathrm{cos}(w)\mathrm{sin}(2l)\frac{1}{2}xe\mathrm{sin}(w)\mathrm{cos}(2l).$$
(1)
Here t0 is the mid-time of the observation; $`\delta P`$ is the deviation from mean pulse period $`P`$; $`\dot{P}`$ is the time derivative of the pulse period; $`x=a_x\mathrm{sin}(i)/c`$ is the light traveltime for projected semimajor axis (where i is the inclination angle between the line of sight and the orbital angular momentum vector); $`l=2\pi (tT_{\pi /2})/P_{orbit}+\pi /2`$ is the mean orbital longitude at time $`t`$; $`T_{\pi /2}`$ is the epoch when the mean orbital longitude is equal to 90 ; $`P_{orbit}`$ is the orbital period; $`e`$ is the eccentricity; and $`w`$ is the longitude of periastron. The above expression is fitted to the pulse arrival times data. Table 1 presents the timing solution of SAX J2103.5+4545. Figure 4 presents the pulse arrival times after the removal of the quadratic trend (or intrinsic -$`\dot{P}`$). The source was spinning up during the observation at the rate of $`\dot{\nu }=(2.5\pm 0.15)\times 10^{13}`$ Hz s-1. The periodic trend of the pulse arrival times yields an eccentric orbit (e=$`0.4\pm 0.2`$) with a orbital period of $`12.68\pm 0.25`$ days.

The PCA lightcurve is folded at the orbital period of 12.68 days with respect to the reference time of mean longitude 90. The folded PCA lightcurve is presented in figure 5. In this figure, orbital phase $``$0.4 corresponds to the periastron passage of the neutron star. It is clearly seen that the X-ray flux (or count rate) is increased at the periastron passage of the X-ray pulsar. This is strongly suggesting that the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star is increased during the periastron passage.

Since SAX J2103.5+4545 was observed with the BeppoSAX satellite from February to September 1997 (Hulleman, in’t Zand and Heise 1998) we extracted the public ASM data and presented 3 days average of ASM light curve in figure 6. The X-ray pulsar was actively seen in ASM in 1997 for $``$ 200 days. In order to see the X-ray flux modulations due to the eccentric orbit, we employed a $`\chi ^2`$ search. The result is shown in figure 7; there is obvious peak centered at 12.6 days. The ASM data folded on the orbital period is shown in figure 8. The folded ASM light curve also shows an increase in X-ray flux at the periastron passage. The ASM and PCA lightcurves are quite similar.

The derived orbital parameters yield a mass function for the companion

$$f(M)=\frac{4\pi ^2(a_x\mathrm{sin}i)^3}{GP_{orb}^2}=\frac{(M_csini)^3}{(M_x+M_c)^2}2.5M_{}.$$
(2)
For an X-ray pulsar mass of ($``$1.4M) and an inclination of 45, the companion mass would be $``$7$`M_{}`$.

## 4 Discussion

High mass X-ray binaries fall into three separate groups when the pulse periods are compared with the orbital periods (Corbet 1986). The systems with Be companions show correlations between orbital period and spin periods (Corbet 1986, van Kerkwijk 1989), while systems with giant and supergiant companions fall into two separate regions. X-ray pulsars with Be type companions show transient behavior and these pulsars generally accrete from the variable envelope of a Be star. The mass accretion increases at the periastron passages since the density of plasma is greater when the pulsar is close to the companion star. If SAX J2103.5+4545 has a Be type companion, according to the Corbet diagram, a pulse period of $``$ 358 s implies an orbital period of $``$190 d (Hulleman, in’t Zand and Heise 1998). The measured orbital period and pulse period of SAX J2103.5+4545 suggests that the companion star has to be a giant or a supergiant star (Corbet 1986). It is interesting to note that even if this pulsar has a supergiant companion it is still a transient X-ray pulsar.

