text:
# Physics from Bose-Einstein correlations in high energy multiparticle production

## 1 Introduction

Bose-Einstein correlations among the momenta of identical particles produced in a high energy multiple particle production process yield information about the structure of the source of hadrons in the process. This has been pointed out in the very first paper on these correlations . In a recent Physics Report issue  Wiedemann and Heinz write: Two-particle correlations provide the only known way to obtain directly information about the space-time structure of the source from the measured particle momenta. Thus the problem of extracting as well as possible the information about the source from the measured correlations is of great importance. It is, however, not an easy problem. One of the founders of this field of research, G. Goldhaber wrote in 1990 : What is clear is that we have been working on this effect for thirty years. What is not as clear is that we have come much closer to a precise understanding of the effect. It is unlikely that the progress made during the last ten years would make G. Goldhaber give a much more optimistic view.

There is a great variety of multiple particle production processes. In order to illustrate this point we will describe two well-known cases. In an electron-positon annihilation at high energy, at first usually a quark-antiquark pair is produced. These partons radiate gluons. The gluons radiate further gluons, or go over into quark-antiquark pairs. After some steps of this cascade, in a process known as hadronization and not well understood, the partons combine into colour-neutral hadrons. The hadrons are collimated into two narrow jets pointing in opposite directions along the same straight line. A splitting of the jets into more jets is also possible. There is an alternative way of looking at this process. The first generation quark and antiquark are the ends of a colour string. As they fly away the string stretches. After some time the string breaks. At the breaking point a quark antiquark pair is formed, so that each of the pieces of the string is again a string with a quark at one end and an antiquark at the other. The string pieces break again and finally short strings appear, which go over into hadrons. It is natural to expect that there is a time scale $`\tau `$ for the hadronization process. Since, however, the system is highly relativistic, it is necessary to specify in which frame this time should be measured. We choose the centre-of-mass frame and assume that $`\tau `$ is the longitudinal proper time at the creation of the hadron defined by

$$\tau =\sqrt{t^2z^2},$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the centre-or-mass time, when the hadron was created, and $`z`$ is the corresponding coordinate measured along the jet direction (the transverse dimensions are less important). An estimate of the velocity of the hadron is $`z/t`$. These formulae have an interesting implication. Hadron production begins at $`t=\tau `$ and first slow particles close to the interaction point are produced ($`|z|`$ small). Only later and further from the interaction point (both $`t`$ and $`|z|`$ large) do the fast hadrons appear. This production mechanism is known as the inside-outside-cascade .

A very different multiple particle production process are the central heavy-nucleus – heavy-nucleus collisions, known also as central heavy ion collisions. Here the usual picture is that of two spheres Lorentz-contracted into coaxial discs — we consider the centre-of-mass system — penetrating through each other. When the discs fly apart, many strings are simultaneously stretched in a tube with a transverse radius of the order of the radii of the colliding nuclei. For heavy nuclei and high energies the strings are so numerous that they merge, e.g. into a quark gluon plasma. Then another poorly understood process, known as freeze out, converts the plasma (or whatever is the intermediate state) into hadrons.

There are many obvious questions to ask. What is the transverse radius of the tubular (?) region, where the hadrons are created? One would expect about one fermi or less for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations and several fermi for heavy ion collisions. What is the formation time $`t`$, which elapses between the moment of collision and the moment, when the last hadron is produced directly? What is the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between the direct production of the first hadron and of the last? There are also many model dependent questions. In thermodynamical models one asks about the temperature, in hydrodynamic models about the velocity of the collective flow etc.

Let us review now the main results of the famous GGLP paper . Even if one does not quite share G. Goldhaber’s opinion quoted above, this is certainly a very important paper and some familiarity with its content is necessary for any discussion of the Bose-Einstein correlations in multiparticle production processes.

## 2 The GGLP contribution

Consider two $`\pi ^+`$-s with momenta $`𝐩_1`$ and $`𝐩_2`$ produced at $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$. If the pions were distinguishable, the probability amplitude to observe them them both at $`𝐫`$ would be a product of the single particle contributions:

$$A_{Dis}(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _1+i𝐩_1(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫)]\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _2+i𝐩_2(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫)]$$
(2)
In each of the square brackets, $`\varphi _i`$ is the phase acquired by the particle at birth and the other term is the phase accumulated while propagating from $`𝐫_i`$ to $`𝐫`$ with momentum $`𝐩_i`$. Since, however, the two pions are identical bosons, it is mandatory to symmetrize the amplitude and a more realistic formula is

$`A_{Und}(𝐫)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)+i(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})𝐫]`$
$`\left[\mathrm{exp}[i(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})]+\mathrm{exp}[𝐢(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏})]\right].`$ (3)
Physically this means that we have added coherently the contribution corresponding to the possibility that the two pions have exchanged their birth points. Classically for different momenta and given birth points, if before the exchange the two pions can reach the point $`𝐫`$, then in general after the exchange they must miss it. One should keep in mind, however, that the distance between the points $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ is of the order of a fermi, while the distance between either of them and the point $`𝐫`$ is of the order of a meter. Classically this would not help, but quantum-mechanically in this situation the probability of reaching $`𝐫`$ by both pions is in the two cases the same for all practical purposes. For comparison with experiment the result should be averaged over all the possible pairs of points $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. By averaging the amplitude (2) nothing interesting is obtained. Therefore, GGLP assumed that one should average the square of the absolute value of the amplitude (2). Physically this means that the contributions from all the pairs of points $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ add incoherently. Then the probability of finding a pair of pions with momenta $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is

$$<|A_{Und}|^2>=1+<\mathrm{cos}[𝐪(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})]>,$$
(4)
where $`𝐪=𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the Dirac brackets $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denote averaging, with a suitable weight, over all the pairs of points $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Using as an example a Gaussian weight function

$$\rho (𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})=(2\pi R^2)^3\mathrm{exp}[(r_1^2+r_2^2)/(2R^2)],$$
(5)
where $`R`$ is a constant with the dimension of length, GGLP found

$$<|A_{Und}|^2>=1+\mathrm{exp}[𝐪^2R^2].$$
(6)
The parameter $`R`$ can be interpreted as the radius of the sphere, where the pions are produced. Thus, finding $`R`$ from a fit to the experimental data yields the size of the hadronization region. Note that formulae qualitatively similar to (6) hold for a broad class of weight functions. For $`𝐪^2=0`$ the cosine being averaged equals one whatever are the points $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Thus the right hand side of (6) for $`𝐪^2=0`$ must be equal two. For large values of $`𝐪^2`$, the cosine is a rapidly oscillating function of the difference $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. For smooth weight functions, therefore, its average is very small and the right hand side of (6) equals approximately one. If the weight function contains only one parameter with the dimension of length, let us denote it $`R`$, the width of the region in $`𝐪^2`$ over which the right hand side of (6) drops from the value $`2`$ to, say, $`1.5`$ must be proportional to $`R^2`$ for purely dimensional reasons. Thus it is not difficult to improve over the Gaussian Ansatz. There is a problem, however.

It is certainly not true that the probability of producing two identical pions with momenta $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ depends only on the momentum difference $`𝐪`$. GGLP could have tried to save the theory by introducing some more complicated weight functions, which would depend also on the momenta. They found, however, a much simpler and more brilliant solution. Note that in the model the squared modulus of the amplitude for distinguishable particles is a constant. Thus one may claim that the right hand side of (6) is not the two-particle probability distribution, but the ratio

$$C_2(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})=\frac{\rho (𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})}{\rho _{Dis}(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})}.$$
(7)
Here $`\rho (𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ is the experimentally observed two-particle distribution and $`\rho _{Dis}(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ is the distribution, which would be observed, if the the identical pions were distinguishable, i.e. if the Bose-Einstein symmetrization were switched off. Of course the numerator of this expression cannot be measured, which has led to much discussion as described in the following section. This is the famous normalization problem. GGLP chose again a very simple solution. They substituted for $`\rho _{Dis}`$ the distribution of $`\pi ^+,\pi ^{}`$ pairs, where of course symmetrization does not occur. The experimental results for the ratio $`C_2`$ could be fitted reasonably well with formula (6) and thus both the apparent attraction in momentum space among pions of the same charge got explained and an estimate of the radius $`R`$ was given.

Let us mention one more fruitful idea from the GGLP paper. The right-hand side of formula (6) depends on the Lorentz frame, where the momenta are measured. Choosing the rest frame of the pair, where the energies of the two pions are equal, we can rewrite the result in a covariant form:

$$C_2(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})=1+\mathrm{exp}[Q^2R^2],$$
(8)
where $`Q^2`$ is the square of the four-vector $`p_1p_2`$.

## 3 Normalization

The problem of finding the best denominator for the function $`C_2`$ has attracted much attention. Theorists often suggest to replace $`\rho _{Dis}(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ by the product of single particle distributions $`\rho _1(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏})\rho _1(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})`$. With this choice, the function $`C_2`$ becomes the familiar, standard two-particle correlation function. Moreover, in many models terms cancel between the numerator and the denominator making the formula simpler. One may also notice that a two-particle density is normalized to $`<n(n1)>`$, while the single particle distribution is normalized to $`<n>`$. Thus a better choice of the denominator might be to multiply the product of single particle distributions by $`<n(n1)>/<n>^2`$. The advantages and disadvantages of using this factor have been recently discussed in . Since it does not depend on $`q^2`$, usually it does not have much effect on the parameters of the source found from fits. The identification of $`C_2`$ with the standard correlation function, in spite of its advantages, is not very popular with experimentalists. In order to explain the reason let us consider the following simple example. Consider a high-energy reaction, where the two initial particles go over into two well collimated jets. By momentum conservation the two jets must be back to back in their centre-of-mass system. Let us assume that the orientation of their common axis can point with equal probability in any direction — is isotropic. Then the single particle distribution of momentum is also isotropic. On the other hand the opening angle between the momenta of two particles is either small, when the two particles are extracted from the same jet, or close to $`\pi `$ if the two particles are from different jets. Thus the correlation function exhibits a very large peak for $`\theta 0`$. This peak has, of course, nothing to do with Bose-Einstein correlations. Experimentalists would prefer a definition of $`C_2`$, where the forward peak reflects Bose-Einstein correlations and nothing else, because this makes the interpretation much easier. Sometimes a compromise is chosen. For instance in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations, where the situation is similar to that from our example, the $`z`$-axis is often chosen along the jet axis and not along a direction fixed in the laboratory frame. With this choice the single particle distribution becomes also strongly peaked for small angles $`\theta `$ and in the correlation function the bumps due to the two-jet structure of the events are largely eliminated.

