text:
# Doppler Effect of Nonlinear Waves and Superspirals in Oscillatory Media

## Abstract

Nonlinear waves emitted from a moving source are studied. A meandering spiral in a reaction-diffusion medium provides an example, where waves originate from a source exhibiting a back-and-forth movement in radial direction. The periodic motion of the source induces a Doppler effect that causes a modulation in wavelength and amplitude of the waves (“superspiral”). Using the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, we show that waves subject to a convective Eckhaus instability can exhibit monotonous growth or decay as well as saturation of these modulations away from the source depending on the perturbation frequency. Our findings allow a consistent interpretation of recent experimental observations concerning superspirals and their decay to spatio-temporal chaos.

Introduction. - Periodic nonlinear waves are a trademark of nonequilibrium systems general . In one dimension (1D), they can appear in systems with periodic boundary conditions (BCs) as well as in open geometries, where BCs select a unique pattern hagan82 . In two dimensions (2D), rotating spiral waves are frequently observed. Therein, periodic waves emerge from the region of the spiral tip (core) and propagate in radial direction. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effects of perturbing sources of nonlinear waves and their implications for the dynamics of spiral waves. We employ the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation (CGLE), which provides an universal description of spatially extended oscillatory systems near a supercritical Hopf bifurcation kuramoto ; lkrmp02 .

In this framework, we perturb a source of periodic waves in 1D by moving its position back-and-forth in space. This motion of the source leads to a modulation in amplitude, wavelength and frequency of the emitted waves. We find that the modulation of the nonlinear waves is uniquely determined by the temporal period of the source motion in contrast to linear waves emitted by a moving source, where the source velocity is the relevant quantity. The richest scenario is found if the emitted waves are convectively Eckhaus unstable. If we consider a periodically moving source in the latter case, the modulations in amplitude and period of the waves may (a) get exponentially damped, (b) saturate or (c) grow monotonously far away from the source depending on the frequency of the applied forcing.

Such a periodically moving source reproduces the radial dynamics of rotating spiral waves subject to external forcing extforc  or to the frequently observed oscillatory instability termed “meandering” meander . In 2D, the radial modulations caused by meandering lead to a second spiral superimposed on the simple rotating spiral; the resulting structure is called superspiral (see Fig. 1). Our study provides insight in the nonlinear behavior of such superspirals extending earlier work based on a linear analysis ssprl01 . Unbounded growth of the modulation will lead to occurrence of space-time defects in 1D and superspiral breakup in 2D, provided the system is sufficiently large. Experimental evidence of such behavior was found in the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction qi01 . The first experimental observation of a superspiral was reported for a spiral subject to strong external forcing near its core krinsky91 .

Complex Ginzburg-Landau equation. - Consider a spatially extended oscillatory medium described by the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation general ; lkrmp02

$$_tA=\mu A+(1+ic_1)\mathrm{\Delta }A(1ic_3)|A|^2A$$
(1)
with $`\mu =1`$. The complex field $`A(r,t)`$ gives amplitude and phase of local oscillations depending on real coefficients $`c_1,c_3`$ determined by the underlying specific model at the onset of oscillations. Eq. (1) exhibits plane wave solutions $`A(r,t)=\sqrt{1q^2}\text{e}^{i(qr\omega t)}`$ with $`\omega =c_3+q^2(c_1+c_3)`$ in an infinite or periodic 1D medium with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_r^2`$. For fixed control parameters, these waves become unstable if the wavenumber $`q`$ is bigger than the Eckhaus wavenumber $`q_E^2=(1c_1c_3)/(2(1+c_3^2)+1c_1c_3)`$. The plane waves represent a one-parameter family that is parametrized by the wavenumber $`q`$. A source of periodic waves at $`r=0`$ is easily realized by applying the BCs

$$A(r=0)=0\text{and}_rA(r=L)=0.$$
(2)
The specification of these BCs leads to the selection of a unique wavenumber $`q_S`$. In this case, the exact solution of the CGLE is of the form

$$A(r,t)=F(r)\text{e}^{i\left(f\left(r\right)\omega t\right)},$$
(3)
with the asymptotic behavior $`df(r)/drq_S,F(r)\sqrt{1q_S^2}`$ for $`r\mathrm{}`$ (far-field) and $`df(r)/drr,F(r)r`$ for $`r0`$ (near-field). An analytic expression for $`q_S`$ has been derived hagan82 ; lkbook90

$$0=(c_1+c_3)q_S^2+3\alpha (c_1,c_3)q_Sc_32c_1\alpha (c_1,c_3)^2,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a function of the control parameters $`c_1,c_3`$ footnote .

In 2D, Eq. (1) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_r^2+1/r_r+1/r^2_\theta ^2`$ possesses rotating spiral solutions with $`A=0`$ in the spiral core and in the far-field a selected wavenumber $`q_S`$, which is similar to (4) as verified numerically hagan82 ; lkbook90 . Eq. (4) allows to discriminate if the source or the spiral core emits stable (Eckhaus unstable) wavetrains with $`q_S<q_E`$ ($`q_S>q_E`$). Further analysis showed that the Eckhaus instability is of convective nature and becomes absolute for sufficiently large values of $`c_1`$ and $`c_3`$ lkpra92 . At given parameters, we may define a wavenumber $`q_A>q_E`$ that characterizes absolutely unstable waves with $`q>q_A`$. In finite systems, spirals were found to be stable as long as $`q_S<q_A`$ lkpra92 ; stprl98 .

Simulation results. - Here, we analyze the effects of an instability or of an external perturbation at the source or at the spiral core (meandering). We choose to perturb the source in Eq. (2) by varying its position $`r_S`$. Consequently,

$`A(rr_S)=0\text{with}r_S=R_S\mathrm{cos}(2\pi t/\tau )`$
$`\text{and}_rA(r=L)=0,`$ (5)
is used as BC of Eq. (1) in 1D. The core motion of a meandering spiral can be viewed as a source moving along a circle in 2D. A projection onto a radial direction for fixed angle yields a periodic back-and-forth motion. A sinusoidal motion like in Eq. (5) is expected near onset, where the normal form of meandering dbprl94  provides a valid description.

Hence, the BC in Eq. (5) also captures the radial dynamics of a meandering spiral. In the numerical simulations the moving source initially modulates the local wavenumber which subsequently leads to a modulation of the wave amplitude. For large $`r`$ (far-field), we observe modulations with a period $`T`$ that is equal to the forcing period $`\tau `$ and independent from $`R_S`$. First, we forced sources (respectively “spirals”) in the parameter region where $`q_S<q_E`$, in this case the perturbation is always damped out while the waves move away from the source. A larger variety of responses occurs in the convectively Eckhaus unstable regime, where the unperturbed source selects a wavenumber $`q_S`$ in the interval $`[q_E,q_A]`$. Fig. 2 shows three qualitatively different resulting profiles of the amplitude $`|A|`$ as a function of the radial coordinate. Figs. 2(a), (b) and (c) correspond to increasing values of the forcing period $`\tau `$. For small $`\tau `$-values, the result is similar to the case with $`q_S<q_E`$, the amplitude modulation is exponentially damped and is barely visible at sufficiently large $`r`$ (Fig. 2(a)). For intermediate $`\tau `$, the amplitude modulation first grows and then reaches saturation (Fig. 2(b)). The profile of $`|A|`$ is periodic and travels with a non-zero velocity; in the far-field, the radial dynamics resemble a so-called modulated amplitude wave (see below). Finally for large $`\tau `$, the amplitude modulation grows monotonically with $`r`$ and space-time defects are formed at the breakup radius $`r=R_{BU}950`$ (Fig. 2(c)). For simulations with $`q_S>q_A`$, we always observe monotonous growth of the modulation leading to space-time defects.

A drawback of the homogeneous CGLE in 2D is that it does not support meandering spirals. A non-saturating meandering instability has been observed for large values of $`c_1`$ lkprl94 . Alternatively, addition of a heterogeneity near the spiral core leads to meandering behavior similar to the one typically seen in reaction-diffusion systems lkbook95 . Figs. 1 (e),(f) show such a superspiral. The corresponding quantities for a regular spiral are shown in Fig. 1 (b),(c). As in Fig. 2(b) and in the recent experiment by Zhou and Ouyang (see Fig. 1(d) and qi01 ) the amplitude modulation shown in Fig. 1(f) saturates in the far-field. In the following, the study will be limited to the radial dynamics. One of the new results of our analysis is that the modulation of the amplitude may eventually saturate (see Fig. 2(b)). It also travels with constant shape and with a speed different from that of the underlying phase waves. To summarize, periodically moving sources emit modulated amplitude waves analogous to the way stationary sources send out plane waves.