Hullemann, in’t Zand, & Heise (1998) attempted to use the theoretical relation between $`\dot{P}`$ and X-ray luminosity to test the consistency of possible locations of the source, but their upper limits on $`\dot{P}`$ were not restrictive. According to Ghosh & Lamb (1979) the maximum spin-up rate ($`\dot{P}`$) is given by

$$\dot{P}=2.2\times 10^{12}\mu _{30}^{2/7}m_x^{3/7}R_6^{6/7}I_{45}^1P^2L_{37}^{6/7}ss^1$$
(3)
where $`\mu _{30}`$, $`m_x`$, $`R_6`$, and $`I_{45}`$ are the magnetic dipole moment in units of $`10^{30}`$ G cm3, the mass in units of solar mass ($`m_x=M_x/M_{}`$), the radius in units of 106 cm and the moment of inertia in units of 1045 g cm2, respectively, and $`L_{37}`$ represents the X-ray luminosity in units of $`10^{37}`$ erg s-1. The spin-up rate we observed ($`3.2\times 10^8`$ s s-1 )implies an accretion luminosity of $`L_x=GM\dot{M}/R8\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1 for a typical surface magnetic field strenght of $`10^{12}`$ Gauss.

The average flux seen by the ASM during the period of our PCA measurements was only 5 mCrab and the PCA average spectrum implied a total unabsorbed flux of $`2.4\times 10^{10}`$ ergs cm-2 s-1. A distance can be estimated from this flux and the X-ray luminosity estimate given above; the result is D = $`\sqrt{\frac{L_x}{4\pi F_x}}5`$ kpc. is about 5 kpc. The B star HD 200709 was suggested as a marginal candidate of optical counterpart at a distance of $`0.7`$ kpc (Hulleman, in’t Zand and Heise 1998). Our finding suggests that SAX J2103.5+4545 is far beyond the star HD 200709 and that deeper searches are required for detection of an optical counterpart.

Figure Caption

Fig. 1 The total (5 PCU) RXTE/PCA background subtracted X-ray light curve.
Fig. 2 The pulse profile of SAX J2103.5+4545. The normalized count rate is 83 count/sec.
Fig. 3 Pulse arrival times of SAX J2103.5+4545 with respect to the constant pulse period of 358.62171 sec. The quadratic trend shows the intrinsic -$`\dot{P}`$.
Fig. 4 Pulse arrival times of SAX J2103.5+4545 with respect to the constant pulse period of 358.62171 sec after the quadratic trend is removed (above). Solid line denotes the orbit model. The residuals of pulse arrival times in terms of sigma values (below).
Fig. 5 Folded lightcurve of PCA data at the orbital period. The normalized count rate is 83 count/sec. Orbital phase 0 corresponds to mean longitude of 90  and orbital phase $`0.4`$ corresponds to periastron passage.
Fig. 6 The light curve of ASM data.
Fig. 7 $`\chi ^2`$ search of ASM data covering 1997 outburst.
Fig. 8 Folded lightcurve of ASM light curve. Orbital phase 0 corresponds to mean longitude of 90  and orbital phase $`0.4`$ corresponds to periastron passage.


text:
# Resonant Tunnelling through InAs Quantum Dots in Tilted Magnetic Fields: Experimental Determination of the g-factor Anisotropy

## Introduction

Resonant tunnelling experiments through zero-dimensional structures are an efficient tool to access their quantized energy levels. In recent years several groups succeeded in performing such experiments with self-assembled InAs quantum dots (QDs) embedded in the barrier of a single-barrier tunnelling device . Low-temperature experiments allowed to measure directly the Landé factor $`g^{}`$ of InAs dots . In this Note we will report on resonant tunnelling experiments through InAs QDs in tilted magnetic fields. We will show that $`g^{}`$ depends on the orientation of the magnetic field with respect to the growth direction and can be described phenomenologically by a tensor with two independent components.