The most popular choices, however, are improvements over the choice of GGLP. For instance one uses ”mixed” samples, where $`\rho _{Dis}`$ is the distribution of pairs of $`\pi ^+`$-ses, but with each $`\pi ^+`$ taken from a different event. Sometimes Monte Carlo generated samples are used, with Monte Carlo generators which do not include Bose-Einstein correlations. This procedure is not very safe, because such generators contain a number of free parameters, which are fitted to the data, where the Bose-Einstein correlations are present. One also uses ratios of functions $`C_2`$ obtained from the data to functions $`C_2`$ obtained according to the same prescription from Monte Carlo. The wide variety of methods of calculating the denominator of the function $`C_2`$ is one of the reasons, why the comparison of results from different experimental groups is very difficult. This is, however only part of the story. Some groups correct for final state interactions (mostly coulombic) and/or resonances, others do not. Various cuts defining the data samples are used. Some groups assume that every negative particle is a $`\pi ^{}`$, while other have particle identification. Because of all that great care is necessary when interpreting the experimental results and their stated errors. This difficulty has been known for a long time cf. e.g. . For a more recent (pessimistic) review cf. .

## 4 Beyond spherical symmetry

The GGLP weight factor is a function of $`r^2=x^2+y^2+z^2`$ and, therefore, it is spherically symmetric. It is natural to replace $`r^2`$ by an arbitrary quadratic form in $`x,y,z`$, provided the eigenvalues are positive so that the weight function can be normalized to unity. Performing the averaging of the cosine one obtains

$$C_2(𝐪,𝐊)=1+\lambda (𝐊)\mathrm{exp}[\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}R_{ij}^2(𝐊)q_iq_j].$$
(9)
Here besides abandoning spherical symmetry two improvements have been introduced. In agreement with experimental observation (cf e.g. ) a factor $`0<\lambda 1`$ has been included and a dependence of all the coefficients on $`𝐊=(𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐})/2`$ has been allowed. The coefficients denoted $`R_{ij}^2`$ do not have to be all positive. Out of the nine coefficients $`R_{ij}^2`$ three are eliminated by the symmetry condition $`R_{ij}^2=R_{ji}^2`$. Moreover, choosing the $`y`$ axis so that $`K_y=0`$ and assuming reflection symmetry with respect to the $`x,z`$ plane we have $`R_{yz}^2=R_{yx}^2=0`$. Thus there are four independent coefficients left. The time component $`q_0`$ can be easily obtained from the identity $`K^\mu q_\mu =(p_1^2p_2^2)/2=0`$.

It is convenient to choose the $`z`$-axis in the longitudinal direction i.e. for central heavy ion collisions along the beam axis and for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations along the jet axis. The $`y`$-axis is perpendicular to the $`z`$-axis and to the vector $`𝐊`$. This fixes also the direction of the $`x`$-axis. With this choice, the $`x,y,z`$ directions are often referred to as the out direction, the side direction and the longitudinal direction respectively. The $`R^2`$ parameters are denoted $`R_s^2,R_0^2,R_l^2`$ and $`R_{0l}^2`$ . There were speculations that the study of $`R_{out}/R_s`$ could give clues as to whether there is quark-gluon plasma and/or collective flow in the system , but the results have not been conclusive and a complete study of all the parameters seems now to be the best strategy. Other choices of parameters are also possible. For instance one can put

$$C_2(𝐪,𝐊)=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}[R_x^2q_x^2R_y^2q_y^2R_z^2q_z^2T^2q_0^2]$$
(10)
, or

$$C_2(𝐪,𝐊)=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}[R_T^2q_T^2R_{}^2(q_L^2q_o^2)(R_0^2+R_{}^2)\gamma ^2(q_0^2vq_z^2)],$$
(11)
where

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}},$$
(12)
and $`u=\gamma (1,\mathrm{𝟎}_𝐓,v)`$. This parametrization proposed in  and improved in  is particularly popular and is often referred to as the YKP parametrization.

## 5 Time dependence

In the GGLP picture the production of all the hadrons was instantaneous at some time $`t_0`$. Formally this assumption is difficult to disprove. Choosing the time $`t_0`$ after all the hadrons have been produced and interacted and before the time when they were observed, one can calculate the distributions at the observation time using the state at time $`t_0`$ as the initial condition. Whether the hadrons existed before time $`t_0`$, is irrelevant for this calculation. In particular, one may assume that all the hadrons were created at time $`t_0`$. Guessing the initial condition at time $`t_0`$ is, however, very hard in this approach. Therefore, it is more practical to choose a more realistic conjecture about the origin of the hadrons, because then the initial conditions are more natural and easier to guess.

In particular, several authors (cf. e.g. ) assumed that the production of hadrons is from sources, which fly away from each other and such that in the rest frame of a source the production of hadrons is isotropic. Consider the simplest case of just two sources. If their relative velocity is large and the momenta of the hadrons in the rest frames of the corresponding sources are moderate, then it is very unlikely that two identical pions from different sources have momenta close to each other. On the other hand, all the information about the structure of the source comes from pairs with small momentum differences $`|𝐪|`$. For large values of $`|𝐪|`$ function $`C_2`$ is flat and carries no information. Consequently, the observed function $`C_2`$ contains only information about the single sources and no information about the distance between them. One finds that the effective production region is spherical in its rest frame, while the actual production region composed of the two sources is elongated. This is an important piece of information. What we observe is not the total size of the hadronization region, but the average size of the so-called regions of homogeneity , i.e. regions, where hadrons with similar momenta are produced. For this reason the effective hadronization regions observed in experiment are approximately spherical, while we expect that at high collision energy the actual production regions are strongly elongated, because of their stringy origin.

There is one more interesting result connected with the problem of the time span of the hadronization process . Consider instantaneous hadronization from a spherical shell of thickness $`\delta R`$. The length $`\delta R`$ should be reflected in the momentum correlations along the direction $`x_{out}`$, because the particles, which come from the inner part of the shell, are out of phase with those, which come from the outer part of the shell. The same effect can be obtained, however, if some particles are produced later than others. From the experimental fact that $`R_{out}`$ is not particularly large, one concludes that the hadronization process does not last very long. This excludes models, where hadrons are produced from the quark-gluon plasma in a first order phase transition with a large latent heat. This process would be too slow to be made consistent with the observed moderate time interval of the hadron production.

## 6 More quantum physics

The formulation of the GGLP model is quasiclassical – one talks about a pion with momentum $`𝐩`$ created at point $`𝐫`$, which is not quantum mechanics. Much work has been done on formulations consistent with quantum mechanics. When dealing with incoherent superpositions of states one should use density matrices or density operators. The starting point may be the density matrix in coordinate representation $`\rho (𝐱,𝐱^{},t)`$ or in momentum representation $`\rho (𝐩,𝐩^{},t)`$. Often it is convenient to replace the vectors $`𝐚,𝐚^{}`$ by their linear combinations

$$𝐚_+=\frac{1}{2}(𝐚+𝐚^{});𝐚_{}=(𝐚𝐚^{})$$
(13)
In particular, the GGLP results can be derived from the density matrix

$$\rho (𝐩,𝐩^{},t)=𝑑r𝐩|𝐫\rho (𝐫)𝐫|𝐩^{}.$$
(14)
This incidentally shows that in spite of its pseudoclassical formulation the GGLP model can be translated into respectable quantum mechanics.

The density matrices, however, do not combine explicitly the information about the space distribution of sources and the momentum distribution of the final pions. Therefore, in order to derive the space distribution of sources from the momentum distributions of the observed final particles other approaches have been proposed.

One can use the Wigner function $`W`$ defined in term of the density matrix by the formula

$$W(𝐩_+,𝐱_+)=𝑑p_{}e^{i𝐩_{}𝐱_+}\rho (𝐩,𝐩^{},t).$$
(15)
The properties of the Wigner functions are described in detail in the famous review article . For a recent application to the description of multiple production of identical particles cf. . In a well defined sense  Wigner’s function is the best quantum mechanical analogue of the classical phase space distribution. In this formulation Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is easily implemented. The density in phase space should not be too large. Quantitatively the condition is

$$|W(𝐩_+,𝐩_{},t)|^2(\pi \mathrm{})^{3n},$$
(16)
where $`3n`$ is the dimension of the vectors $`𝐩_\pm `$, or equivalently $`n`$ is the number of particles described by the Wigner function $`W`$.

An alternative approach is to introduce the classical position and momentum vectors $`\xi `$, $`\pi `$ besides the quantum mechanical position and momentum vectors $`𝐱`$, $`𝐩`$. Each pair of vectors $`\xi `$,$`\pi `$ defines a quantum mechanical wave packet e.g.

$$𝐱|\xi ,\pi =\left(\frac{\sigma ^2}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(𝐱\xi )^2+i\pi 𝐱\right],$$
(17)
or equivalently in momentum representation

$$𝐩|\xi ,\pi =\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}(𝐩\pi )^2+i\xi (\pi 𝐩)\right].$$
(18)
Coherent, or incoherent superpositions of such wave packets are legal quantum mechanical states. On the other hand, the values of $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐩`$ are constrained to be close to the values of $`\xi `$ and $`\pi `$. If the distribution of the parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\pi `$ is calculated from some classical model, the result is directly translated into a distribution of the observables $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐩`$, which is consistent with quantum mechanics. This approach was pioneered in ref. . For a recent application and detailed discussion cf. .

Still another approach is to introduce a source function $`S`$ related to the density matrix by the formula

$$\rho (p,p^{})=d^4x\mathrm{exp}[ip_{}x_+]S(x_+,p_+).$$
(19)
In this formula $`x,x^{},p,p^{}`$ are fourvectors. The similarity of this formula to the formula relating Wigner’s function to the density matrix caused that the source function is often referred to as a Wigner function, a kind of Wigner function, a pseudo Wigner function etc. (cf. e.g. , ). In fact the relation between the source function and Wigner’s function is not unique and may be quite complicated. We will not discuss this problem here, but let us note that the density matrices or Wigner’s function were calculated at a given time, while here the time dependence must be known. In simple cases the time dependence of a Wigner function can be found and used (cf. e.g. ), but it is quite complicated and unlikely to be found by a simple guess. What is more, the source function depends on two time arguments.

There is one case, however, when the source function has an easy interpretation. If the pions are produced by classical currents $`J`$, then ,

$$S(x_+,p_+)=\frac{d^4x_{}}{2(2\pi )^3}e^{ip_+x_{}}J^{}(x)J(x^{}),$$
(20)
where the averaging is over all the incoherent components of the currents $`J(x)`$.