Modulated amplitude waves (MAWs) and superspirals. - MAWs are solutions of the CGLE and have the following general form

$$A(r,t)=a(z)e^{i\varphi (z)}e^{i(qr\omega t)},$$
(6)
with unknown periodic functions $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ of the comoving coordinate $`z=rvt`$ lbmaw . The analysis of MAWs has revealed that they bifurcate from plane waves with $`q>q_E`$. MAWs form a two-parameter family of waves described by the wavelength $`P`$ of the modulation of the amplitude $`a=|A|`$ and by the spatially averaged phase gradient $`\nu =q+_r\varphi `$. The velocity $`v`$ and the period $`T=P/v`$ can be derived from these quantities. The average phase gradient is conserved as long as no space-time defect is formed. For periodically perturbed sources, the phase gradient value is fixed to $`\nu q_S`$. Therefore, only one free parameter is left. For the present purpose it is most convenient to use the period $`T`$. The resulting bifurcation diagram is shown in Fig. 3 for the case $`q_S>q_E`$ (Eckhaus unstable range). In the Eckhaus stable regime, no stable MAWs exist.

Fig. 3 reveals that stable MAWs exist for periods $`T`$ in the interval $`[T_{HB},T_{SN}]`$. They are “born” in a Hopf bifurcation (HB) and “die” in a saddle-node bifurcation (SN). For $`T<T_{HB}`$, the plane wave is stable and for $`T>T_{SN}`$ no MAWs exists and the dynamics leads to the formation of defects lbmaw ; vanhecke . This clarifies our findings in Fig. 2: the profiles in Fig. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) correspond to forcing within the regions $`\tau <T_{HB}`$, $`T_{HB}<\tau <T_{SN}`$ and $`T_{SN}<\tau `$, respectively. Fig. 3 (b) shows the breakup radius $`R_{BU}`$ found in simulations for periods $`\tau >T_{SN}`$. It is crucial to realize that the properties of the saturated modulations, observed in numerical simulations with a periodically moving source, indeed correspond to the MAWs with $`\nu =q_S`$ and $`T=\tau `$ computed via a bifurcation analysis (as shown in Fig. 3). Thus, a unique MAW characterized by two parameters is selected in 1D by BC in Eq. (5) or in 2D by the two intrinsic frequencies of a meandering spiral. We conjecture, that the bifurcation diagram of superspirals in 2D can be predicted from the corresponding bifurcation diagram of the far-field MAWs provided the meandering period (that here corresponds to $`\tau `$) is known. Hence, the superspirals with saturated modulation should cease to exist in the saddle-node bifurcation of the associated MAW. If $`\tau >T_{SN}`$, the modulations grow monotonously and lead to appearance of space-time defects in 1D, respectively topological defects in 2D (spiral breakup). In explicit 2D simulations, such behavior has already been observed in a homogeneous reaction-diffusion model for calcium waves, where simultaneous appearance of the Eckhaus instability and meandering leads to a breakup far away from the spiral core calcium . Future studies may address the possibility of MAWs in realistic reaction-diffusion systems which exhibit Eckhaus instabilities mbprl99 ; calcium .

A previous linear analysis of superspirals predicted that the meandering instability of a spiral with an Eckhaus unstable wavetrain in the far-field may produce superspirals with exponentially growing modulation, while in the standard case of a meandering spiral emitting a stable wave train exponential damping of the modulation should be observed ssprl01 . Our nonlinear analysis introduces superspirals with a saturated modulation in the far-field as a third possibility, thus supporting the experimental observation of such structures in the BZ reaction (Fig. 1 and qi01 ). We suggest an interpretation of the reported scenario damped superspiral - saturated superspiral - far-field breakup: the three phenomenologies simply correspond to the three mentioned regions of the bifurcation diagram for the MAWs. Notice that bifurcation diagrams similar to Fig. 3 (a) are found when $`c_1`$ or $`c_3`$ are varied at fixed $`T`$ lbmaw ; lbmaw2 ; vanhecke .

Phase diagram. - Finally we determine the regions of the $`c_1c_3`$ phase diagram lkpra92  where the discussed phenomena may be found. The results are summarized in Fig. 4 where $`\nu `$ is fixed equal to $`q_S(c_1,c_3)`$ as given by Eq. (4). Saturated superspirals can appear only above the Eckhaus line for $`q_S>q_E`$. For small values of $`c_1`$, the MAWs bifurcate subcritically and are always unstable janiaud . Fig. 4 also shows the line of absolute instability ($`q_S=q_A`$) above which simple spirals break up giving rise to spatio-temporal chaos. Stable MAWs with $`\nu =q_S`$ do exist in the shaded region (for an extensive discussion on MAW stability see lbmaw2 ). Below the thick dashed line in Fig. 4 no saddle-node bifurcation does occur and breakup is therefore prevented. Between the thick dashed and the thick dash-dotted lines in Fig. 4, bifurcation diagrams similar to Fig. 3(a) are found. In this region, all the three behaviors reported in Fig. 2 are possible, depending on the period of the forcing or meandering. Altogether, the results here presented link far-field breakup of meandering spirals to a saddle-node bifurcation. Thus, this route to spatio-temporal chaos can be distinguished from the previously reported scenario of far-field breakup, where spiral breakup has been explained by an absolute Eckhaus instability of the asymptotic far-field wavetrain lkpra92 ; stprl98 ; mbprl99 ; qinat96 .

Conclusions. - We have studied the Doppler effect associated with the back-and-forth motion of a source emitting periodic nonlinear waves. Usually, the resulting modulation dies out by exponential damping as the waves move away from the source. If the emitted wavetrain is convectively Eckhaus unstable, the wave modulation can also saturate or grow exponentially far away from the source depending on the period of the back-and-forth motion. These scenarios are fully determined by the bifurcation diagram of corresponding MAWs. Our results offer a consistent explanation of recent experimental results obtained in a chemical reaction qi01 . Moreover, they may find application in future studies of other experimental systems exhibiting convective instabilities like hydrothermal waves hydrotherm . Periodic forcing of sources near the transition to chaotic or turbulent dynamics may be used to probe the existence and properties of modulated structures.

Acknowledgements \- We acknowledge stimulating discussion with B. Sandstede and Q. Ouyang, in addition we would like to thank Q. Ouyang for the permission to report his experimental images in Fig. 1(a),(d).


format: text

text:
# References

hep-ph/0302025

RAL-TR-2002-025

9 Feb 2003

Permutation Symmetry, Tri-Bimaximal Neutrino Mixing and

the $`S3`$ Group Characters

P. F. Harrison

Physics Department, Queen Mary University of London,

Mile End Rd. London E1 4NS. UK 111E-mail:p.f.harrison@qmul.ac.uk

and

W. G. Scott

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,

Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX. UK 222E-mail:w.g.scott@rl.ac.uk

## Abstract

We postulate that the neutrino mass matrix in the lepton flavour basis is an $`S3`$ group matrix in the natural representation of $`S3`$. This immediately requires one neutrino to be trimaximally mixed, as suggested by the solar neutrino data. We go on to postulate that the charged-lepton mass matrix in the neutrino mass-basis is an $`S3`$ class matrix in the natural representation of the $`S3`$ class-algebra, leading to exact tri-bimaximal mixing, which is compatible with data overall. The tri-bimaximal mixing matrix is seen to be closely related to the $`S3`$ character table, and is properly the $`S3S2`$ table of induction coefficients, where the $`S2`$ corresponds to symmetry under $`\mu \tau `$ interchange in the lepton flavour basis.

To be published in Physics Letters B

1. Tri-Bimaximal Mixing: A Problem for Democracy

We previously emphasised  the phenomenological promise of the so-called     tri-bimaximal hypothesis, defined by the lepton mixing matrix  :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`U=\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)`$ (1)
Since then, several new experimental results, especially the SNO  flux-independent solar neutrino result, updated measurements from SAGE  and GALLEX/GNO  and the recent KAMLAND  reactor result, have considerably strengthened the case. Given that we already know that $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.03`$ from reactors , one might even say that the evidence for the solar neutrino being trimaximally mixed, in particular $`|U_{e2}|^2`$ $`0.34\pm `$ 0.05 0.04 from SNO , is now better than the evidence for the atmospheric neutrino to be bimaximally mixed, cf. $`|U_{\mu 3}|^20.50\pm 0.11`$ in SUPER-K .

Tri-bimaximal mixing is sometimes incorrectly linked (eg. Ref. ) with the original rank-one democratic mass matrix (defined by all mass-matrix elements equal ). In fact, as we will see, the mass matrices associated with tri-bimaximal mixing are very far from the democratic form (Sections 4-5 below). It is true that the democratic mass matrix has always one trimaximal eigenvector ($`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$)   , but the problem is that it is always the heaviest mass-eigenstate (or in fact, more generally, the non-degenerate mass-eigenstate, see below) which ends up trimaximally mixed, ie. not what is needed phenomenologically (cf. Eq. 1). In particular, the democratic neutrino mass matrix can in no way be taken as a zeroth-order approximation for a mixing scenario where it is the solar neutrino (normally the intermediate mass neutrino $`\nu _2`$) which is trimaximally mixed, as in the case of tri-bimaximal mixing Eq. 1.