## Sample structure

The samples were grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on a highly Si-doped GaAs substrate with a donor concentration $`n=2\times 10^{18}`$ cm-3. First we grew a 1-$`\mu `$m thick GaAs buffer layer with the same doping level followed by two 10-nm thick n-doped GaAs layers with $`n=1\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3 and $`n=1\times 10^{16}`$ cm-3 and an 15-nm thick undoped GaAs spacer. On this bottom electrode a 10-nm thick AlAs barrier was deposed. The growth of the barrier was interrupted at a thickness of 5 nm where 1.8 mono-layers of InAs were embedded in the barrier. With such an InAs coverage self-assembled InAs QDs are formed. The structure was terminated with a top electrode symmetric to the bottom electrode finishing with 1 $`\mu `$m highly n-doped GaAs ( $`n=2\times 10^{18}`$ cm-3). As a consequence of the high doping three-dimensional electrodes are present on both sides of the AlAs barrier.

Subsequent to the growth of the wafer macroscopic AuGeNi contacts with a typical diameter of 50 $`\mu `$m were annealed into the top electrode and vertical tunnelling diodes with the same diameter were processed using wet-chemical etching.

## Resonant Tunnelling and Spin Splitting

When a bias voltage is applied between the top and the bottom electrode our devices show $`I`$-$`V`$-characteristics which can be described by tunnelling through a single AlAs barrier . Superimposed on this coarse $`I`$-$`V`$-curve we observe distinct current steps assigned to resonant tunnelling through individual InAs quantum dots , for more details see . A typical step for $`T=0.5`$ K is shown in Fig. 1.

In high magnetic fields the current step observed at $`B=0`$ T develops into two spin-split steps with a voltage separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=g^{}\mu _BB/\alpha e`$. Here $`\alpha =E_D/eV`$ denotes the lever factor between the energy separation emitter-dot, $`E_D`$, and the total voltage drop, $`V`$. From the temperature dependent smearing of the current step we deduced $`\alpha =0.3`$. The spin splitting of the current step is shown in Fig. 2a where the $`I`$-$`V`$-characteristic of the tunnelling structure at $`B=10`$ T is displayed. For the top curve the magnetic field $`B`$ is oriented along the growth direction $`z`$, the bottom trace was measured in a magnetic field perpendicular to $`z`$.

As can be seen in Fig. 2b, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ indeed increases linearly with magnetic field confirming the scenario of a simple Zeeman splitting of the QD’s energy level. However, the Landé factor $`g^{}`$ as deduced from the slope is considerably different for the two field orientations $`Bz`$ and $`Bz`$ where we find Landé factors $`g_{}^{}=0.74`$ and $`g_{}^{}=0.92`$ 222We obtained similar results for a second step observed at higher bias voltages. This step can be assigned to the tunneling through another InAs QD. For the two field orientations we find $`g_{}^{}=0.78`$ and $`g_{}^{}=0.99`$.. From the temperature dependence of the step heights in high magnetic fields we find that the low-voltage step can be assigned to tunnelling of spin-down electrons resulting in a positive $`g`$-factor as also found in .

At first sight it is quite astonishing that the Landé factor is far away from that of bulk InAs ($`g^{}=14.8`$). This discrepancy can be explained qualitatively considering effects of size quantization, strain and possible other effects . Such effects may be the leakage of the electronic wave-function in the InAs quantum dot into the AlAs barrier and the space dependent alloying of the InAs dots with AlAs. In a simple picture this can be described by an (rather complex) admixture of the Landé factor in AlAs and strained InAlAs to the (size-quantized) $`g`$-factor in the InAs-dot.