## 7 Momentum-position correlations

In the GGLP model and in many others the momentum spectrum of the produced particles does not depend on the position of the source. When momentum-position correlations are introduced in the model, unexpected results may be obtained. Let us consider for example quasiclassical sources with the single particle position-momentum distribution

$$\rho (𝐱,𝐩)=\sqrt{2\pi R^2}^3\delta (𝐩\lambda 𝐫)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{r^2}{2R^2}\right].$$
(21)
Correlations of the type $`𝐩𝐫`$ occur in classical versions of various models, e.g. in string models and in models, where hadronization is preceded by a rapid flow of hot matter. The average of the cosine from the interference term in the present generalized GGLP model is

$$\mathrm{cos}[𝐪(𝐫_1𝐫_2)]=\lambda ^6\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{𝐊^2}{\lambda ^2R^2}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{𝐪^2}{4\lambda ^2R^2}\right]\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{𝐪^2}{\lambda }\right].$$
(22)
In comparison with the GGLP result for the Gaussian weight function $`\rho `$, two changes are striking. A dependence on the sum of momenta $`𝐊`$ appeared and the dependence on the momentum difference $`𝐪`$ is no more Gaussian. For non-Gaussian distributions the effective radius of the distribution of sources in space is usually defined by

$$R_{eff}^2=\left(\frac{d}{d𝐪^2}\mathrm{cos}[\mathrm{}]\right)_{𝐪^2=0}.$$
(23)
For the GGLP model with a Gaussian weight function this reproduces the usual result $`R_{eff}=R`$. In the present case, however, we obtain

$$R_{eff}=\frac{1}{2\lambda R}.$$
(24)
Due to the position-momentum correlations, $`R_{eff}`$ becomes inversely proportional to $`R`$!

A more realistic model with similar correlations can be built as follows ,. For the source function we choose

$$S(x,p)=\delta (t^2z^2\tau _0^2)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(p\lambda x)_+(p\lambda x)_{}}{2\delta _{}^2}\frac{(𝐩\lambda 𝐱)_T^2}{2\delta _T^2}\frac{𝐱_T^2}{2R^2}\right].$$
(25)
This formula has a simple physical interpretation. The subscript $`T`$ denotes the vector component transverse with respect to the beam axis $`z`$. The last term in the exponent implies that the particles are created not too far from the beam axis, typical distances being of the order of the parameter $`R`$. The first two terms in the exponent impose the condition $`𝐩\lambda 𝐱`$. The subscripts $`\pm `$ refer to the fourvectror components $`a_0\pm a_z`$. The dispersion of the transverse components is of the order of $`\delta _T^2`$ and that of the longitudinal component of the order of $`\delta _{}^2`$. The Dirac delta implies that for each drop of the hot matter hadronization takes place after the same longitudinal invariant time $`\tau _0`$. It is useful that for this source function the corresponding density matrix in the momentum representation can be calculated in closed form. One finds in particular

$$|\rho (𝐊,𝐪)|\left(\delta _T^2+\frac{R^2M_T^2}{\tau _0^2}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{𝐊_T^2+R^2\delta _T^2𝐪_T^2}{\delta _T^2+R^2M_T^2\tau _0^2}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2M_T^2}{\delta _{}^2}\right]|K_0(\alpha )|^2,$$
(26)
where $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function,

$$\alpha ^2=\frac{M_T^4}{\delta _{}^4}\frac{\tau _0^2(𝐊_T𝐪_T)^2}{M_T^2}\frac{\tau _0^2m_{1T}^2m_{2T}^2}{4M_T^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2(y_1y_2)+\frac{2i\tau _0M_T𝐊_T𝐪_T}{\delta _{}^2},$$
(27)
and $`m_{iT}^2=m_\pi ^2+𝐩_{iT}^2`$ and $`M_T^2=K^2+𝐊_T^2`$ are transverse masses of the two particles and of the pair. The single particle distribution can be calculated from the formula $`\rho _1(𝐩)=\rho (𝐩,0)`$.

This model was found to reproduce reasonably well the data for single particle distributions and for Bose-Einstein correlations in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations at LEP energies .

## 8 Final state interactions and (partial) coherence

In the GGLP model and in many later models, after hadronization the pions propagate as free particles. In fact we know, that the majority of pions is generated in resonance decays. Moreover, there are the nonresonant strong and the electromagnetic interactions among the pions. All that has been studied for years, but many problems are still controversial.

Strong nonresonant interactions are usually neglected, but it has been pointed out  that absorption of the produced pions can lead to a decrease of the effective radius $`R_{eff}`$ with increasing momentum of the pair $`|𝐊|`$. The effect of resonances seems to be much more important. The long lived resonances, mostly $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, usually decay far from the centre of the interaction region. Therefore they simulate a large hadronization region and produce a narrow peak in the plot of $`C_2`$ versus $`𝐪^2`$. This peak is narrower than the experimental resolution and consequently its main effect is to reduce the parameter $`\lambda `$. The resonances with life times neither very long, nor very short, like the $`\omega `$ resonance, produce for small $`𝐪^2`$ a steep rise of $`C_2`$ with decreasing $`𝐪^2`$. Short lived resonances, like the $`\rho `$ meson, increase only slightly the measured radius of the interaction region. It has been suggested ,  that in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation it may be difficult to explain why after correcting for the resonance effects the Bose-Einstein correlations remain as strong as observed in experiment.

Coulomb interactions can be easily included by replacing in the description of the propagation of the pions the plane waves by Coulomb wave functions, which leads to the introduction of the so called Gamow factor . This is now known to grossly overestimate the effect (for a review cf. ). The physical reason is that the introduction of the Coulomb wave functions describes the evolution of an isolated pair of pions, while in reality there are many other pions around, which partly screen the Coulomb interaction within the pair. A direct experimental argument is that the reasoning leading to the Gamow factor, when applied to $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs, gives a strong attraction, which is not seen in the data. A simple way of correcting for the screening effect is given in ref  (see also ). A screening radius $`r_0`$ is introduced. The interaction potential of the pair is continuous at $`r=r_0`$, Coulomb for $`r>r_0`$ and constant for $`r<r_0`$. The parameter $`r_0`$ is chosen so as to reproduce correctly the experimental data for $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs. Coulomb corrections calculated in this way are rather small.

Another assumption of GGLP, which has been put into doubt, was that the production process is completely incoherent. Complete coherence would kill the effect, but some degree of coherence seems difficult to avoid in realistic models. It is easy to write down general formulae including partial coherence (cf. e.g. ), but it is not clear how to use them fruitfully. At a time it was suggested that the parameter $`\lambda `$ measures the degree of coherence ($`\lambda =1`$ no coherence, $`\lambda =0`$ complete coherence), but now it is clear that this parameter is strongly affected by the dynamics of the production process, in particular by resonance production, and by experimental conditions (e.g. particle misidentification).

## 9 Two recent models

In order to illustrate how Bose-Einstein correlations are nowadays analysed, we present two recent models. The first (cf.  and references quoted there) is based on analogies with hydrodynamics and thermodynamics. It is being used to describe central heavy ion collisions. The starting point is the (single particle) source function

$`S(x,p)m_T\mathrm{cosh}(y\eta )\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_T\mathrm{cosh}y\mathrm{cosh}\eta _T(r_T)p_T\frac{x}{r}\mathrm{sinh}\eta _T(r_T)}{T}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_T^2}{2R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\tau \tau _0)^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )^2}}\right].`$ (28)
In this formula $``$ means that a normalization constant has been omitted, $`y`$ is the rapidity along the $`z`$ axis i.e. along the beam direction. The pseudorapidity

$$\eta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{t+z}{tz}.$$
(29)
The distance from the $`z`$ axis $`r_T=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$. The rapidity of the transverse flow has been assumed in the form

$$\eta _T(r_T)=\eta _f\frac{r_T}{R},$$
(30)
where $`\eta _f`$ is a constant. The model contains six free parameters: $`R,T,\eta _f,\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ,\tau _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$. These parameters have been estimated by comparison with the data from the NA49 experiment for collisions of lead nuclei at an energy of 158 GeV per nucleon. Some of the results have interesting physical implications. The parameter $`R`$, interpreted as the transverse radius of the hadronization region, is about 7 fm. From the known size of the lead nucleus one could have expected a number about twice smaller. This means that there is substantial transverse spreading of the interaction region before hadronization takes place. The parameter $`T`$ interpreted as the local temperature is about 130 MeV. This is less than the temperatures found in models used to calculate the chemical composition of the produced hadrons, which could mean that the spreading is accompanied by cooling. The parameter $`\eta _f`$ is about 0.35. This is a very reasonable value. The velocity of sound in a plasma is about 1/3 (in units of the velocity of light in vacuum). The parameters $`\tau _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ are about 9fm and 1.5fm respectively. It means that the time span of hadronization is short compared to the time between the original interaction and the onset of hadronization. This would exclude models, where hadronization is a first order phase transition with a large latent heat, because in such models the time span of hadronization is large. One should keep in mind, however, the authors’ warning that the determination of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ from the data is poor. This example shows that given a model one can extract from the data much interesting information. Little is known, however, about the model dependence of these results.

A very different picture of the Bose-Einstein correlations  has been inspired by a string model of the Lund type. This model is taylored for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. An annihilation is depicted as the formation of a string with a quark at one end and an antiquark at the other. This string stretches with the speed of light. Then somewhere along the string a quark-antiquark pair is produced and the string breaks. The pieces stretch and break again. Finally sufficiently short bits of strings hadronize. In the $`z,t`$ plane the trajectories of the ends of all these strings form a closed contour. Let us denote the area enclosed by this contour by $`A`$. The key assumption is that the probability amplitude for a given final state is

$$M\mathrm{exp}[i\xi A].$$
(31)
We have not written explicitly the factor related to the transverse momenta of the produced particles. Denoting by $`b/2`$ the imaginary part of $`\xi `$ one finds

$$|M|^2e^{bA}.$$
(32)
This result is well known from the Lund model. For the description of the Bose-Einstein correlations, however, it is the real part of $`\xi `$ which is the important one. It is expected to be of the order of the string tension i.e. of the order of 1 GeV/fm. The point is that the production amplitude has to be symmetrized with respect to exchanges of identical particles. Such an exchange, however, changes the area $`A`$ and because of the nonzero real part of $`\xi `$ the phase of the amplitude. Numerical calculations show that this model gives a reasonable description of the Bose-Einsten correlations in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations. This is very interesting, because this model, contrary to all the previous ones, does not contain incoherent components, random phases etc. It is curious what happens, when in a process more than one string is initially produced. In $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilations there are events, where two $`W`$ bosons are produced, which implies two strings. It has been suggested  that in this case only pions from a single string should exhibit Bose-Einstein correlations. To be sure, nobody doubts that pions are bosons and that consequently their production amplitude should be suitably symmetrized, but the attraction in momentum space, known since the GGLP paper as Bose-Einstein correlations, requires in addition certain phase relationships, which may not be realized for pions originating from different strings. In central heavy ion collisions many strings are produced. By extension of the previous argument one could expect very weak Bose-Einstein correlations, which experimentally is not the case. This suggests that the state from which hadronization occurs in heavy ion collisions is not a bunch of strings. The strings must somehow merge and form a very different object, perhaps a volume of quark-gluon plasma.