$`S3`$ symmetry remains interesting. It has been remarked  that the $`S3`$ invariance of the democratic matrix is unbroken under the addition of any multiple of the identity matrix to the purely democratic form (if the democratic component has negative sign then an inverted hierarchy results, still with full $`S3`$ invariance). Indeed, taking any polynomial function of a matrix preserves all the symmetries, and in general gives any eigenvalues associated with the original eigenvectors in any order (the Vandermonde matrix  formed from the original eigenvalues provides the transformation between the required polynomial coefficients and the desired eigenvalues). The problem with the democratic mass matrix here is that (up to a factor) it is ‘idempotent’, ie. its square is not an independent matrix and so we have in effect only two polynomial coefficients available (with two degenerate eigenvalues, not only are the two corresponding eigenvectors undefined, but the Vandermonde matrix has no inverse).

In this paper, we ‘solve’ the problem indicated above, by suggesting that the democratic mass matrix be dropped, in favour of an $`S3`$ ‘group matrix’  (more precisely, see below, by an element of the $`S3`$ group algebra, in the sense of representation theory) in the natural representation of the $`S3`$ group. Later in the paper we extend our argument to give a new and succinct prescription leading to tri-bimaximal mixing itself.

2. Development of Our Approach with a Familiar Example

Although the original trimaximal mixing scheme   seems now essentially ruled-out by experiment, it cannot be denied that trimaximal mixing occupied a special place in the space of all possible mixings. In the briefest terms, one had only to require that the neutrino mass matrix in the lepton flavour basis (or the charged-lepton mass matrix in the neutrino mass basis) was a $`C3`$ group matrix in the natural representation of $`C3`$ (see below), and the lepton mixing matrix was completely determined to be the trimaximal mixing matrix, identically the $`C3`$ group character table (see Appendix A) up to an overall normalisation factor $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ . ($`C3`$ here is the cyclic group on three objects, while $`S3`$ above is the corresponding symmetric group).

Explicitly, a $`C3`$ group matrix  is just an element of the $`C3`$ group algebra, ie. an arbitrary linear combination of the three $`C3`$ group elements, with arbitrary (complex) coefficients. (In the context of group representation theory, multiplication of group elements by scalars and addition of group elements are understood in the obvious way, within a given matrix representation). In the natural representation of $`C3`$ (using cycle notation and taking $`I`$ to denote the identity) the $`C3`$ group elements may be written:

$`I=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (2)
$`P(\alpha \beta \gamma )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)P(\gamma \beta \alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3)
From the physics point of view, if we restrict consideration to left-handed fields only, we may (as usual) take our mass matrices to be hermitian ($`MM^2:=MM^{}`$), whereby there is nothing to be gained by considering $`C3`$ group matrices which are more general than the hermitian combination:

$$M^2=aI+bP(\alpha \beta \gamma )+b^{}P(\gamma \beta \alpha )$$
(4)
where $`a`$ is real, $`b`$ is complex, and $`b^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`b`$ (ie. making $`a`$ complex and replacing $`b^{}`$ by an arbitrary complex parameter $`c`$, simply yields the same form Eq. 4, on taking the hermitian square, $`MMM^{}`$).

We see immediately that Eq. 4 is just the familiar $`3\times 3`$ circulant mass matrix :

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& b& b^{}\\ b^{}& a& b\\ b& b^{}& a\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
invariant under cyclic ($`C3`$) permutations of the generation indicies. Diagonalising Eq. 5 is equivalent to reducing the $`C3`$ group algebra to independent idempotents  (the projection operators of Ref. ) and leads directly to trimaximal mixing :

$$U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & \overline{\omega }\\ 1& \overline{\omega }& \omega \\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ and $`\overline{\omega }=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ are the complex cube roots of unity. We may say that the trimaximal mixing matrix Eq. 6 is the unitary matrix which reduces the natural representation of $`C3`$ to its irreducible form. The eigenvectors of the matrix Eq. 5 (appearing as the columns (or the complex-conjugated rows) of the matrix Eq. 6) are simply the character vectors corresponding to the three inequivalent (1-dimensional) irreducible representations of $`C3`$ (in which $`P(\alpha \beta \gamma )`$ (or $`P(\gamma \beta \alpha )`$) acts like $`1`$, $`\omega `$, $`\overline{\omega }`$ respectively, see Appendix A).

3. The Neutrino Mass Matrix as an $`S\mathrm{𝟑}`$ Group Matrix

Forced by experiment to renounce $`C3`$ invariance for leptons, we turn with renewed interest to the symmetric group $`S3`$. If we are to apply the foregoing argument to $`S3`$, we would expect to have to include, in addition, the odd $`S3`$ permutations:

$`P(\alpha \beta )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)P(\beta \gamma )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)P(\gamma \alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
Constructing a general (hermitian) $`S3`$ group matrix amounts to adding an arbitrary (real) linear combination $`M^2(\mathrm{odd})`$ of the odd group elements Eq. 7 to the previous linear combination $`M^2(\mathrm{even})`$ ($`:=M^2`$ from Eq. 4) of the even ($`C3`$) operators, Eq. 3:

$`M_\nu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2(\mathrm{even})+M^2(\mathrm{odd})`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`aI+bP(\alpha \beta \gamma )+b^{}P(\gamma \beta \alpha )+xP(\beta \gamma )+yP(\gamma \alpha )+zP(\alpha \beta )`$
where (as above) there is nothing to be gained by considering non-hermitian $`S3`$ group matrices, eg. with $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ complex, which always yield the form Eq. 8 on taking the hermitian square ($`MMM^{}`$). Notice that, within the natural representation, the six $`S3`$ group operators (Eq. 3 together with Eq. 7) are not fully independent:

$$I+P(\alpha \beta \gamma )+P(\gamma \beta \alpha )=P(\alpha \beta )+P(\beta \gamma )+P(\gamma \alpha )$$
(9)
so that the effective number of (real) parameters in Eq. 8 is actually only five. 111 The constraint Eq. 9 is due to the fact that the natural representation of the $`S3`$ group receives no contribution from the ‘alternating’ representation (as defined in Appendix A), whereby the corresponding idempotent of the $`S3`$ group algebra ($`:=`$ Eq. 9-LHS $``$ Eq. 9-RHS) is identically the null matrix, in the natural representation.

The structure of Eq. 8 may perhaps be best appreciated by noting that the contribution of the odd operators (from Eq. 7) is ‘retrocirculant’ :

$$M^2(\mathrm{odd})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{x}& \mathrm{z}& \mathrm{y}\\ \mathrm{z}& \mathrm{y}& \mathrm{x}\\ \mathrm{y}& \mathrm{x}& \mathrm{z}\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The significant property of a retrocirculant here, is that it has non-degenerate eigenvalues in general, and (clearly) always one trimaximal eigenvector ($`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$)! Futhermore, it is evident that these properties are not in general invalidated by the inclusion of the circulant (even) contribution already discussed. With $`S3`$ being a non-abelian group, Eq. 8 is not invariant under $`S3`$ permutations of the generation indices. We observe that it does, however, satisfy an $`S3`$ invariant constraint:

$$(M_\nu ^2)_{\alpha \alpha }(M_\nu ^2)_{\beta \beta }=(M_\nu ^2)_{\gamma \beta }(M_\nu ^2)_{\alpha \gamma }(\alpha \beta \gamma )$$
(11)
for all ($`S3`$) permutations of the generation indices ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$).

If Eq. 8 is taken to be the neutrino mass matrix in the lepton-flavour basis (as was already anticipated by the subscript on $`M_\nu ^2`$ in Eq. 8 and by the introduction of explicit flavour indices in Eq. 11), then, for a suitable choice of the coefficients, we have:

$`m_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{Re}b\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\mathrm{Im}b)^2+x^2+y^2+z^2xyyzzx}`$ (12)
$`m_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`a+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}b+x+y+z`$ (13)
$`m_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`a\mathrm{Re}b+\sqrt{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\mathrm{Im}b)^2+x^2+y^2+z^2xyyzzx}`$ (14)
(‘suitable’ only in the sense that the mass-eigenstates should turn out to be ordered appropriately, eg. $`m_1^2<m_2^2<m_3^2`$ for a conventional neutrino mass hierarchy). Eq. 8 is seen to correspond to the (two-parameter) mixing scheme proposed phenomenologically in Ref.  (to interpolate between tri-$`\varphi `$maximal and tri-$`\chi `$maximal mixing):