## Tilted Magnetic Fields

In order to clarify the dependence of $`g^{}`$ on the orientation of the magnetic field more clearly we have performed experiments in tilted magnetic fields at a temperature $`T=1.3`$ K. The angle between the magnetic field and the growth direction was stepped from $`\vartheta =0^o`$ to $`\vartheta =90^o`$. For each angle I-V-curves were recorded at $`B=15`$ T and the voltage splitting between two spin-split steps was determined. From this we deduced the angular dependent Landé factor, $`g^{}(\vartheta )`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen in the figure, $`g^{}(\vartheta )`$ gradually increases when tilting the magnetic field away from the growth axis. As indicated with the solid line it follows an angular dependence

$$g^{}(\vartheta )=\sqrt{(g_{}^{}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^2+(g_{}^{}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )^2},$$
(1)
with $`g_{}^{}=0.74`$ and $`g_{}^{}=0.92`$.

This phenomenological behaviour can be understood when regarding the Zeeman contribution to the total energy in a size quantized structure. For the most general case the corresponding Hamiltonian can be written in the form

$$_Z=\frac{1}{2}\mu _B\sigma _\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }B_\beta ,$$
(2)
were $`\alpha =x,y,z`$ are the three spatial directions, $`B_\alpha `$ are the components of the magnetic field along $`\alpha `$, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`\sigma _\alpha `$ are the Pauli spin-matrices. In the most general form the tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ contains nine independent real components .

To get a better physical insight we model our dot by a flat disc with a height $`h3`$ nm and a diameter $`d15`$ nm . In this case the Landé tensor reduces to a diagonal tensor with two independent components $`g_{}^{}=g_{xx}=g_{yy}`$ and $`g_{}^{}=g_{zz}`$. In a tilted magnetic field with $`B_x=0`$, $`B_y=B\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ and $`B_z=B\mathrm{cos}\vartheta `$ equation (1) then directly follows from (2).

## Discussion

Our experiment clearly shows the anisotropic nature of spin splitting in InAs quantum dots. Comparing with the measured $`g`$-factor anisotropy in quantum-wires  and quantum wells  one would expect the largest $`g`$-factor when the magnetic field is applied in the direction of the strongest confinement. Our experiments, however, indicate that this simple relation for the $`g`$-factor anisotropy does not hold. We observe a smaller $`g^{}`$ if the magnetic field is applied in the growth direction where the quantum confinement is the strongest. Therefore, it is probable that the effects responsible for the $`g`$-factor anisotropies are not dominated by quantum confinement but by more complicated mechanisms such as AlAs alloying into the InAs quantum dots, leakage of the electronic wave function into the AlAs barriers, spatial dependent strain, spin interactions between the dot and the electrodes etc. Without any doubt more elaborate theoretical models are necessary to clarify the possible origins of $`g`$-factor anisotropies in self-assembled InAs quantum dots.

## Conclusions

Using resonant tunnelling experiments we have measured the Landé factor tensor of InAs quantum dots. The $`g`$-factor tensor was described by two independent tensor components $`g_{}^{}`$ and $`g_{}^{}`$.


text:
# 1 The equations of motion

## 1 The equations of motion

We will calculate the connected correlation function of two Wilson loops in $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory:

$$W(C_1)W(C_2)_{\mathrm{conn}}=W(C_1)W(C_2)W(C_1)W(C_2),$$
(1)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are concentric circles of radii $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$ that lie in the parallel planes separated by distance $`h`$. At strong coupling, the problem reduces to computation of the minimal area of a surface in $`AdS_5`$ whose boundaries are $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$:

$$W(C_1)W(C_2)_{\mathrm{conn}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}S\right),$$
(2)
$$S=d^2\sigma ,\sqrt{\underset{ab}{det}g_{\mu \nu }_ax^\mu _bx^\nu },$$
(3)
$$ds^2=\frac{1}{z^2}(dz^2+dx_\mu ^2)$$
(4)
$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta x^\mu }=0.$$
(5)
In the given geometry, the minimal surface is axially symmetric and we can choose the coordinate along the symmetry axis and the polar angle as the two parameters on the world sheet. Minimization of the area then reduces to a one-dimensional problem, which can be treated along the lines of ref. .