## 10 Conclusion

Bose-Einstein correlations attract much interest. Many hundreds of papers have been published on this subject. In principle they offer the only access to some important information about the hadronization process. Typical questions are: what is the size and shape of the hadronization region, how is hadronization distributed in time, what is the coherence of the sources, what is the hadronization mechanism etc. In practice it is difficult to find model independent, definitive answers to these questions. The common approach is to study models, which either demonstrates the viability of certain scenarios, like the sting model discussed above, or give tentative answers to the questions concerning hadronization.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

One of the novel characters of colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) manganites is its half-metallic ground state . Due to the strong Hund’s coupling between localized $`t_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spins and itinerant $`e_\mathrm{g}`$ electrons, conduction electrons are perfectly spin polarized at the ferromagnetic ground state . Half metallic natures of manganites are important to understand various properties of CMR manganites at low temperatures. Especially, spin valve mechanism of the inter-domain tunneling currents is considered to be the origin of the low field magnetoresistance phenomena in polycrystals  as well as hetero-junctions .

Low temperature resistivity behavior is another feature of half metals. It has been first pointed out by Kubo and Ohata  that the perfect spin polarization of conduction electrons make a qualitative change in the scattering processes of charge carriers by magnon-electron interactions. Half metals belong to a different universality class from conventional itinerant weak ferromagnets.

Let us discuss the detail of the magnon-electron scattering process through the temperature dependence of the resistivity in half metals. In conventional itinerant weak ferromegnets, one magnon scattering is the dominant process at low temperatures to give $`T^2`$ resistivity . However, for half metals, such a scattering process is prohibited at the ground state since the process involves low energy propagators of spin-flipped quasi-particles for the intermediate states. Based on a rigid band electronic structures of half metals, Kubo and Ohata discussed that the most dominant scattering process is the two-magnon scattering, which gives $`T^{4.5}`$.

At finite temperatures, however, it is necessary to take into account the effect of spin fluctuations which breaks down the perfect spin polarization. In the absence of spin gaps, magnetization deviates from its saturation values as $`\delta MT^{3/2}`$ in three dimensions. In the strong Hund’s coupling limit, spin polarization of the conduction electrons are proportional to the total spin polarization. Namely, at finite temperatures, half-metallic structure of conduction electrons breaks down. As a consequence, the rigid band approaches should not be justified. Taking into account the non rigid band behavior due to spin fluctuations, one of the author (N.F.) derived  that the most dominant contribution for the low temperature resistivity is from an unconventional one-magnon scattering processes. In this case, the resistivity is proportional to the product of following two quantities; (a) magnon population $`\delta M`$, and (b) density of states of the minority spin quasiparticles which should also scale as $`\delta M`$. As a consequence, we obtain

$$\rho (T)\rho (0)(\delta M)^2T^3.$$
(1)
Experimentally, it has been reported that the low temperature resistivity for La1-xSrxMnO3  as well as Sm0.6Sr0.4MnO3 scales as $`T^3`$, which is another evidence for the half-metallic behaviors of CMR manganites. In this paper, we investigate the temperature dependence of the resistivity in CMR manganite (Nd,Tb)0.6Sr0.4MnO3 in detail as another candidate to investigate the half-metallic nature at low temperatures. From its resistivity as a function of temperature, we discuss the electronic structures as well as scattering processes in the low temperature region.

## 2 Low temperature resistivity in manganites.

Here we show the low temperature resistivity of a CMR manganite in the ferromagnetic metal region. Single crystal samples of (Nd0.8Tb0.2)0.6Sr0.4MnO3 are used for the resistivity measurement. Details of the sample preparation have been reported in ref. . Curie temperature is estimated as $`T_\mathrm{c}200\mathrm{K}`$, which is substantially decreased from the value for La0.6Sr0.4MnO3, $`T_\mathrm{c}400\mathrm{K}`$. This means that this compound is in the narrow bandwidth region.

In Fig. 1 we show the resistivity as a function of temperature. The data can be fitted in the form $`\rho (T)\text{const.}T^3`$ at the low temperature region. A crossover in temperature dependence is observed at $`T^{}50\mathrm{K}`$, above which the resistivity scales as $`\rho (T)\text{const.}T^2`$ at $`T>T^{}`$. At the lowest temperature limit we see an upturn of the resistivity which presumably indicates the localization of carriers, as also seen in La1-xSrxMnO3 near the metal-insulator transition . Together with the fact that the value of the residual resistivity is large, the system seems to be substantially influenced by the randomness due to ternary mixture of A-site ions. Nevertheless, we see $`T^3`$ dependence of resistivity which indicates the robustness of the one-magnon scattering processes in half metals.

## 3 Discussion

Thus (Nd0.8Tb0.2)0.6Sr0.4MnO3 show a common feature in low temperature resistivity as La1-xSrxMnO3 and Sm0.6Sr0.4MnO3. In CMR manganites, phase controls have been performed through the chemical pressure effects in A-site substitutions. For the above example, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ varies from $`T_\mathrm{c}350\mathrm{K}`$ ((La,Sr)MnO3) to $`T_\mathrm{c}120\mathrm{K}`$ ((Sm,Sr)MnO3). This indicates that, once the ferromagnetic metal phases are stabilized, they share a common feature based on the half-metallic structure of conduction electrons. We also note that similar $`T^3`$ behavior in resistivity is reported for CrO2 films , which is another candidate for a half metal. This work was supported by the Grant-In-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.


text:
# Canonical Timing and Spectral Behavior of LMC X-3 in the Low/Hard State

## 1 Introduction

Galactic X-ray binaries harboring a black hole candidate (BHC), such as Cygnus X–1 and GX 339–4, exhibit a number of distinguishable states characterized in terms of total luminosity, energy spectral parameters, and time variability (see e.g. reviews by van der Klis 1995, Tanaka & Lewin 1995, Nowak 1995, and references therein). During the high/soft state, the 2–10 keV spectrum can be modeled with a significant thermal component, and the rms time variability of the power spectral density is only a few percent. The more typical (for Galactic systems) low/hard state is well described by a non-thermal spectrum, represented by a power law with photon index $``$1.7, and significant time variability with rms amplitudes of 30–50%. QPOs seen in this state have typical frequencies of 0.2–3 Hz (Wijnands & van der Klis 1999).

LMC X–3, a bright (up to 3$`\times `$1038 erg s-1) BHC in the Large Magellanic Cloud, is highly variable on timescales from days to years. It is typically observed in the high/soft state, with an X-ray spectrum qualitatively similar to that of other BHCs in the soft state: an ”ultrasoft” component and a hard ($`>`$10keV) tail (White & Marshall 1984). The ultrasoft component is well represented by an optically-thick accretion disk model (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973) with $`kT`$ = $``$ 1.1 keV and a variable mass accretion rate. The B3 V (V $``$16.7-17.5) optical counterpart shows a large velocity range with semi-amplitude K=235 km s-1 through its 1.7-day orbital period. The lack of eclipses implies an orbital inclination of $`<`$70 and a compact object mass of $``$7M (Cowley et al. 1983, Paczynski 1983, Ebisawa et al. 1993, but see also Mazeh et al. 1986). Cowley et al. (1991) presented evidence for a long-term periodicity of $``$198 (or perhaps $``$99) days based on HEAO I and Ginga observations. This variability was attributed to the precession of a bright, tilted, and warped accretion disk. Later ASM observations reveal a much more complex, and less periodic, behavior (Nowak et al. 2000, Paul et al. 2000, Boyd 2000.)

LMC X–3 has been the subject of two monitoring campaigns with RXTE, spanning 1996 February 2 through 1999 August 31. The first consisted of short $``$1 ks pointings, separated by several days; the second used longer ($``$8–10 ks) pointings separated by 3–4 weeks. Based on these data, Wilms et al. (2000) report the discovery of transitions from the high/soft to the low/hard state; during the observation with lowest countrate, the disk component vanishes and the spectrum can be fit by a pure power law. This implies that a state transition, rather than the periodically changing absorption column arising from a tilted, precessing disk, may be responsible for the low-flux episodes of LMC X–3. Wilms et al. (2000) suggest a model in which a wind-driven limit cycle gives rise to the long term variability.

The RXTE ASM light curve of LMC X–3 showed that a possible low/hard state that began around 2000 April 10 was lasting longer than typical. We therefore arranged Target of Opportunity RXTE observations to search for the characteristic time variability of BHCs in the low/hard state (Boyd & Smale 2000, Homan et al. 2000). We present the first analysis in which the full canonical low/hard state behavior for LMC X–3 is seen. This is the first time such behavior has been observed for a BHC outside our Galaxy, as well as being the first detection of QPO in LMC X–3. Our analysis of archival data shows that such low/hard states are recurrent in LMC X–3.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

Observations were performed with the RXTE satellite (Bradt, Rothschild, & Swank, 1993) on 2000 May 3, 10 and 13 for a total onsource good time of 10.4 ksec (see Table 1). The PCA instrument on RXTE consists of five Xe proportional counter units (PCUs), with a combined effective area of about 6500 cm2 (Jahoda et al 1996). In each of the three observations, 4 PCUs were collecting data. We present results using the Standard 2, E\_500us\_64M\_0\_1s, and Good Xenon data modes, with effective time resolutions of 16 s, 500$`\mu `$s and $`<1\mu `$s respectively.

The spectral data were analyzed using FTOOLS 5.0. Background subtraction was performed using the faint source model (“L7-240”, v19991214). We analyzed data from the top layer only, to increase signal to noise. Response matrices were generated using PCARSP 2.43 with the latest energy-to-channel relationship (e04v01). Spectral fitting was performed using XSPEC 11.0. We ignored data below 2.5 keV and above 25 keV.

We created power spectra using the high time resolution data modes in three energy bands: 3–20 keV, 3–10 keV and 10–20 keV. No background and deadtime corrections were applied. The power spectra were generated from 256s data segments, using a Nyquist frequency of 1024 Hz. The individual power spectra were averaged and rms normalized (Belloni & Hasinger 1990, Miyamoto et al. 1991). The Poisson level, determined by taking the unweighted average of all powers between 500 and 1000 Hz, was subtracted from the power spectrum. The resulting power spectrum was rebinned logarithmically (to 60 frequency bins per decade) and fitted in the 1/256–256 Hz range. Errors on the fit parameters were determined using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=1`$ (1$`\sigma `$ for a single parameter of interest). For observations with low count rates ($`<`$5 counts/s/PCU) the uncertainty in the background estimation introduces an additional fractional error of 5–10% in the rms amplitudes. The errors quoted here are only the statistical ones.

## 3 Spectral Results

The long-term light curve of LMC X–3 as measured by the All-Sky Monitor (ASM) aboard RXTE is shown in Figure 1. Locations of the low/hard and high/soft state PCA observations discussed below are indicated with vertical dashes.

For each of the three 2000 May observations, the spectra were well modeled with a pure power law, with photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=1.6-1.7. The derived 2–10 keV flux, on the other hand, varies by a factor $``$3, between 4.7 and 15.7$`\times `$1036 erg s-1 (at 50 kpc). Table 1 summarizes the observations and spectral fitting results; the single-component power law model is sufficient to describe the spectrum, without the need for a second continuum component or a line feature. (Wilms et al. 2000 and Nowak et al. 2000 formally include such a line in their fits but quote only upper limits on its detection. We derive an upper limit of 90 eV (90% confidence) for a Gaussian line with a width of 0.1 keV centered at 6.4 keV, comparable to the upper limit of 60 eV quoted by Wilms et al. 2000).