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`U=\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}c_\chi c_\varphi +i\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}s_\chi s_\varphi & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}c_\chi s_\varphi i\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}s_\chi c_\varphi \\ \frac{c_\chi c_\varphi is_\chi s_\varphi }{\sqrt{6}}\frac{c_\chi s_\varphi +is_\chi c_\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{c_\chi c_\varphi +is_\chi s_\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}\frac{c_\chi s_\varphi is_\chi c_\varphi }{\sqrt{6}}\\ \frac{c_\chi c_\varphi is_\chi s_\varphi }{\sqrt{6}}+\frac{c_\chi s_\varphi +is_\chi c_\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{c_\chi c_\varphi +is_\chi s_\varphi }{\sqrt{2}}\frac{c_\chi s_\varphi is_\chi c_\varphi }{\sqrt{6}}\end{array}\right).`$ (15)
In Eq. 15 we have used the abreviations: $`c_\chi =\mathrm{cos}\chi `$, $`s_\chi =\mathrm{sin}\chi `$, $`c_\varphi =\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, $`s_\varphi =\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, where:

$`\mathrm{tan}2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}(zy)}{z+y2x}}`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{b}}{[x^2+y^2+z^2xyyzzx]^{\frac{1}{2}}}}.`$ (17)
The $`CP`$-violation parameter $`J`$  is given by :

$$J=\frac{\mathrm{Im}b}{6[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(\mathrm{Im}b)^2+x^2+y^2+z^2xyyzzx]^{\frac{1}{2}}}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\chi }{6\sqrt{3}}.$$
(18)
Clearly, imposing Im $`b=0`$ in Eq. 8 (ie. $`\chi =0`$) would imply no $`CP`$ violation, whereas imposing $`y=z`$ instead (ie. $`\varphi =0`$) implies ‘mu-tau reflection symmetry’ . For both Im $`b=0`$ and $`y=z`$ (ie. $`\chi =0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$) the mixing matrix Eq. 15 evidently reduces to the tri-bimaximal form  , as does the mass matrix (Eq. 8), accordingly .

The six constants appearing in Eq. 8 may be expressed in terms of the three neutrino masses and the two mixing-matrix parameters as follows:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2}{3}}`$ (19)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2}{6}})+i{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2m_1^2}{2\sqrt{3}}}\mathrm{sin}2\chi `$ (20)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2m_1^2}{3}}\mathrm{cos}2\chi (\mathrm{cos}2\varphi )`$ (21)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2m_1^2}{6}}\mathrm{cos}2\chi (\mathrm{cos}2\varphi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi )`$ (22)
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_3^2m_1^2}{6}}\mathrm{cos}2\chi (\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi ),`$ (23)
where clearly (by virtue of Eq. 9) any arbitrary constant may be added to Eqs.19-20 provided that the same constant is subtracted from Eqs. 21-23.

Note that in this approach, in the case of $`S3`$ (cf. the case of $`C3`$, Section 2) the resulting mixing matrix (Eq. 15) is not directly the $`S3`$ character table. It is simply the generic unitary matrix which reduces the natural representation of $`S3`$ to irreducible form. The natural representation of $`S3`$ comprises the trivial 1-dimensional representation and a faithful 2-dimensional representation, which is determined only up to similarity transformations (hence the undetermined parameters appearing in Eq. 15). From its present derivation (and to distinguish it clearly from mixing ansatze based on the ‘democratic’ mass matrix) we will refer to the mixing Eq. 15 as ‘$`S3`$ group mixing’.

4. The Charged-Lepton Mass Matrix as an $`S\mathrm{𝟑}`$ Class Matrix

We have seen in Section 2 that a very succinct way to introduce trimaximal mixing is to demand that one or other of the mass-matrices is a $`C3`$ group matrix in the natural representation of $`C3`$. The mixing matrix is then essentially the $`C3`$ character table, with all states trimaximally mixed . We went on to generalise the argument to $`S3`$, finding that it is enough to take one of the mass matrices to be an $`S3`$ group matrix in the natural representation of the $`S3`$ group, to obtain a mixing matrix where one (and in particular any one) of the eigenvectors is trimaximally mixed, thereby ‘solving’ the problem of the democratic mass matrix discussed in Section 1.

However, a more predictive (and perhaps more interesting) way to generalise the trimaximal argument is to recognise that, with $`C3`$ being an abelian group, there is no distinction between the group elements and the group conjugacy classes in that case. Each $`C3`$ group element being individually a class, an arbitrary element of the $`C3`$ group algebra is also an arbitrary element of the $`C3`$ class algebra. It is therefore not obvious that the better generalisation to $`S3`$ should not simply postulate that one or other of the mass matrices should live in the natural representation of the $`S3`$ class algebra, rather than the $`S3`$ group algebra, which is certainly a signifcantly different idea.

Following this line of thought, we define (normalised) $`S3`$ class operators $`c_i`$:

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`I`$ (24)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\xi \eta \zeta )+P(\zeta \eta \xi )}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (25)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\xi \eta )+P(\eta \zeta )+P(\zeta \xi )}{\sqrt{3}}}`$ (26)
where the precise physical meaning of $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$, $`\zeta `$ remains unclear. Evidently, the $`S3`$ class multiplication table (by definition commutative) then takes the form:

|  | $`c_1`$ | $`c_2`$ | $`c_3`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`c_1`$ | $`c_1`$ | $`c_2`$ | $`c_3`$ |
| $`c_2`$ | $`c_2`$ | $`c_1+c_2/\sqrt{2}`$ | $`\sqrt{2}c_3`$ |
| $`c_3`$ | $`c_3`$ | $`\sqrt{2}c_3`$ | $`c_1+\sqrt{2}c_2`$ |

The structure constants in the table themselves provide a matrix representation for the $`c_i`$ (which is the natural representation of the $`S3`$ class algebra in terms of the $`c_i`$):

$`c_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)c_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)c_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\\ 1& \sqrt{2}& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (27)
as is readily verified by direct multiplication of the matrices.

We now postulate that the charged-lepton mass matrix in the neutrino mass-basis is a suitable linear combination of the $`S3`$ class operators in the above representation:

$$M_l^2=pc_1+qc_2+rc_3,$$
(28)
ie. explicitly:

$$M_l^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}p& q& r\\ q& p+q/\sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}r\\ r& \sqrt{2}r& p+\sqrt{2}q\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
From the usual argument (see eg. Section 2) the coefficients $`p`$, $`q`$, $`r`$ may be taken to be real. The eigenvalues of the matrix Eq. 29 are then the charged-lepton masses:

$`m_e^2`$ $`=`$ $`pq/\sqrt{2}`$ (30)
$`m_\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`p+\sqrt{2}q\sqrt{3}r`$ (31)
$`m_\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`p+\sqrt{2}q+\sqrt{3}r.`$ (32)
The coefficients (being ‘suitable’ only in that $`0<r/\sqrt{3}<q/\sqrt{2}<p`$ to order the mass-eigenstates in accord with experiment) are expressible in terms of the masses by:

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2+m_\mu ^2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}m_e^2`$ (33)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}({\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2+m_\mu ^2}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{3}})`$ (34)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2m_\mu ^2}{2\sqrt{3}}}.`$ (35)
The unitary matrix diagonalising Eq. 29 (independent of the values of $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`r`$) is directly the tri-bimaximal mixing matrix:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`U=\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
(the neutrino mass-eigenstates having been already implicitly ordered in accord with experiment, by the labelling of the class operators, in Eqs. 24-26). The charged-lepton mass eigenstates (ie. the eigenvectors of Eq. 29) appear as the rows of Eq. 36.

Clearly, the tri-bimaximal mixing matrix Eq. 36 is very closely related to the $`S3`$ table of characters (cf. as displayed in Appendix A below). In fact, it differs only by the class-dependent normalisation factors introduced into Eqs. 24-26. Diagonalising an $`S3`$ class matrix (such as Eq. 29) is entirely equivalent  to determining the $`S3`$ group characters, ie. to finding all the irreducible represenations of $`S3`$ by reducing the $`S3`$ class algebra to independent idempotents. Explicitly:

$$U_{li}=\sqrt{\frac{g_i}{g}}\chi _i^{(l)}$$
(37)
where $`\chi _i^{(l)}`$ is the $`i`$-th component of the $`l`$-th character vector, $`g_i`$ is the order of the class ($`g_i=1,2,3`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ for $`S3`$) and $`g`$ is the order of the group ($`g=6`$ for $`S3`$). Individual character components are simply related  to the eigenvalues of the corresponding class operators, whereby the charged-lepton masses may also be expressed (equivalently to Eqs. 30-32) in terms of the $`S3`$ group characters and the constants $`(p_1,p_2,p_3):=(p,q,r)`$, as follows:

$$m_l^2=\underset{i}{}p_i\frac{\sqrt{g_i}}{d_l}\chi _i^{(l)}$$
(38)
where $`d_l`$ is the dimension of the irreducible representation corresponding to the lepton flavour $`l`$. The irreducible representations for $`l=\tau `$ and $`l=\mu `$ are the two mutually conjugate 1-dimensional representations (the trivial and alternating representations respectively), while the electron ($`l=e`$) is to be associated with the 2-dimensional faithful representation having a self-conjugate tableau. In the extreme hierarchical limit, $`r/\sqrt{3}q/\sqrt{2}p`$ in Eqs. 30-32, only the trivial representation has mass.