The area of an axially symmetric surface in the metric of $`AdS_5`$ is

$$S=2\pi 𝑑x\frac{r}{z^2}\sqrt{1+(r^{})^2+(z^{})^2},$$
(6)
The equations following from this action admit an integral of motion due to translational invariance in the $`x`$ direction:

$$\frac{r}{z^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(r^{})^2+(z^{})^2}}=k.$$
(7)
This integral allows one to get rid of the square root factors in the equations for $`r`$ and $`z`$ which acquire the following simple form:

$`r^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{r}{k^2z^4}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
$`z^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{2r^2}{k^2z^5}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (9)
We can find the second integral by first rewriting (7) as

$$(z^{})^2+(r^{})^2+1\frac{r^2}{k^2z^4}=0,$$
(10)
and then adding to it eq. (8) multiplied by $`r`$ and eq. (9) multiplied by $`z`$:

$$(r^2+z^2)^{\prime \prime }+2=0,$$
(11)
which yields, upon double integration,

$$r^2+z^2+(x+c)^2=a^2.$$
(12)
Here, $`a`$ and $`c`$ are the integration constants that are determined by the boundary conditions:

$$z(0)=0=z(h)$$
(13)
$$r(0)=R_2,r(h)=R_1.$$
(14)
The latter are satisfied by

$$c=\frac{R_2^2R_1^2}{2h}\frac{h}{2},$$
(15)
$$a^2=c^2+R_2^2.$$
(16)
The trigonometric parameterization:

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2x^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{a^2x^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$ (17)
allows to separate variables in equation(10) and, after some calculations, it takes the form:

$$\theta ^{}=\pm \frac{a}{a^2(x+c)^2}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{k^2a^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }1}.$$
(18)
The explicit solution for the minimal surface is obtained by integrating this equation with the boundary conditions:

$$\theta (0)=0=\theta (h).$$
(19)
Besides, the solution must satisfy an inequality $`0\theta \pi /2`$, which follows from positivity of the AdS radial coordinate $`z`$. It is easy to see that $`\theta (x)`$ grows at small $`x`$. Then it reaches a maximum at some $`x=x_0`$, so the positive root in (18) should be chosen for $`0<x<x_0`$. For $`x>x_0`$, the solution monotonously decreases. Hence, the negative root must be chosen at $`x_0<x<h`$. By continuity, $`\theta ^{}(x_0)=0`$. Equation (18) then fixes $`\theta (x_0)`$:

$$\theta (x_0)\theta _0=\mathrm{arccos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{4k^2a^2+1}1}{2ka}\right).$$
(20)
Integration of eq. (18) from $`0`$ to $`x_0`$ and from $`x_0`$ to $`h`$ gives two equations that determine $`x_0`$ and $`k`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+x_0+c}{ax_0c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+c}{ac}}`$ $`=`$ $`ka{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi k^2a^2\mathrm{sin}^4\varphi }}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+h+c}{ahc}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+x_0+c}{ax_0c}}`$ $`=`$ $`ka{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi k^2a^2\mathrm{sin}^4\varphi }}}`$ (21)
Adding these equations and defining

$`F(ka)`$ $`=`$ $`ka{\displaystyle _0^{\theta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi k^2a^2\mathrm{sin}^4\varphi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{ka}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{y_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dyy^{1/2}}{\sqrt{(1y)(1y(ka)^2y^2)}}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ka}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{1+4(ka)^2(1u)}1}}{\sqrt{u\left(2(ka)^2+1\sqrt{1+4(ka)^2(1u)}\right)}\sqrt{1+4(ka)^2(1u)}}},`$
we get:

$`F(ka)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+h+c}{ahc}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a+c}{ac}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(a+\frac{h}{2}\right)^2\left(\frac{R_2^2R_1^2}{2h}\right)^2}{\left(a\frac{h}{2}\right)^2\left(\frac{R_2^2R_1^2}{2h}\right)^2}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{R_1^2+R_2^2+h^2+\sqrt{(R_2^2R_1^2)^2+h^4+2h^2(R_1^2+R_2^2)}}{2R_1R_2}}.`$
In the last two steps in (22) we have made the substitutions $`y=\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$ and $`u=1y(ka)^2y^2`$, respectively. The last form of $`F(ka)`$ has the advantage that its derivatives with respect to $`ka`$ are explicitly finite.