In Figure 2 we show the data and derived model for the three observations from 2000 May. We also include for comparison a spectrum of LMC X–3 taken at the relatively high ASM rate of 3 counts/s on 1996 April 28. The high/soft spectrum is well described by the power-law plus black body model with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=4.95 and a disk inner-edge temperature of $`kT`$=1.34 keV.

During the 3.5-yr period covered by previous RXTE monitoring campaigns, LMC X–3 has displayed seven episodes where the count rate decreased to levels comparable to those seen in 2000 May (Figure 1). To compare with the current observations, we extracted PCA pointings from the RXTE archive obtained near low ASM count rates. Many of the data sets are either too short for good statistics, or are not centered in the minimum of the low/hard state. In addition, the observations span all four gain epochs of the PCA instrument. We restricted ourselves to observations containing at least 600s of good data, from PCA gain epochs 3 and 4 (1996 April 15 and following) where the calibration is best understood. We further limited ourselves to those minima where the 1-day ASM count rate was $`<`$0.5 counts/sec for more than 10 days.

The selected observations are included in Table 1, and their times marked on Figure 1. The data from 1998 May 29 are presented in Wilms et al. (2000) as evidence for the low/hard state in LMC X–3, reanalyzed here with the latest backgrounds and response matrices; the remainder of the observations are previously unpublished. For each observation, the spectrum is well described by a featureless power law, with photon index $`\text{ }<`$1.8. We conclude that these low count-rate episodes have all the spectral characteristics of the low/hard state. The spectrum of the low/hard state is characterized by a pure power law with nearly constant photon index of $``$1.7$`\pm `$0.2, over a broad range of flux corresponding to $`L_x`$=(2–16)$`\times `$1036 erg s-1 at 50 kpc.

## 4 Timing Results

The combined 3-20 keV power spectrum for the three 2000 May RXTE observations is shown in Figure 3 (crosses). A QPO peak is evident in the data, centered at $``$0.5 Hz.

We experimented with two models for the band-limited noise: a single power law, and a broken power law (the most commonly used model for Galactic BHCs in their low/hard state). The QPO was modeled with a Lorentzian. The broken power law fit yielded a break frequency of 0.15$`{}_{0.03}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.14}`$ Hz, and power law indices of 0.0$`{}_{0.3}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.2}`$ ($`\nu <\nu _{break}`$) and 0.77$`\pm `$0.07 ($`\nu >\nu _{break}`$). The strength of the broken power law was 18.3$`\pm `$1.3% rms in the 0.01–1 Hz range, and 40$`\pm `$4% rms in the 0.01–100 Hz range. We measured a central QPO frequency of 0.46$`\pm 0.02`$ Hz, a FWHM of 0.14$`{}_{0.04}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.06}`$ Hz, and a strength of 14.0$`{}_{1.9}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.1}`$% rms. The $`\chi _r^2`$ for this model is 1.1 (for 210 d.o.f.) and the fit is shown as a solid line in Figure 3. The significance of adding the QPO component to the broken power-law model was assessed using the standard F-test. For this case, the F-statistic $`F_s`$ is 3.92, with probability $`P(F>F_s)`$=0.009.

The single power law fit yielded an index of 0.58$`\pm `$0.04 and strengths of 13.9$`\pm `$1.2% rms (0.01–1 Hz) and 39$`\pm `$4% rms (0.01–100 Hz) for the noise. With this as the underlying model, we determined a QPO frequency of 0.46$`\pm `$0.02 Hz, a FWHM of 0.23$`{}_{0.06}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.07}`$ Hz, and an rms amplitude of 18.4$`{}_{1.8}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.2}`$%. The $`\chi _r^2`$ for this model is 1.15 (for 212 d.o.f.). For this case, adding the QPO results in an F-statistic of 16.8, with $`P(F>F_s)`$ =8$`\times `$10-10.

To study the energy dependence of the band-limited noise and the QPO, we analyzed the power spectra in the 3-10 keV and 10-20 keV energy bands. We adopted the single power law for simplicity, fixed the index, QPO frequency, and QPO FWHM to values obtained in the 3–20 keV range, and allowed the other parameters to float. In the 3–10 keV band the rms amplitudes were 13.4$`\pm `$1.1% (0.01–1 Hz), 38$`\pm `$3% (0.01–100 Hz), and 15.2$`\pm `$1.2% (QPO); in the 10–20 keV band they were 17$`\pm `$4% (0.01–1 Hz), 50$`\pm `$12% (0.01–100 Hz), and $`<`$24% (QPO).

We also compared the strength of the noise in the three 2000 May observations with that of several archival RXTE/PCA observations during troughs and peaks in the ASM lightcurve (see Figure 1). The noise had strengths of 5–10% rms (0.01–1 Hz) and 10–40% rms (0.01–100 Hz) during the troughs, somewhat lower than during the 2000 May observations but still consistent with a low/hard state. In the peak observations values were found of $``$1% rms (0.01–1 Hz) and $``$1.5% rms (0.01–100 Hz). We compared the power spectra of the peak observations with power spectra calculated from $``$25 ks randomly chosen background observations, and concluded that the power spectra of the peaks are consistent with those and should therefore be regarded as upper limits (see also Nowak et al. 2000). The upper limits are consistent with the source being in a high/soft state. An example of a power spectrum during high ASM count rate is included in Figure 3 (bullets). It is the combined power spectrum of the 1996 November 30 and December 2 observations (Nowak et al., 2000).

## 5 Discussion

The Galactic BHCs share many characteristics: (1) A mass function that implies a compact object mass in excess of 3 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$; (2) At least two distinct emission states; (3) Prominent time variability in the low/hard state, in the form of band-limited noise with rms amplitudes of 30-50%, in contrast to the weak ($`<`$10%) variability seen in the higher states; and (4) QPO activity in the range 0.01–10 Hz. (Useful summaries and references to results from individual sources can be found in reviews by e.g. Tanaka & Lewin, 1995; van der Klis 1995; Wijnands & van der Klis 1999.) Until the current work, the extragalactic binary LMC X–3 fulfilled only the first two of these criteria. Here, we have unambiguously determined the presence of the latter two characteristics in LMC X–3, which thus now joins the Galactic sources in showing the full range of canonical BHC behavior.

At low inferred accretion rates, observed QPO frequencies in GBHCs fall in the lower range 0.2–3 Hz (Wijnands & van der Klis 1999, and references therein). A total of eight GBHC exhibit both strong band-limited noise and low-frequency QPO peaks at these moderate to low accretion rates; at frequencies $`>`$1 Hz, this noise component can be modeled as a power law with index $``$1, with a break frequency at $``$0.02–0.4 Hz, below which the spectral index flattens to $``$0. For these sources, Wijnands & van der Klis 1999 find a monotonic relation between the QPO centroid frequency and the break frequency of the band-limited noise. Our measured values for the break frequency (0.15 Hz) and the QPO frequency (0.46 Hz) in LMC X–3 obey this relation, suggesting that the basic (and unknown) physical mechanism that underlies the fast aperiodic variability in the Galactic sources extends also to LMC X–3.

A total of ten GBHC sources with previously published QPOs and corresponding spectral states were investigated by DiMatteo & Psaltis (1999), who conclude that the inner radii of the accretion disks around the black holes do not change significantly from one state to the next. This is contrary to the qualitative predictions of the ADAF models (Esin et al., 1998, and references therein), wherein the inner radius retreats quite dramatically from soft-to-hard state transitions. DiMatteo & Psaltis find that the GBHCs occupy a fairly narrow, confined region when plotted in the photon index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ versus QPO frequency plane. Our measured values for the photon index (1.69) and QPO frequency (0.45 Hz) in LMC X–3 fall in this region as well.

Below a critical source luminosity L$`<`$ 5–10% Eddington, GBHCs have spectra described by a pure power law (Nowak, 1995). Our observations, combined with the archival results presented here, show that LMC X–3 follows this trend, with the three low/hard states presented here corresponding to a luminosity of $``$2% or less of $`L_{Edd}`$.

For all low/hard state properties measured here–photon index, QPO frequency, band-limited noise, and luminosity– LMC X–3 falls squarely in the range measured for the GBHCs. This is significant, for it implies that the dominant mechanism responsible for the low/hard state and state transitions in BHCs is robust against variations in system parameters such as compact object mass, inclination, and initial chemical composition.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This paper utilizes quicklook results made publically available by the ASM/RXTE Team, including members at MIT and NASA/GSFC, and also data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. We thank Mariano Méndez for useful discussions and his help. We also acknowledge helpful conversations with Mike Nowak and Jörn Wilms, who shared their previous RXTE results with us prior to publication.


text:
# Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder

## 1 Introduction and Results

With the realization that the problem of Anderson localization is amenable to a RG analysis came the understanding that some transport and spectral properties of a quantum particle subjected to a weak random potential depend qualitatively only on dimensionality and the symmetries of the random potential . For essentially all types of randomness the dimensionality two of space plays the role of the lower critical dimension: Below two dimensions and for arbitrary weak disorder a quantum particle is always localized (i.e., the wavefunction is insensitive to a change in boundary conditions, or, equivalently, exponential decay of the conductance with system size), whereas a finite amount of disorder is needed to localize a quantum particle in three dimensions.

A notorious exception to this rule is the case of a particle on a single chain with random nearest neighbor hopping which appears in many reincarnations, e.g., random $`XY`$ spin chains  and diffusion in random environments . In all these cases, the cause underlying the different behavior of random systems with off-diagonal disorder is the existence of a sublattice, or chiral, symmetry, which is absent for diagonal disorder .

The purpose of this contribution is to review our recent work (together with Simons and Altland ) on the random hopping problem in a quasi-one-dimensional “wire” geometry . We consider the density of states (DoS) and conductance, and focus on the differences between the cases of off-diagonal and diagonal disorder in the localized regime. (For off-diagonal disorder, we assume absence of diagonal disorder.) The quantum wire is the logical intermediate between one and two dimensions.111Two dimensional models with off-diagonal disorder are also studied in the context of strongly interacting electron systems . We refer the reader to Ref.  for a review of work done on the two dimensional case. The quasi-one-dimensional geometry allows us to find exact solutions for the conductance at the band center $`\epsilon =0`$ and the DoS near $`\epsilon =0`$, while, in contrast to purely one-dimensional counterparts, it still shows a crossover from a diffusive to a localized regime, as is the case in two dimensions.