It is perhaps worth re-iterating at this point that ‘data on neutrino oscillations point strongly …to tri-bimaximal mixing’ . We note that from its present derivation, and in view of the need to distinguish it from ‘$`S3`$ group mixing’ (Section 3), tri-bimaximal mixing might reasonably be termed ‘$`S3`$ class mixing’.

5. The Neutrino Mass Matrix as an $`S\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}S\mathrm{𝟐}`$ Class Operator.

Alerted to the relevance of class operators, we may now return to reconsider the neutrino mass matrix in the flavour basis. According to Section 3, the charged-lepton flavour basis ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ = $`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$) carries the natural representation of the $`S3`$ group (it was also noted that tri-bimaximal mixing requires a particular $`S3`$ group matrix with Im $`b=0`$ and $`y=z`$). Clearly any representation of a group also provides a representation for the classes, and seeking consistency with the results of Section 4, we now postulate that the neutrino mass matrix in the flavour basis is a class operator for the canonical subgroup chain $`S1S2S3`$ in the natural representation of the $`S3`$ group (class operators for successive subgroups clearly commute). The individual class operators may be written:

$`C(1)=I=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)C(2)=P(\mu \tau )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (39)
$`C(3)=P(e\mu )+P(\mu \tau )+P(\tau e)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (40)
(class normalisation factors are not needed here since they may be absorbed into the coefficients $`s`$, $`t`$, $`u`$ below, with no change of basis involved). The $`S2`$ class operator $`C(2)`$ has been chosen to be the $`\mu \tau `$ interchange operator . Of course, $`C(3)`$ is familiar as the ‘democratic’ mass matrix.

The most general (hermitian) $`S1S2S3`$ class operator may be written:

$$M_\nu ^2=sC(1)+tC(2)+uC(3).$$
(41)
Explicitly:

$$M_\nu ^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s+t+u& u& u\\ u& s+u& t+u\\ u& t+u& s+u\end{array}\right)$$
(42)
where $`s`$, $`t`$, $`u`$ are real. The eigenvalues of the matrix Eq. 41 are the neutrino masses:

$`m_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`s+t`$ (43)
$`m_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`s+t+3u`$ (44)
$`m_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`st.`$ (45)
The coefficients $`03u2t2s`$ (for $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$) are given in terms of the neutrino masses by:

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_3^2}{2}}`$ (46)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2m_3^2}{2}}`$ (47)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2m_1^2}{3}}`$ (48)
now with no arbitrary constant involved (cf. Eqs. 19-23). The extreme hierarchical limit for the neutrino masses is approached as $`u0`$ and $`ts`$, when only the $`\nu _3`$ has mass. It may be remarked that it is the ‘democratic’ component $`C(3)`$ which has the (numerically) smallest coefficient ($`u`$) in Eq. 41, vanishing in the hierarchical limit.

Diagonalising the mass matrix Eq. 42, the resulting mixing matrix takes the familiar (Eq. 1) tri-bimaximal form, which is also referred to here as ‘$`S3S2`$ mixing’:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}`$
$`U=\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (49)
The eigenvectors of Eq. 42 appear as the columns of Eq. 49.

Clearly, the mass matrix Eq. 42 may equally well be viewed as the particular $`S3`$ group matrix’  having $`\mathrm{Im}b=0`$ and $`y=z`$ (see Section 3). The $`\nu _2`$ has the trimaximal eigenvector ($`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, $`1/\sqrt{3}`$) which is in effect the character vector of the trivial 1-dimensional (symmetric) representation of $`S3`$. The $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _3`$ both belong to the self-conjugate (faithful) 2-dimensional representation of $`S3`$, being distinguisehd here by their symmetry ($`\pm 1`$ respectively) under $`\mu \tau `$ exchange (‘mutativity’ ). The tri-bimaximal mixing matrix is then properly regarded as nothing more than the table of induction coefficients for the $`[2][1]=[3]+[21]`$ induced representation of $`S3`$. It is simply the unitary matrix which reduces the natural representation of $`S3`$, whilst simultaneously diagonalising the $`\mu \tau `$ interchange operator .

In retrospect, the original circulant mass matrix  leading to trimaximal mixing might have been seen as a class operator for the group chain $`S3C3`$. Of course we now know that, for the neutrino mass matrix in the flavour basis, an $`S3S2`$ class operator Eq. 41, is preferred experimentally (the ‘$`S1`$’ in fact carries no additional symmetry information and is dropped here in accord with usual practice).

6. Discussion

We have been to a large degree logically led, from the original trimaximal hypothesis, first to ‘$`S3`$ group mixing’ Eq. 15, and then on to ‘$`S3`$ class mixing’ or ‘$`S3S2`$ mixing’, ie. to tri-bimaximal mixing. The two levels of generalisation are not inconsistent: the latter is clearly more restrictive, in that exact tri-bimaximal mixing requires the charged-lepton mass matrix to be an $`S3`$ class matrix in the neutrino mass-basis, and also requires the neutrino mass matrix in the lepton flavour basis to be a particular $`S3`$ group matrix (with Im $`b=0`$ and $`y=z`$), ie. an $`S3S2`$ class operator. For a discussion of the forms of both mass-matrices in an intermediate basis see Ref. .

Thus, while ‘$`S3`$ group mixing’ is regarded as an interesting mixing ansatz in its own right , our main results relate to tri-bimaximal mixing, and the link to the $`S3`$ group characters  via Eq. 37 (Section 4) and to the $`S3`$ induction coefficients  (Section 5). In the first case the neutrino mass eigenstates are associated with the normalised $`S3`$ class operators Eqs. 24-26 ($`\nu _ic_i`$), while the charged-lepton mass-eigenstates are in correspondence with the $`S3`$ irreducible representations. Then, in the flavour basis, the charged leptons $`e`$, $`\mu `$, $`\tau `$ are in correspondence with the $`C3`$ classes $`c_0`$, $`c_{}`$, $`c_+`$ respectively (viewed as the coset representatives with respect to the $`\mu \tau `$ exchange subgroup) while the neutrino mass-eigenstates are in correspondence with the irreducible basis vectors of the corresponding induced representation of $`S3`$. Clearly classes (and hence linear combinations of classes) are always permutation invariants.

Finally, we remark that the notion of the yukawa couplings here being related to the structure constants of a permutation class algebra, is not so different in character from the established notion of the couplings between gauge bosons being the structure constants of a lie algebra. Of course as always, experiment will be the ultimate judge, with the detailed experimental predictions of exact tri-bimaximal mixing (eg. $`P(ee)5/90.56`$ in KAMLAND , zero $`CP`$ violation, no high-energy matter resonance etc.) being already documented in the literature .

Acknowledgement

We thank P. Slodowy for helpful explanations on group characters. This work was supported by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC).

Appendix A: Group Character Tables for the $`C\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`S\mathrm{𝟑}`$ Groups

For ease of reference, the character tables for the cyclic group $`C3`$ on three symbols, and for the corresponding symmetric group $`S3`$, are given below.

For $`C3`$ there are three irreducible representations, all 1-dimensional, where the generator of (say ‘clockwise’) cyclic permutations acts like $`1`$, $`\omega `$ or $`\overline{\omega }`$, which are referred to here as the trivial, $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$-representations respectively. The three classes ($`c_0,c_+,c_{}`$) comprise the identity, clockwise and anti-clockwise cyclic permutations, respectively.

For $`S3`$ there are likewise three irreducible representations, two of which are 1-dim-ensional. In the trivial representation all group elements act like (+1), while in the alternating representation, elements corresponding to odd permutations act instead like (-1). There is a faithful 2-dimensional representation which may be written :

$$I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

$$P(\alpha \beta \gamma )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/2& \sqrt{3}/2\\ \sqrt{3}/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)P(\gamma \beta \alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/2& \sqrt{3}/2\\ \sqrt{3}/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)$$

$$P(\alpha \beta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/2& \sqrt{3}/2\\ \sqrt{3}/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)P(\beta \gamma )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)P(\gamma \alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1/2& \sqrt{3}/2\\ \sqrt{3}/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)$$

(up to equivalence transformations). The three classes ($`c_i`$, $`i=13`$) correspond to the identity, the even (ie. cyclic), and odd permutations, respectively.