There is an ambiguity in solving the last equation for $`ka`$, because generically there are two roots. It could imply that there are two minimal surfaces with a given boundary, but in fact only one of these surfaces is a true minimum of the string action, while the other is a saddle point. It appears that the true solution has larger $`ka`$.

In the case of equal radii there is an upper limit on $`h`$, and the same is true in the present case. To see this, let us take $`R_1/h=\alpha R_2/h\alpha r`$. Then we obtain from (23)

$$r^2=\frac{1}{2\alpha (1+2\mathrm{sinh}^2F(ka))\alpha ^21}.$$
(24)
From the condition $`r^2>0`$ we obtain

$$1+2\mathrm{sinh}^2F2\mathrm{sinh}F\mathrm{cosh}F<\alpha <1+2\mathrm{sinh}^2F+2\mathrm{sinh}F\mathrm{cosh}F.$$
(25)
The lowest value of $`F`$ is zero, obtained for $`ka\mathrm{}`$. In this case only $`\alpha =1`$ is possible. From (24) we then obtain $`r\mathrm{}`$, and since $`r=R_2/h`$ this corresponds to $`h0`$. In general, for some value for $`F`$ we get from (24)

$$h=R_2\sqrt{2\alpha (1+2\mathrm{sinh}^2F)\alpha ^21}.$$
(26)
The maximum of $`h`$ therefore occurs for

$$\alpha =R_1/R_2=1+2\mathrm{sinh}^2F,$$
(27)
and hence

$$h_{\mathrm{max}}=R_2\mathrm{sinh}(2F(ka)).$$
(28)
Since $`F`$ is bounded by $`\mathrm{sinh}F0.52`$ for $`ka0.58`$, we obtain the result that $`h`$ cannot exceed $`1.172R_2`$. If $`R_1=R_2(\alpha =1)`$ we get from (26) $`h=2R_2\mathrm{sinh}F(ka)`$, in accordance with a result derived in .

## 2 Computation of the area

The area of the minimal surface can be computed with the help of the equations of motion:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^h}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{r}{z^2}}\sqrt{1+(r^{})^2+(z^{})^2}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle _0^h}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{z^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle _0^h}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{a^2(x+c)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`22\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\theta _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta \mathrm{cot}^2\theta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta k^2a^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}},`$
where the factor of two comes from the two branches of $`\theta (x)`$.

The above unregularized area is ill defined because of the divergency at the boundary. It needs to be regularized by the shift of the surface into the interior of AdS:

$$z(0)=ϵ=z(h).$$
(30)
Then, since

$$\theta =\mathrm{arctan}\frac{z}{r},$$
(31)
the boundary conditions for $`\theta `$ are

$`\theta (0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R_2}},`$
$`\theta (h)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{R_1}}.`$ (32)
After a change of variables

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\left(\frac{\sqrt{4k^2a^2+1}1}{2}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\psi ,$$

the regularized area takes the form:

$$S=\frac{2\pi (R_1+R_2)}{ϵ}4\pi \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha 1}}_0^{\pi /2}\frac{d\psi }{1+\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\psi +\sqrt{1+\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\psi }},$$
(33)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{1+2k^2a^2+\sqrt{1+4k^2a^2}}{2k^2a^2}.$$
(34)
The area appears to be a universal function of the parameter $`ka`$, which is determined by geometric data according to eq. (23).