In the diffusive regime, differences between off-diagonal and diagonal disorder are limited to small quantum corrections to the DoS and conductance. The DoS near $`\epsilon =0`$ follows from the so-called “chiral” random matrix theory (RMT), which was originally proposed in the context of quenched approximations to the QCD Hamiltonian . In chiral RMT, all eigenvalues come in pairs $`\pm \epsilon `$. For $`N`$ coupled random hopping chains, level repulsion between the smallest eigenvalue above the band center $`\epsilon =0`$ and its mirror image then leads to a suppression of the DoS near $`\epsilon =0`$,

$$d𝒩/d\epsilon v_F^1(\epsilon /\mathrm{\Delta })^{\beta 1},0<\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(1)
Here $`d𝒩/d\epsilon `$ is the DoS per unit volume, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\pi v_F/NL`$ is the mean level spacing, and the symmetry index $`\beta =1`$ in the presence of both time-reversal and spin-rotational symmetry and $`\beta =2`$ ($`4`$) if time-reversal symmetry (spin-rotational symmetry) is broken. Several level spacings away from the center of the band, the mirror symmetry of the spectrum plays no important role, and the level statistics were found to agree with those of the standard RMT. Similarly, different quantum corrections to the conductance are obtained for energies close to the band center .

On the other hand, beyond the diffusive regime, i.e., for sample lengths $`L\xi `$, where $`\xi `$ is a crossover length scale (to be defined after Eq. (4) below), quantum corrections are dominant, and the differences between diagonal and off-diagonal disorder can be much more dramatic. While for diagonal disorder, the DoS is constant as $`\epsilon 0`$, Dyson showed that for off-diagonal disorder $`d𝒩/d\epsilon `$ diverges upon approaching the band center  :

$$\frac{d𝒩}{d\epsilon }\frac{1}{\xi |\epsilon \mathrm{ln}^3(\epsilon \xi /v_F)|},0<\epsilon \xi /v_F1.$$
(2)
Note that, in contrast to the diffusive regime (1), the energy scale that governs the divergence does not depend on the system size, nor does the form of the singularity depend on the symmetry index $`\beta `$. For $`N`$ coupled chains, Dyson’s result (2), remains valid for odd $`N`$,222The proportionality constants in Eqs. (2) and (3) may depend on $`N`$. but not for even $`N`$ : For an even number of chains, the DoS diverges only logarithmically for $`\beta =1`$, whereas $`d𝒩/d\epsilon `$ shows a pseudogap for $`\beta =2,4`$,

$$\frac{d𝒩}{d\epsilon }\frac{1}{v_F}\left(\frac{\epsilon \xi }{v_F}\right)^{\beta 1}\left|\mathrm{ln}\frac{\epsilon \xi }{v_F}\right|,0<\frac{\epsilon \xi }{v_F}1.$$
(3)
The relevant energy scale, however, remains the same as in Eq. (2). The even-odd effect in the DoS around $`\epsilon =0`$ is accompanied by an even-odd effect for the conductance $`g`$ at the band center . For odd $`N`$, there is no exponential localization; $`g`$ has a broad distribution, with fluctuations that are of the same order as the average,

$$\mathrm{ln}g=4\sqrt{\frac{L}{\beta \pi \xi }},\text{var}\mathrm{ln}g=\frac{8(\pi 2)L}{\beta \pi \xi },$$
(4)
where the crossover length scale $`\xi =(\beta N+2\beta )\mathrm{}/\beta `$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the mean free path. (For small $`N`$ there are corrections due to the appearance of a second dimensionless parameter needed to characterize the off-diagonal disorder, see Ref.  for details.) In contrast, for even $`N`$, $`g`$ is exponentially small, its distribution being close to log-normal,

$$\mathrm{ln}g=\frac{2L}{\xi }+\sqrt{\frac{8L}{\beta \pi \xi }},\text{var}\mathrm{ln}g=\frac{8(\pi 1)L}{\beta \pi \xi }.$$
(5)
In this case, $`\xi `$ can be interpreted as the localization length. Away from the band center and for diagonal disorder, $`\mathrm{ln}g=(1/2)\text{var}\mathrm{ln}g=2L/\xi ^{}`$, with $`\xi ^{}=(\beta N+2\beta )\mathrm{}`$, irrespective of the parity of $`N`$, as for quantum wires with diagonal disorder . Note that for even $`N`$, despite the similarities, differences between off-diagonal and diagonal disorder persist, though they are more subtle.

In the remaining sections of this paper, we review the theory describing these two parity effects.

## 2 Two microscopic models

### 2.1 Lattice model

The random hopping model is a lattice model with nearest neighbor hopping only, where the hopping amplitude takes a different (random) value between adjacent sites. In our case we consider a two-dimensional square lattice, for which the Schroedinger Equation takes the form

$$\psi _{i,j}=\underset{\pm }{}\left(t_{i,j;i\pm 1,j}\psi _{i\pm 1,j}+t_{i,j;i,j\pm 1}\psi _{i,j\pm 1}\right).$$
(6)
Hermiticity requires $`t_{i,j;i\pm 1,j}=(t_{i\pm 1,j;i,j})^{}`$ and $`t_{i,j;i,j\pm 1}=(t_{i,j\pm 1;i,j})^{}`$. We consider a quasi-one-dimensional geometry (length $`L`$ of the disordered region much larger than its width $`Na`$, where $`N`$ is the number of chains and $`a`$ the lattice constant), with open boundary conditions in the transverse direction: $`t_{0,j;1,j}=t_{N,j;N+1,j}=0`$. On the left ($`j<0`$) and right ($`j>L/a`$), the disordered region is attached to ideal leads ($`t_{i,j;i\pm 1,j}=t_{}`$, $`t_{i,j;i,j\pm 1}=t_{}`$ for $`j<0`$ or $`j>L/a`$). In the disordered region, the hopping amplitudes show fluctuations around the average values $`t_{}`$ and $`t_{}`$, respectively. The fluctuations are real, complex, or quaternion, for the symmetry classes $`\beta =1`$, $`2`$, and $`4`$, respectively.

The random flux model is a special version of the random hopping model for which each plaquette is threaded by a random flux. In that case, the hopping amplitudes have magnitude $`t`$ and a random phase $`\varphi _{i,j;i\pm 1,j}`$, so that the total phase accumulated going around a plaquette equals the phase through the plaquette in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

The random hopping model is special because of the existence of a sublattice symmetry: Under a transformation

$$\psi _{i,j}(1)^{i+j}\psi _{i,j},$$

the Hamiltonian changes sign. Hence, if $`\epsilon `$ is an eigenvalue of $``$, then $`\epsilon `$ is so as well. The band center $`\epsilon =0`$ is a special energy with respect to this transformation. As we shall see below, it is the existence of this extra symmetry that causes the spectral and transport properties of the random hopping model at the band center to be so dramatically different from those of models with on-site disorder. For historical reasons, the sublattice symmetry is referred to as chiral symmetry.

### 2.2 Continuum model

While the lattice version (6) of the random hopping model is the version that is usually considered in the literature, we use a different (continuum) model for our analytical calculations,

$$_{\mathrm{cont}}\psi (y)=\left[\mathrm{i}\sigma _3_y+\sigma _3v(y)+\sigma _2w(y)\right]\psi (y).$$
(7)
Here $`\psi `$ is a $`2N`$ component vector (elements of $`\psi `$ occur in pairs that correspond to left and right movers), $`v`$ and $`w`$ are $`N\times N`$ random Hermitean matrices, and the $`\sigma _\mu `$ $`(\mu =1,2,3)`$ are the Pauli matrices. In Eq. (7) and below we choose our units such that the Fermi velocity $`v_F=1`$. The chiral symmetry is now represented by

$$\sigma _1_{\mathrm{cont}}\sigma _1=_{\mathrm{cont}}.$$

For $`\beta =1`$, $`w`$ ($`v`$) is (anti-)symmetric; for $`\beta =4`$, $`w`$ ($`v`$) is (anti)-self dual. The disorder potentials $`v`$ and $`w`$ are chosen independently and Gaussian distributed with zero mean and with variance

$$v_{ij}^{}(y)v_{kl}^{}(y^{})=\frac{\delta (yy^{})}{\xi }\left(\delta _{ik}^{}\delta _{jl}^{}\frac{2\beta }{\beta }\delta _{il}^{}\delta _{jk}^{}\right),$$

$$w_{ij}^{}(y)w_{kl}^{}(y^{})=\frac{\delta (yy^{})}{\xi }\left(\delta _{ik}^{}\delta _{jl}^{}+\frac{2\beta }{\beta }\delta _{il}^{}\delta _{jk}^{}\right),$$

respectively. (For small $`N`$ a slightly more general form of the variance is needed, see .) The justification for this change of models is our anticipation that, for weak disorder and for a sufficiently large system size, only the fundamental symmetries of the microscopic model are relevant. In order to verify this assumption of universality, we compare the theoretical predictions based on Eq. (7) below to numerical simulations of the lattice model (6).

## 3 Fokker-Planck approach

### 3.1 General method

Spectral and transport properties of the continuum model (7) can be studied in a unified way from the statistical distribution of the reflection matrix $`r(\epsilon )`$ of the disordered wire. The reflection matrix is defined from the relation between the amplitudes $`\psi _\epsilon ^{\mathrm{iL}}`$ and $`\psi _\epsilon ^{\mathrm{oL}}`$ of an incoming and an outgoing wavefunction at energy $`\epsilon `$ on the same (left) side of the disordered region (Fig. 1),

$$\psi _\epsilon ^{\mathrm{oL}}=r(\epsilon )\psi _\epsilon ^{\mathrm{iL}}.$$
(8)
Transport properties (the conductance $`G`$) follow from the eigenvalues of $`r^{}r`$, when the right side of the quantum wire is attached to a lead (Fig. 1a),

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}g,g=\text{tr}\left(1r^{}r\right),$$
(9)
while the DoS is obtained from the eigenphases of $`r`$ when the quantum wire is closed at the right side  (Fig. 1b)

$$\frac{d𝒩}{d\epsilon }=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}NL}\mathrm{tr}\left(r^{}\frac{}{\epsilon }r\right).$$
(10)
The distribution of $`r`$ is computed using a RG approach: One calculates how the eigenvalues of $`r^{}r`$ (in the case of the conductance) or the eigenphases of $`r`$ (in the case of the DoS) change when a thin slice is added to the disordered region (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder). If we place the thin slice to the left of the disordered region, the change of the reflection matrix is given by

$$r^{}r_1^{}+t_1^{}\left(1r^{}r_1^{}\right)^1r^{}t_1^{},$$
(11)
where $`r_1`$ and $`r_1^{}`$ ($`t_1`$ and $`t_1^{}`$) are the reflection (transmission) matrices of the thin slice (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder). If the length $`\delta L`$ of the thin slice is much smaller than a mean free path, these can be computed using the Born approximation,

$`r_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`W+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}(VWWV),`$
$`t_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\mathrm{i}V\frac{1}{2}(V^2+W^2)+\mathrm{i}\epsilon \delta L,`$
$`r_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`W+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}(VWWV),`$
$`t_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{i}V\frac{1}{2}(V^2+W^2)+\mathrm{i}\epsilon \delta L,`$ (12)
where $`V=_0^{\delta L}𝑑yv(y),`$ and $`W=_0^{\delta L}𝑑yw(y).`$ Here we neglected terms that are of order $`\delta L^2`$. Together with the distribution of the disorder potentials $`w`$ and $`v`$, Eqs. (11)–(12) define how the distribution of the reflection matrix $`r`$ evolves with the length $`L`$ of the quantum wire. The RG approach can be represented in terms of a Fokker-Planck equation describing the “Brownian motion” of the eigenvalues of $`r^{}r`$ or eigenphases of $`r`$ in the geometry of Fig. 1a and 1b, respectively.