The group character tables below give the traces $`\chi _i^{(l)}`$ of the matrices comprising all the inequivalent irreducible representations $`(l)`$ of the group, as a function of conjugacy class $`c_i`$. (Matrices representing different group elements within the same class have the same trace, and traces are unaltered by equivalence transformations).

| Cyclic Group $`C3`$ | Conjugacy Classes $``$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (order of group: $`g=3`$) | (order of class, $`g_i`$) | | |
| Irreducible | $`c_0`$ | $`c_+`$ | $`c_{}`$ |
| Representations $``$ | $`(1)`$ | $`(1)`$ | $`(1)`$ |
| $`\omega `$-rep. | $`1`$ | $`\omega `$ | $`\overline{\omega }`$ |
| $`\overline{\omega }`$-rep. | $`1`$ | $`\overline{\omega }`$ | $`\omega `$ |
| triv. | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ |

| Symmetric Group $`S3`$ | Conjugacy Classes $``$ | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (order of group: $`g=6`$) | (order of class, $`g_i`$) | | |
| Irreducible | $`c_1`$ | $`c_2`$ | $`c_3`$ |
| Representations $``$ | $`(1)`$ | $`(2)`$ | $`(3)`$ |
| faith. | $`2`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ |
| alt. | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ |
| triv. | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ |

The following abbreviations have been used: $`\omega `$-rep. = $`\omega `$-representation, triv. = trivial, alt. = alternating and faith. = faithful (representations). The complex cube roots of unity are given by: $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ and $`\overline{\omega }=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$.


text:
# Structural, electronic and magnetic properties of heterofullerene C₄₈B₁₂

## Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Denis A. Lehane and Dr. Hartmut Schmider for their technical help. One of us (R. H. X.) thanks the HPCVL at Queen’s University for the use of its parallel supercomputing facilities. L.J. gratefully acknowledges the Danish Research Training Council for financial support. V.H.S. acknowledges support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).


text:
# Scaling Distributions of Quarks, Mesons and Proton for all 𝑝_𝑇, Energy and Centrality

## I Introduction

In two recent papers we have discussed the scaling properties of the large $`p_T`$ distributions of $`\pi ^0`$ produced in Au+Au collisions at the relativistic heavy-ion collider (RHIC) and presented their implications. As reported in the first paper 1 , hereafter referred to as I, we found energy scaling at maximum centrality, while in the second paper 2 , referred to as II, we found centrality scaling at the highest energy. The two can be combined to yield one scaling distribution for all energy and centrality. In I we derive the quark distribution from the $`\pi ^0`$ data in the framework of the recombination model; we now do the same for all centralities and determine the nature of degradation of the quark momentum in the dense medium, as we have done for the $`\pi ^0`$ momentum in II. From the quark distribution we can calculate the proton distribution for all centralities. Moreover, we can extend our consideration to the production of kaons so that we can calculate not only the $`p/\pi `$ ratio, but also the $`K/\pi `$ ratio.

We are able to do all that for two essential reasons. The first is that the discovery of the scaling properties facilitates the analysis by avoiding the need to consider the variation of physics issues at different centralities and energies. The other is that the quark distribution we derive is for $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ just before hadronization. It is not the result of some dynamical evolution starting from hard collisions, for which many complex issues must be considered 3 ; 4 ; 5 . The recombination model that we use can only address the hadronization problem of the soft partons at low virtuality, but at any $`p_T`$. From the pion data we infer the distributions of the soft $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, which in turn are used to give the proton and kaon distributions through recombination. How the soft partons get to be where they are in the $`p_T`$ space is not considered. However, by studying the momentum degradation of the quarks, we gain from the centrality dependence of the $`p_T`$ distributions some understanding about how quarks lose momenta as they propagate through the dense medium. Experimentally verifiable predictions are made on the proton and kaon transverse momentum distributions.

The physical interpretation of the scaling variable is given at the very end, where the term transversity is suggested to refer to the difficulty of acquiring transverse motion. The broader implication on the creation of quark-gluon plasma is finally addressed.

## II Scaling Distribution of Pions

From the preliminary PHENIX data of $`\pi ^0`$ production in Au+Au collisions at RHIC 6  we have found a scaling distribution at midrapidity

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=A(N)K^2(s,N)\frac{1}{2\pi p_T}\frac{d^2N_\pi }{d\eta dp_T},$$
(1)
where

$$z=p_T/K(s,N).$$
(2)
The symbol $`N`$ denotes the number of participants, $`N_{\mathrm{part}}`$, for brevity. The scaling factor $`K(s,N)`$ is first found in I for $`N`$ fixed at its maximum, $`N_{\mathrm{max}}=350`$, to be (in GeV/c)

$$K(s)=0.69+1.55\times 10^3\sqrt{s},$$
(3)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is in units of GeV, and $`K(s)`$ is normalized to 1 at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. When $`N`$ is allowed to vary, while $`\sqrt{s}`$ is fixed at 200 GeV, it is found in II that the scaling factor is

$$K(N)=1.2266.36\times 10^4N,$$
(4)
normalized to 1 at $`N=350`$. We now combine the two and assume the factorizable form

$$K(s,N)=K(s)K(N).$$
(5)
In this paper we investigate the centrality dependence mostly at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. The normalization factor $`A(N)`$ in Eq. (1) is found in II to have a power-law dependence on the number of binary collisions, $`N_c`$,

$$A(N_c)=530N_c^{0.9},$$
(6)
where $`N_c`$ in turn depends on $`N`$ as

$$N_c=0.44N^{1.33},$$
(7)
a relationship that is determined from the tables listed in Refs. 7 ; 8 .

In Fig. 1 we show the combined plot of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ exhibiting the $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV PHENIX data for 5 bins of centrality as well as the $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV data at 0-10% centrality 6  and the 17 GeV data at 0-12.7% 8.1 . The $`\pi ^0`$ data, which are only for $`p_T>1`$ GeV/c, are supplemented by the $`\pi ^+`$ data for $`p_T<1`$ GeV/c at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV and 0-5% centrality 9 . Evidently, all the data points fall on one universal scaling distribution that is invariant under changes in $`N`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$. The 17 GeV data are obtained by the WA98 Collaboration 8.1  for Pb+Pb collisions and show a slight departure from the universal curve for $`z>3`$. It should be recognized that those data points that deviate from the scaling distribution correspond to $`p_T>3`$ GeV/c, which is a $`p_T`$ range that represents a very large fraction of the total available energy of 17 GeV. Thus the kinematic constraint of energy conservation introduces a non-dynamical factor that suppresses the high-$`p_T`$ behavior, not present in the other data at $`\sqrt{s}`$130 GeV. Such a violation of scaling is expected, and should not be regarded as an invalidation of the general scaling behavior we observe. On the contrary, it is amazing that the scaling behavior can cover such a wide range of $`\sqrt{s}`$, when most of the 17 GeV data points with $`p_T<3`$ GeV/c are included.

The scaling data points can be well fitted by 2

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=1200(z^2+2)^{4.8}\left(1+25\mathrm{e}^{4.5z}\right),$$
(8)
which is shown by the solid line in Fig. 1. This formula differs from the one given in I mainly by the addition of the exponential term, which reflects the statistical behavior at small $`z`$ represented by the $`\pi ^+`$ data, but is insignificant at large $`z`$, where the power-law behavior is indicative of the effects of hard collisions.

A number of consequences of the scaling distribution, Eq. (8), can be examined directly. First, the integral

$$=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zz\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\frac{A(N)}{2\pi }\frac{dN_{\pi ^0}}{d\eta }$$
(9)
can be evaluated to yield $`=46.2`$. Using Eqs. (6) and (7) for $`A(N)=A(N_c(N))`$, we can calculate the $`N`$ dependence of $`dN_{\pi ^0}/d\eta `$ at midrapidity. The data that are available for comparison are $`dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta /(0.5N)`$ vs $`N`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV 8 , shown in Fig. 2. We plot in that figure in solid line our calculated result for $`dN_{\pi ^\pm }/d\eta /(0.5N)`$, which is obtained from Eq. (9) by identifying $`dN_{\pi ^\pm }/d\eta `$ with $`2dN_{\pi ^0}/d\eta `$. Since $`\pi ^\pm `$ is the dominant part of all charged particles, one should regard the comparison between the calculated $`N_{\pi ^\pm }`$ and the measured $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ to be satisfactory. Recall that although the $`p/\pi `$ ratio can exceed 1 around $`p_T3`$ GeV/c, it is small at small $`p_T`$ where the distributions are dominant, so the production of proton does not contribute to the integrated result as a large fraction of the total $`dN_{\mathrm{ch}}/d\eta `$.

Another consequence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is the possibility to calculate the nuclear modification factor

$$R_{AA}(p_T)=\frac{d^2N_{\pi ^0}^{AA}/d\eta dp_T}{N_cd^2N_{\pi ^0}^{pp}/d\eta dp_T}.$$
(10)
The data available for that are given in Ref. 6 . We show in Fig. 3 the data for two centrality bins: 0-10% and 70-80%. The corresponding values of $`N`$ are 317 and 9.5, respectively 7 , for which the calculated $`R_{AA}(p_T)`$ are shown by the solid and dash-dot lines. For $`N_{\pi ^0}^{pp}`$ in the denominator of Eq. (10) we have used $`N=2`$. Experimentally, it is known that the peripheral nuclear collisions cannot be identified with $`pp`$ collisions. The ratio $`R_{AA}(p_T)`$ is defined with $`N_{\pi ^0}^{pp}`$ in the denominator so as to have a definitive experimental normalization. We calculate the ratio with $`N=2`$ in the denominator so that no additional experimental input is used. Our point is to show the consistency of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ when the value of $`N`$ is extrapolated to extreme limits. Toward that end we find the comparison between the data points and the calculated curves in Fig. 3 to be acceptable.