As an example of an application of this result, let us consider the case when $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, corresponding to $`F`$ being small. Then using the above equations we obtain

$$S\frac{16\pi ^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/4)^4}\sqrt{\frac{R_1R_2}{(R_1R_2)^2+h^2}}.$$
(35)
Here $`R_1R_2`$ and $`h`$ is small.

It is possible to gain some insight in the behavior of the action as a function of $`h`$ for small values of $`h`$. Starting from (23) we get

$$F(ka)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_2}{R_1}+\frac{h^2}{2(R_1^2R_2^2)}+O(h^4),$$
(36)
where we assumed $`R_1>R_2`$ and

$$h^22R_1^2+2R_2^2\mathrm{and}h^2\frac{R_1^2R_2^2}{2(1+R_2^2/R_1^2)}.$$
(37)
If $`h=0`$ we determine a value $`k_0`$ from

$$F(k_0a)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_2}{R_1}.$$
(38)
Expanding $`F`$ around this point, and assuming that $`k_0a`$ does not correspond to the maximum of $`F`$, we obtain from (36)

$$(kk_0)a\frac{h^2}{2(R_1^2R_2^2)F^{}(k_0a)}+O(h^4).$$
(39)
Next we expand the action around the point $`k_0a`$ and to lowest order we then obtain (ignoring the infinite part of $`S`$)

$$SG(k_0a)+\frac{G^{}(k_0a)}{2(R_1^2R_2^2)F^{}(k_0a)}h^2+O(h^4),$$
(40)
where

$$G(k_0a)=4\pi \frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha 1}}_0^{\pi /2}\frac{d\psi }{1+\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\psi +\sqrt{1+\alpha \mathrm{sin}^2\psi }}.$$
(41)
Numerical evaluation shows that the two derivatives in (40) are both negative, and hence the first order $`h^2`$ correction is positive.

As a numerical example we can take $`k_0a=2.6`$, corresponding to $`F(k_0a)0.34`$. From (38) we then get $`R_12R_2`$. Furthermore, $`F^{}(2.6)0.054`$ and $`G^{}(2.6)1.77`$, leading to

$$S(h)14.8+21.6\frac{h^2}{R_1^2}+\mathrm{},\mathrm{with}R_12R_2.$$
(42)
Numerical studies of eq.(40) show that the coefficient of $`h^2/R_1^2`$ is quite sensitive to the ratio $`R_1/R_2`$.

## 3 Critical behavior

As was mentioned in the discussion following eq. (23), the classical string world sheet with the topology of annulus exists only in a certain range of parameters $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$ and $`h`$. Outside this range, the minimal surface is disconnected. Actually, the area of the connected solution starts to exceed the area of two surfaces that span individual Wilson loops before the connected solution ceases to exist. In fig. 1, we plot the areas of the stable and the unstable branches of the connected solution as a function of $`h`$ for $`R_1=R_2=1`$ vs. the area of the disconnected surface, which is $`4\pi `$ after subtraction of an infinite term, as shown in .

The shift from one saddle point in the string action to the other leads to the phase transition in the semiclassical amplitude. In the exact amplitude, the transition is smoothened by corrections that are non-perturbative in $`\alpha ^{}=1/\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}`$ , but if $`\alpha ^{}`$ is sufficiently small, the transition is still rather sharp. The phase diagram in the $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$ plane is shown in fig. 2, where $`r_1=R_1/h`$ and $`r_2=R_2/h`$. It is interesting that the phase transition survives the $`h0`$ limit, which corresponds to $`r_1,r_2\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, the connected minimal surface is subleading or even does not exist if $`h=0`$, but $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ differ considerably. This behavior has no analogue in the flat space where the annulus always has smaller area than the two disks if the Wilson loops lie in the same plane.

### Acknowledgments

The work of K.Z. was supported by NSERC of Canada, by Pacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences and in part by RFBR grants 98-01-00327 and 00-15-96557 for the promotion of scientific schools.