Equations (11)–(12) are exact for the continuum model (7). A different choice for the distribution of $`v`$ and $`w`$, or use of the lattice model (6) instead of Eq. (7), would have led to different statistical properties of the scattering matrix for a thin slice. However, as we have verified numerically, such differences are irrelevant in the RG sense, i.e., they disappear for sufficiently long wires (longer than the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$) and weak disorder ($`\mathrm{}`$ much larger than the lattice constant $`a`$).

### 3.2 DoS

Since the quantum wire is closed at one end, the initial condition at $`L=0`$ for the RG equation (11) is $`r=1`$. The RG flow ensures that the reflection matrix $`r`$ remains a $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix for all $`L`$. Hence, for all $`L`$ there exists a Hermitean $`N\times N`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`r=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi })`$. The eigenvalues $`\varphi _j`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the eigenphases of $`r`$. The change of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ under the increment (11)–(12) is

$$\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}\right)e^{(W+\mathrm{i}V)}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}+\epsilon \delta L\right)e^{(W\mathrm{i}V)}$$

up to second order in $`V`$ and $`W`$ and first order in $`\epsilon `$. Taking the length $`L`$ as a fictitious “time”, the eigenphases $`\varphi _j`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ perform a Brownian motion on the unit circle, which is such that upon increasing $`L`$, they move (on average) counterclockwise. Integration of Eq. (10) yields a relation between the $`\varphi _j`$ and the DoS valid in the limit of large $`L`$,

$$𝒩(\epsilon ^{})=_0^\epsilon ^{}𝑑\epsilon \frac{d𝒩}{d\epsilon }=\frac{1}{2\pi N}\underset{j}{}\frac{\varphi _j}{L}.$$
(13)
\[Note that for $`\epsilon =0`$, $`\varphi _j=0`$ for all $`L`$.\] Hence, to find the (average) DoS per unit volume, we compute the (average) “current” of the eigenphases $`\varphi _j`$ moving around the unit circle and differentiate to energy. We remark that, in the absence of disorder, the angles $`\varphi _j`$ move around at a constant speed $`\epsilon `$, resulting in a constant DoS. With disorder, their motion acquires a random (Brownian) component, which dramatically affects their average speed, and hence the DoS.

For a quantitative description a different parameterization of the eigenphases of the reflection matrix is more convenient,

$$\mathrm{tan}(\varphi _j/2)=\mathrm{exp}(u_j),$$
(14)
where the $`u_j`$ are restricted to the two branches $`\text{Im}u_j=0`$ and $`\text{Im}u_j=\pi `$ in the complex plane (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder). Starting from the RG equation (11), one then obtains that the joint probability distribution $`P(u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$ for the $`u_j`$ obeys

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{L}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_j}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\beta \xi }}J{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_j}}J^12\epsilon \mathrm{cosh}(u_j)\right]P,`$
$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{}}\mathrm{sinh}^\beta [(u_ju_k)/2].`$ (15)
This Fokker-Planck equation describes the motion of $`N`$ fictitious Brownian “particles” with coordinates $`u_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and diffusion coefficient $`4/\beta \xi `$, subject to a driving force $`F_\epsilon =2\epsilon \mathrm{cosh}u_j`$ and a long-range repulsive two-body interaction $`F_{\mathrm{int}}=(2/\xi )\mathrm{coth}[(u_ju_k)/2]`$. The parameterization (14) is such that a Brownian particle with coordinate $`u_j`$ that vanishes on one of the branches at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ reappears at the opposite branch (dotted arrows in Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder).

Analysis of the Brownian motion described by Eq. (15) then leads to the asymptotes (2,3) for the DoS in the random hopping model. A detailed derivation of these results based on an estimate of the steady-state-current supported by Eq. (15) can be found in Ref. . Here we present only a brief sketch, focusing on the origin of the even-odd effect: The competition between the driving force $`F_\epsilon `$ and diffusion on the one side, and the long-range repulsive two-body interaction $`F_{\mathrm{int}}`$ on the other side. The driving force $`F_\epsilon `$ pushes the particles to the right (left) on the lower (upper) branch and thus causes the nonzero steady-state-current. Diffusion keeps the particles mobile where the driving force $`F_\epsilon `$ is small, thus enhancing the current, and hence the DoS . The long-range repulsion $`F_{\mathrm{int}}`$, on the other hand, traps an equal number of the particles in two “traps” near $`u=\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon \xi )`$ and $`u=\mathrm{ln}(\epsilon \xi )+\pi i`$, and thus tends to suppress the DoS. For even $`N`$, all particles are trapped ($`N/2`$ particles in each trap). Rare events caused by particles that are “thermally” excited out of their traps still allows for a small “current”, resulting in the small DoS in Eq. (3) (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disordera). For odd $`N`$, however, only $`(N1)/2`$ particles are trapped near each end point, while one particle is left alone, unaffected by the long-range repulsion (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorderb). Motion of this particle is dominated by diffusion, which explains the enhancement of the DoS for odd $`N`$.

The agreement between the theory and numerical simulation of the lattice random hopping model is excellent as is depicted in Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder.

### 3.3 Conductance

The chiral symmetry results in the symmetry relation $`r(\epsilon )=r(\epsilon )^{}`$ . Hence, at the band center, the reflection matrix is Hermitean. We parameterize the eigenvalues of $`r`$ as $`\mathrm{tanh}x_j`$, where the $`x_j`$ are $`N`$ real numbers, and formulate the RG approach of Sec. 3.1 as a Brownian motion process for the $`x_j`$. Away from the band center, only the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{tanh}^2x_j`$ of the product $`r^{}r`$ can be studied in the RG approach: In this case, the sign of the $`x_j`$ has no relevance, since $`r^{}r`$ does not change under $`x_jx_j`$.

In terms of the $`x_j`$, the conductance reads

$$g=\underset{j}{}(1\mathrm{tanh}^2x_j)=\underset{j}{}\mathrm{cosh}^2x_j.$$
(16)
The RG equation (11) then leads to a Fokker-Planck equation for the $`L`$-evolution of the joint probability distribution $`P(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ at the band center ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{L}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta \xi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\left[J{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\left(J^1P\right)\right],`$ (17)
$`J={\displaystyle \underset{k>j}{}}|\mathrm{sinh}(x_jx_k)|^\beta .`$
Sufficiently far away from the band center, the $`L`$-evolution of the $`x_j`$’s is the same as for a quantum wire with on-site disorder, which is given by the well-known DMPK equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{L}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\left[J{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}\left(J^1P\right)\right],`$ (18)
$`J={\displaystyle \underset{k>j}{}}|\mathrm{sinh}^2x_j\mathrm{sinh}^2x_k|^\beta {\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\mathrm{sinh}(2x_j)|,`$
where $`\xi ^{}=(\beta N+2\beta )\mathrm{}`$.

Both Fokker-Planck equations describe the Brownian motion of $`N`$ particles with the coordinate $`x_j`$ on the real axis and interacting through a hardcore repulsive two-body potential (Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder). Far away from the band center, a particle at position $`x_j`$ is also repelled by the mirror image at position $`x_j`$ as is required by the symmetry of $`r^{}r`$ under $`x_jx_j`$. For each $`x_j`$, the repulsion from the mirror image $`x_j`$ ensures that all $`x_j`$ increase linearly with $`L`$, thus causing the exponential decay of $`g`$ with $`L`$. On the other hand, at the band center the sign of $`x_j`$ matters since there is no repulsion from mirror images. For odd $`N`$ there will be no net force on the particle with coordinate $`x_{(N+1)/2}`$ (for large $`L`$). Hence $`x_{(N+1)/2}`$ remains close to the origin, while all other $`x_j`$ increase (or decrease) linearly with $`L`$. The coordinate $`x_{(N+1)/2}`$ dominates the conductance, its fluctuations leading to the $`(L/\xi )^{1/2}`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{ln}g`$ in Eq. (4). For even $`N`$ no such “exceptional” particle exists; all $`x_j`$ increase (if they are positive) or decrease (if the are negative) linearly with $`L`$, causing the conductance to be exponentially small, cf. Eq. (5).

We refer the reader to Refs.  for the detailed calculation of the moments of the conductance. The agreement between the theory and numerical simulations of the random flux case is excellent as is illustrated in Fig. Transport Properties and Density of States of Quantum Wires with Off-diagonal Disorder.


text:
# A New Measurement of the Energy Dependence of Nuclear Transparency for Large Momentum Transfer ¹²𝐶(𝑝,2𝑝) Scattering

## Abstract

We present a new measurement of the energy dependence of nuclear transparency from AGS experiment E850, performed using the EVA solenoidal spectrometer, upgraded since 1995. Using a secondary beam from the AGS accelerator, we simultaneously measured $`pp`$ elastic scattering from hydrogen and $`(p,2p)`$ quasi-elastic scattering in carbon at incoming momenta of 5.9, 8.0, 9.0, 11.7 and 14.4 GeV/c. This incident momentum range corresponds to a $`Q^2`$ region between 4.8 and 12.7 (GeV/c)2. The detector allowed us to do a complete kinematic analysis for the center-of-mass polar angles in the range $`85^{}90^{}`$. We report on the measured variation of the nuclear transparency with energy and compare the new results with previous measurements.

Color Transparency(CT) is the predicted reduction in the initial and final state interactions, which may take place when a large transverse momentum($`p_t`$), quasi-exclusive scattering, involving hadrons, occurs in nuclear matter. We study nuclear transparency for $`(p,2p)`$ quasi-elastic scattering. It can be informally defined as

$$T_r=\frac{\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(pp\text{ quasi-elastic in nucleus})}{Z\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(pp\text{ elastic in hydrogen})}.$$
(1)
Theoretical predictions for the variations of this quantity with energy are very model dependent. For example, Glauber-based calculations show no energy dependence above 5 GeV with a value around thirty percent, whereas QCD based models predict an increase of $`T_r`$ with energy, reaching eventually an asymptotic value of unity farrar-1 . Interpretations of fluctuating energy dependence of the transparency carrol-1  at the values of $`Q^2`$ above 10 (Gev/c)2 have been presented in the models described in Refs. rals-1  and brod-1 .

Many widely accepted pictures of CT dynamics are based on the assumption that selection of small-size Fock state configurations occurs in certain hard scattering processes and that these small configurations have a reduced cross-section for reinteraction with the surrounding nucleus. The protons remain in these configurations during a time period which is different for different energies and large on the scale of nuclear processes strik-1 .