The scaling distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is a representation of the data over 9 orders of magnitude for all centralities and for all energies where data exist. Since the fit is done in the log scale in Fig. 1, one can expect some deviations in the linear scale, as the tests in Figs. 2 and 3 are done. The data must, of course, be self-consistent, so any discrepencies in those figures are due to the extrapolation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ to very small $`z`$ in the calculation of $`dN_{\pi ^0}/d\eta `$ and to very small $`N`$ for $`R_{AA}`$. We conclude from those tests that the formula (8) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is quite reliable even down to very small values of $`z`$ and $`N`$.

## III Scaling Distribution of Quarks

From the scaling distribution of $`\pi ^0`$ it is possible to derive the quark distribution in the framework of the recombination model. Those quarks have low virtuality (hence, soft) and are at the last stage of their existence just before hadronization. They are not to be confused with the partons at high virtuality (hence, hard) just after hard collisions. The evolution from the hard partons to the soft quarks through gluon radiation and conversion to quark pairs in the dense medium involve both perturbative and non-perturbative QCD processes that are complicated, only some of which can be calculated 3 ; 5 ; 10 ; 11 . The last step to hadrons is circumvented by use of the phenomenological fragmentation function that connects hard partons to hadrons directly. Our use of the recombination model treats only the last step from soft quarks to hadrons, and can make no statement about the evolutionary process that begins from hard collisions. What can be treated is how the soft quarks recombine in different combinations to form different hadrons. That is what we shall do in the following sections. Here we first derive the quark distributions and examine how they depend on centrality.

The application of the recombination model 12 ; 13  to the high $`p_T`$ problem has been discussed in I. The recombination of a $`q`$ and a $`\overline{q}`$ to form a $`\pi ^0`$, where $`q\overline{q}`$ can be either $`u\overline{u}`$ or $`d\overline{d}`$, but not both $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$, is described by \[see I-Eq. (13)\]

$$\frac{dN_{\pi ^0}}{zdz}=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2z_1z_2F_{q\overline{q}}(z_1,z_2)R_\pi (z_1,z_2,z),$$
(11)
where our $`dN_{\pi ^0}/zdz`$ is averaged over rapidity at midrapidity and over the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ with the $`1/2\pi `$ factor included, unlike the experimental distribution $`(2\pi )^1d^2N_{\pi ^0}/d\eta p_Tdp_T`$, which is an average over $`\varphi `$ that shows the $`1/2\pi `$ factor explicitly, as in Eq. (1). The joint distribution $`F_{q\overline{q}}(z_1,z_2)`$ is assumed, for heavy-ion collisions, to have the factorizable form $`F_{q\overline{q}}(z_1,z_2)=F_q(z_1)F_{\overline{q}}(z_2)`$ with $`F_q(z_1)`$ being the quark distribution in the scaling variable $`z_1`$, and $`F_{\overline{q}}(z_2)`$ for the antiquark. The recombination function $`R_\pi (z_1,z_2,z)`$ depends on the wave function of the constituent quarks in the pion; in the valon model 1 ; 13  it is

$$R_\pi (z_1,z_2,z)=z^2\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z}+\frac{z_2}{z}1\right),$$
(12)
where the valon distribution in the pion is determined by use of the data on Drell-Yan production by pion, which is the only way to probe the pion structure.

At $`N=N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, considered in I, the LHS of Eq. (11) is identified with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$, which in I is scaling in $`s`$. Now for all centrality the LHS of Eq. (11) is replaced by the new $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ given in Eq. (8), scaling in both $`N`$ and $`s`$, and on the RHS the new scaling $`F_q(z_1)`$ and $`F_{\overline{q}}(z_2)`$ are to be determined. Thus putting the various pieces together, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=_0^z𝑑z_1z_1\left(1\frac{z_1}{z}\right)F_q(z_1)F_{\overline{q}}(zz_1).$$
(13)
There is no explicit dependence on $`N`$ or $`s`$ in this equation, but the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ distributions, being scale invariant, have implicit dependences on $`p_T`$ and $`N`$ that will be examined below.

Since the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$ in Eq. (13) are at the end of their evolutionary processes, and are therefore soft partons dominated by the products of gluon conversion, their distributions can differ in normalization, but not significantly in their $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ dependences, a property that is supported by the observation that the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio is nearly constant in $`p_T`$ 14 . Denoting the $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio by $`c`$, we thus use the relationship

$$F_{\overline{q}}(z)=c^{1/3}F_q(z).$$
(14)
At RHIC energies $`c`$ is roughly 0.7; at SPS $`c`$ is about 0.13 14.1 ; 14.2 . Since $`c`$ depends on the energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, Eq. (14) is not strictly a scaling relationship. The smallness of $`c`$ at SPS energy is due to the difficulty of producing a large number of $`\overline{p}`$ compared to $`p`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=17`$ GeV 14.3 . Such a scaling violation is expected, just like the deviation of the diamond points at $`z>3`$ from the universal scaling curve in Fig. 1 for kinematical reasons. However, over the whole range of variation of $`F_q(z)`$ that we shall determine, the effect due to the variation of $`c`$ is small by comparison, as we shall see.

Let us put our emphasis on the scaling region of $`c`$ by setting $`c=0.7`$. Using that in Eq. (14) and then on the RHS of (13), with Eq. (8) on the LHS, we can vary the parametrization of $`F_q(z)`$ to achieve a good fit of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$. Our result is

$$F_q(z)=15(z^2+0.47z+0.72)^{4.25}.$$
(15)
In Fig. 4 we show a plot of Eq. (8) by the solid line and our fit of it using Eq. (15) in (13) by the dashed line. Clearly, the fit is very good. The quark distribution given by Eq. (15) is shown in Fig. 5 over a range of 9 orders of magnitude of variation. How would that be affected, if $`c`$ is lowered to 0.13? The normalization of $`F_q(z)`$ in Fig. 5 would be increased by a factor of $`(0.7/0.13)^{1/6}=1.3`$, which is insignificant compared to the 9 orders of magnitude of variation of $`F_q(z)`$.

From Eq. (15) we can first determine the average $`z`$

$$z=\frac{𝑑zz^2F_q(z)}{𝑑zzF_q(z)}=0.415.$$
(16)
We then define a new variable

$$u=z/z,$$
(17)
in terms of which we can define a new distribution

$`\psi _q(u)`$ $`=`$ $`F_q(z(u))/{\displaystyle 𝑑uuF_q(z(u))}`$
$`=`$ $`z^2F_q(z(u))/{\displaystyle 𝑑zzF_q(z)}.`$
This distribution has not only the property that

$$𝑑uu\psi _q(u)=1$$
(19)
by definition, but also

$$𝑑uu^2\psi _q(u)=1.$$
(20)
These are the properties of a KNO-type distribution 15 . To be strictly KNO scaling, all higher moments should be independent of $`N`$, as we shall investigate. The virtue of the scaling variable $`u`$ is that it can be expressed directly in terms of $`p_T`$, since from Eqs. (2) and (17) we have

$$u=p_T/p_T_N,$$
(21)
where $`p_T_N`$ is the average $`p_T`$ at fixed centrality and $`s`$. Note that the scale factor $`K(s,N)`$ is common for the $`p_T`$ of both $`\pi ^0`$ and $`q`$. In the case of pions 2  the variable $`u`$ can, in principle, be determined unambiguously from the experiments directly, unlike the variable $`z`$ that requires rescaling and fitting of the data at each $`N`$ and $`s`$. Indeed, the variable $`u`$ is constructed in the same spirit as in the original derivation of KNO scaling 15 . Although in the case of quarks here $`u`$ cannot be experimentally measured, it is useful to have a KNO distribution $`\psi _q(u)`$ as a goal for theoretical modeling, since the $`u`$ variable can more directly be related to the $`p_T`$ of the quarks.

From the definition in Eq. (18) we have

$$\psi _q(u)=1420(u^2+1.13u+4.18)^{4.25}.$$
(22)
A plot of this distribution is shown in Fig. 6. The existence of such a scaling distribution in terms of an intuitive variable given in Eq. (21) suggests that there is a great deal of regularity in the interplay between $`N`$ and $`p_T`$. Remembering how $`J/\psi `$ production is expected to have an anomalous $`p_T`$ dependence in $`AA`$ collisions when deconfinement occurs 16 , we find the lack of irregularity in the $`p_T`$ distribution of the quarks to suggest that the subject of $`p_T`$ dependences of low-mass particles is not a fertile ground to find signals of quark-gluon plasma — unless, of course, scaling violation is dramatically found at LHC, say.