We performed our measurement using the EVA apparatus located in the C1 line of the AGS at BNL. Two differential Cerenkov counters were used for the incident particle identification. The beam flux measurement was performed using a scintillating-fiber beam hodoscope located in the upstream part of the apparatus. We used solid carbon and polyethylene targets, whose dimensions were 5.1 cm $`\times `$ 5.1 cm $`\times `$ 6.6 cm. The AGS provided a secondary beam with approximately 1-2$`\times 10^7`$ particles per 2 second spill and about 20 spills per minute. EVA is a magnetic spectrometer with tracking capabilities. It was built around a solenoidal superconducting magnet which produced nearly uniform field in the beam direction allowing for charged particle transverse momentum($`p_t`$) measurements. It further allowed us to reject low $`p_t`$ tracks at the trigger level.

The tracking with this apparatus used an array of four cylindrical straw tube drift chambers with charge division, providing us with 3D position information. The chambers were used both for triggering and for final track reconstruction. The signals from two fan shaped hodoscopes of scintillating counters served as input to the first level trigger, which started the digitization of the event wu-1 ,mardor-1 , mardor-3 ,durrant-1 ,lek-1 .

The variable we present in this paper is the transparency ratio $`T_{CH}`$, which we define to be the ratio of $`C(p,2p)`$ quasi-elastic(QE) to $`pp`$ elastic cross-section divided by the $`Z`$ of the nucleus(6 in our case) for a restricted region of kinematics near that of $`pp`$ elastic scattering. Within the impulse approximation this quantity is related to nuclear transparency via

$$T_{CH}=\frac{C}{ZH}=T_r_{\alpha _1}^{\alpha _2}\frac{d\alpha }{\alpha }𝑑\stackrel{}{p}_{Ft}n(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{p}_{Ft})\frac{\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s)}{\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s_0)}.$$
(2)
Here $`n(\alpha ,\stackrel{}{p}_{Ft})`$ is the momentum distribution of the target proton in the nucleus, $`\alpha =\frac{E_Fp_{Fz}}{m}\frac{s}{s_0}`$ near $`\alpha =1`$, $`s`$ and $`s_0`$ are the Mandelstam variables for $`C`$ and $`H`$ events correspondingly, $`\stackrel{}{p}_{Ft}=(p_{Fx},p_{Fy})`$ is the transverse component of the target nucleon momentum, $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s)`$ is the differential $`pp`$ cross-section for the process inside the nucleus, $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s_0)`$ \- for the hydrogen.

In the presentation of these measurements, we attempt to limit the influence of incomplete knowledge of the spectral function. This was accomplished by applying an unrestrictive cut on transverse Fermi momentum but a tight cut on longitudinal nuclear motion so that $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s)\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(s_0)`$, neglecting small variations in cross-section.

Our apparatus was capable of measuring all three components of momenta of both outgoing particles. Therefore the kinematic variables of interest were calculated from the data. The following cuts ensured that the conditions were satisfied: $`|p_{Fy}|<0.3`$ GeV/c, $`|p_{Fx}|<0.5`$ GeV/c and $`0.95<\alpha _0<1.05`$. The variable $`\alpha _0`$, defined as

$$\alpha _0=1\frac{2p\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta _1\theta _2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta _1+\theta _2}{2}p_{incz}}{m}$$
(3)
with $`p=\sqrt{(\frac{E_{beam}+m}{2})^2m^2}`$, is an analog of $`\alpha `$, which was defined to be independent of momentum variables and varies only with the opening angle in the Lab frame. The value of $`|\alpha \alpha _0|`$ in the region of interest is well below one percent mardor-1 , mardor-3 .

To extract the number of events from $`C`$ and $`CH_2`$ targets, we used the missing mass variable defined as:

$`M_{miss}^2=E_{miss}^2\stackrel{}{p}_F^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}}.`$ (4)
As it follows from equation (4), $`M_{miss}^2`$ distribution for the reconstructed QE events should display a peak around zero. From the events that satisfy the cuts we select candidates for QE by demanding exactly two charged tracks in the final state. We also select events with more then two tracks to model the behavior of the background. The signal is then extracted from these distributions after background subtraction.

The hydrogen signal was measured as the normalized difference between the yields from the $`CH_2`$ and $`C`$ targets. Then the transparency ratio can be defined as

$$T_{CH}=\frac{\beta \gamma C}{3(CH_2\beta \gamma C)}.$$
(5)
Here $`C`$ and $`CH_2`$ are the numbers of extracted events. $`\beta =0.4535`$ is the ratio of number of $`CH_2`$ molecules to the number of $`C`$ atoms in the corresponding targets, $`\gamma `$ is the beam normalization factor $`\gamma =\frac{beam_C}{beam_{CH_2}}`$. The beam normalization factor is determined from the flux measurements using scaler readings and comparing yields for the same target positions and different target configurations.

We performed our measurements at incoming momenta of $`5.9`$ and $`7.5`$ GeV/c in 1994 mardor-2  and $`5.9`$, $`8.0`$, $`9.0`$, $`11.7`$ and $`14.4`$ GeV/c in 1998. These corresponded to the following values of momentum transfer $`Q^2`$: $`4.8`$ and $`6.2`$ (GeV/c)2 in 1994 and $`4.8`$, $`6.6`$, $`7.6`$, $`10.1`$ and $`12.7`$ (GeV/c)2 in 1998. The preliminary result of our experiment, the energy dependence of the transparency ratio, integrated over the center-of-mass scattering angle in the region $`85^{}90^{}`$, is presented in the figure 1.

We can draw the following conclusions from it. First, the ratio definitely varies with energy with strong deviations from Glauber calculations. Second, we clearly see the rise of the ratio for the incident momenta below 10 GeV/c. Third, we also observe the fall of the transparency above 10 GeV/c. Finally, our results seem to be in a good agreement with the energy dependence reported in 1988 by E834 carrol-1


text:
# Vortex configurations in 𝑆𝑂(3)×𝑍(2)

## 1 Introduction

Center vortices (i.e. configurations formed out of the center of the gauge group) are a disordering mechanism which can lead to an area law for Wilson loops. We examine here the gauge invariant description of these vortices derived by Tomboulis and others\[1-3\]. In particular we explore the configuration space in this formulation and present an algorithm for simulations.

The basic idea behind the Tomboulis formulation is to write an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory in terms of $`SU(N)/Z(N)`$ and $`Z(N)`$ variables separately. The $`SU(N)/Z(N)`$ variables live on links and the $`Z(N)`$ variables live on plaquettes. This results in an expanded set of variables in the partition function but they are related by constraints. Tomboulis determined the constraints for a lattice with free boundary conditions. However, in numerical simulations we use periodic boundary conditions and thus it is important to see how this new constraints limit the configuration space.

## 2 Simplified version of Tomboulis derivation

We restrict our attention here to the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group. We will present here a simpler derivation than the ones in Refs..

We start with the usual partition function:

$$Z=[dU]_be^{\frac{\beta }{2}_pTr(U_p)}$$

where $`[dU]_b=_bdU_b`$ is the Haar invariant measure and $`U_p`$ is the usual plaquette definition and the trace is taken in the fundamental representation of $`SU(2)`$. Now $`[dU]_b`$ is invariant under the transformation $`U_b\gamma _bU_b`$ where $`\gamma _bZ(2)`$. We then obtain:

$$Z=[dU]_be^{\frac{\beta }{2}_pTr(U_p)\overline{\gamma }(p)}$$

where $`\overline{\gamma }(p)=_{bp}\gamma _b`$.

This is true for any $`\gamma _b`$. Each $`\gamma _b`$ generates a $`\overline{\gamma }(p)`$. We see that where $`\gamma `$ is defined on links $`\overline{\gamma }`$ is defined on plaquettes. The entire set of $`\gamma `$ defined on links will induce a subset of configurations defined on plaquettes. We will denote this set with $`𝒟`$. For any $`\sigma 𝒟`$ we have:

$$Z=[dU]_be^{\frac{\beta }{2}_pTr(U_p)\sigma (p)}$$

Since this is true for any $`\sigma 𝒟`$ the we can write:

$$Z=\frac{1}{|𝒟|}[dU]_b\underset{\sigma 𝒟}{}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}_pTr(U_p)\sigma (p)}$$

where $`|𝒟|`$ is the number of elements in $`𝒟`$.

One last step is to define $`\eta (p)=\text{sgn}(Tr(U_p))`$. Now write $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma \eta `$. We will have:

$$Z=\frac{1}{|𝒟|}[dU]_b\underset{\sigma ^{}\eta 𝒟}{}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}_p|Tr(U_p)|\sigma ^{}(p)}$$

If we look at the final form of the action we see that it is invariant under $`U_bU_b`$. Summing everything up we get and droping the prime in $`\sigma ^{}`$ we get:

$$Z=\frac{2^{N_b}}{|𝒟|}[dU]_b^{}\underset{\sigma \eta 𝒟}{}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}_p|Tr(U_p)|\sigma (p)}$$
(1)
where $`N_b`$ is the number of links and $`[dU]_b^{}`$ denotes integration over $`SO(3)`$.

We see that now we have a theory that is formulated in terms of $`SO(3)`$ variables living on links and $`Z_2`$ variables living on plaquettes. The $`SO(3)`$ variables are unconstrained and the $`Z(2)`$ variables are constrained by the set $`𝒟`$. This set describes the constraints that the vortices have to obey.

## 3 Properties of $`𝒟`$

In this derivation we see that $`𝒟`$ is simply the space generated by link flips i.e. the allowed configurations space can be defined constructively by saying that an allowed configuration has to be the product of succesive star transformations. A star transformation around a link b is a transformation that changes the sign simultaneously on all plaquettes that form the co-boundary of b. This is a useful definition since it provides us with a method to simulate this numerically.

Since all allowed configurations are constructed using star transformations it implies that all allowed configurations obey what we call the cubic constraint, i.e. the product of plaquettes that form the faces of any cube has to be unity. This is equivalent with saying that the thin monopoles (i.e. cubes with $`\sigma (c)=1`$) have to coincide with the thick monopoles (i.e. cubes with $`\eta (c)=1`$).

One immediate question is whether a configuration that obeys cubic constraint is automatically allowed. Tomboulis  showed that this is true for the free boundary conditions. However in the case of periodic (antiperiodic) boundary conditions we proved that this is no longer true . Basically we showed that for a configuration to be allowed in the case of periodic boundary conditions the vortices have to wrap an even number of times around the lattice.

## 4 Vortex counters in Tomboulis formulation

If we look at the partition function (1) we see that there are two types of $`Z(2)`$ variables: $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta `$. Tomboulis identifies the $`\sigma `$ structures with thin vortices.

The thick vortices are defined using the Wilson loop. In Tomboulis formulation the Wilson loop has some extra factors:

$$W(C)=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{bC}{}U_b)\sigma (S)\eta (S)$$

where $`S`$ is any surface with the boundary $`C`$. We say that the Wilson loop entraps an odd number of thick vortices if $`\text{sgn}\left[_{bC}U_b\right]\eta (S)=1`$ for any surface $`S`$ with $`S=C`$.

Besides the usual thick and thin vortices we have the hybrid vortex, formed from patches of each type.

## References