Having analytic forms for $`F_q(z)`$ and $`\psi _q(u)`$ enables us to investigate the degradation of the parton $`p_T`$ in the dense medium. To that end we define the momentum fraction variable

$$x=p_T/K_0,$$
(23)
where $`K_0`$ is a fixed scale, which we take to be 10 Gev/c. It is tacitly assumed that there is no physics of interest here for $`p_T>10`$ GeV/c. If that is not the case, an upward revision of $`K_0`$ is trivial. From Eqs. (2) and (23) we have

$$z=xK_0/K(s,N),$$
(24)
and we may rewrite the scaling quark distribution as

$$F_q(z)=F_q(x,N),$$
(25)
where the $`s`$ dependence is suppressed. We can then define the normalized quark distribution

$$Q(x,N)=F_q(x,N)/_0^1𝑑xxF_q(x,N).$$
(26)
The $`x`$ dependences of $`Q(x,N)`$ for various representative values of $`N`$ are shown in Fig. 7 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. It is evident that, as $`N`$ increases, the high $`x`$ tail of $`Q(x,N)`$ is suppressed, with a concurrent slight increase at very small $`x`$, since the integral of $`Q(x,N)`$ over $`xdx`$ is constant at 1. The crossover is at $`x0.04`$, corresponding to $`p_T0.4`$ Gev/c. Thus the effect of the dense medium is to degrade the $`p_T`$ of the quarks, which is a well known property, but in a very regular way that we now describe.

Let us define the ratio

$$R(x,N)=\frac{Q(x,N)}{Q(x,2)}$$
(27)
so that the suppression at most $`x`$ and enhancement at small $`x`$ can be exhibited more clearly, as shown in Fig. 8 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. Note that for $`x>0.3`$ the suppression is rather uniform. The rapid change in the range $`0<x<0.3`$ can be seen in a different plot, shown in Fig. 9. The decrease for $`x>0.04`$, as $`N`$ is increased, is now clear, as is the increase for $`x<0.04`$. It should be recognized that in normalizing $`Q(x,N)`$ by $`Q(x,2)`$ in Eq. (27) it is not important whether $`Q(x,2)`$ agrees well with the corresponding distribution in $`pp`$ collisions. The ratio removes the exponential dependence at small $`x`$ that is common for all $`N`$ and displays better the relative change as $`N`$ is varied. Also, the extrapolation to very small $`x`$ may not be accurate. The line for $`x=0.01`$ in Fig. 9 is intended mainly to give a rough idea of the nature of increase for $`x<0.04`$.

To quantify the degree of degradation, we take the moments of $`Q(x,N)`$ and define

$$Q_n(N)=_0^1𝑑xx^{n+1}Q(x,N).$$
(28)
We do not consider the order of the moment $`n>5`$, since higher moments demand more accuracy at higher $`x`$, which we cut off at $`x=1`$. The extrapolation of our scaling distribution $`F_q(z)`$ to higher $`z`$ is not without uncertainties. However, for $`n5`$ our analysis is reliable, and provides adequate insight into the nature of the degradation in the $`0<x<1`$ region. In Fig. 10 we show ln $`Q_n(N)`$ vs $`N`$ for $`n=1,\mathrm{},5`$; the relationship can be well approximated by linear dependence

$$\mathrm{ln}Q_n(N)=a_nb_nN,$$
(29)
where the slope $`b_n`$ is shown in the inset. Clearly, $`b_n`$ depends linearly on $`n`$

$$b_n=\lambda n,\lambda =5.35\times 10^4.$$
(30)
We can combine these two equations to write

$$\frac{d}{dN}\mathrm{ln}Q_n(N)=\lambda n,n5,$$
(31)
or

$$Q_n(N)=Q_n(N_0)\mathrm{e}^{\lambda n(NN_0)}.$$
(32)
Since Eq. (28) implies $`Q_n(N)=x^n_N`$, Eq. (32) is therefore also

$$x^n_N=x^n_{N_0}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda n(NN_0)}.$$
(33)
In particular, for $`n=1,N_0=2`$, and $`N=350`$, we have

$$x_{350}/x_2=0.83.$$
(34)
Thus even at the maximum separation between $`N`$ and $`N_0`$, the average $`p_T`$ of the quarks loses only 17%. This is because even severe suppression of high-$`x`$ quarks cannot change significantly the average $`x`$, which is dominated by the low-$`x`$ behavior. However, the same cannot be said about the higher moments.

What we have found above are properties of the quarks before hadronization. Unfortunately, they cannot be checked directly by experiments. For testable predictions we now go to the study of proton and kaon formation, whose spectra can be measured experimentally.

## IV Scaling Distribution of Proton

The quarks considered in the preceding section can not only combine with antiquarks to form pions, but also combine with other quarks to form protons. The formulation of the problem is discussed in I, where centrality variation is not considered. Now we allow $`N`$ to vary, starting from the new quark distribution $`F_q(z)`$, whose scaling behavior includes the implicit dependence on centrality. As before, the treatment of proton production is not reliable at low $`z`$, where $`p_T`$ of the proton is low enough to make the mass effect important. Our calculation that is scale invariant cannot take into account the mass-dependent effects.

The proton distribution arising from the recombination of $`uud`$ quarks is given by 1

$$\frac{dN_p}{zdz}=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2𝑑z_3z_1z_2z_3F_{uud}(z_1,z_2,z_3)R_p(z_1,z_2,z_3,z),$$
(35)
where

$$F_{uud}(z_1,z_2,z_3)=F_u(z_1)F_u(z_2)F_d(z_3),$$
(36)
and

$$R_p(z_1,z_2,z_3,z)=0.057z^2G_p(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3).$$
(37)
$`G_p(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ is the valon distribution in a proton, expressed in terms of the valon momentum fractions $`\xi _i=z_i/z`$ 17 . It is determined from the parton distributions that fit the deep inelastic scattering data, and is

$$G_p(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)=g(\xi _1\xi _2)^\alpha \xi _3^\beta \delta (\xi _1+\xi _2+\xi _31),$$
(38)
where

$$\alpha =1.755,\beta =1.05,$$
(39)
$$g=[B(\alpha +1,\beta +1)B(\alpha +1,\alpha +\beta +2)]^1.$$
(40)
The recombination function for the proton is more complicated than that for the pion because the proton is not as tightly bound as the pion in terms of the constituent quarks masses, but the procedures for the determination of the recombination functions are similar.

Equation (35) is derived in I for $`N=N_{\mathrm{max}}`$. For $`N<N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the new scaling function for $`F_q`$ in Eq. (15) is to be used for the quark distributions $`F_u`$ and $`F_d`$ in Eq. (36). The resulting integral is to be identified with the new proton scaling distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)`$, as in the pion case. We show in Fig. 11 the result on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)`$, for which only the $`z>3`$ part is plotted, since it is unreliable for $`z<3`$ due to the neglect of the mass effect.

The relationship between the calculated $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)`$ and the $`p_T`$ distribution $`dN_p/p_Tdp_T(s,N)`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)=A_p(N)K_p^2(s,N)\frac{dN_p}{p_Tdp_T}(s,N),$$
(41)
where, we repeat, our $`dN_p/p_Tdp_T`$ corresponds to the experimental $`(2\pi p_T)^1d^2N_p/d\eta dp_T`$ \[cf. Eq. (1)\]. We have added a subscript $`p`$ to each function in Eq. (41) to emphasize their reference to proton; indeed, we should similarly add a subscript $`\pi `$ to the corresponding functions in Eq. (1) to clarify their differences, as we shall do below when we compare $`p`$ and $`\pi `$ production. Whereas Eq. (1) is determined by the phenomenological analysis of the $`\pi ^0`$ data in II, there are no similar data on the $`p`$ spectra to confirm Eq. (41). However, on theoretical grounds we expect that relationship to exist for the following reasons. First, since the quark distribution is scale invariant, the recombination model implies that there is a scaling distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)`$ for the proton, as we have calculated. That gives the LHS of Eq. (41). On the RHS we expect $`K_p(s,N)=K_\pi (s,N)=K_q(s,N)`$, since the same scaling variable $`z`$ has been used for pion, quark and proton. Without that universal variable $`z`$ the recombination model cannot be formulated in the form of Eqs. (11) and (35). Finally, we conjecture that

$$A_p(N)=A_\pi ^{3/2}(N)$$
(42)
on the grounds of internal consistency, since the comparison among Eqs. (1), (11) and (13) suggests that $`F_q`$ implicitly absorbs an $`A_\pi ^{1/2}`$ factor. When that factor is applied to Eqs. (35), (36) and (41), we expect Eq. (42) to follow. This conjecture can be independently checked when the centrality dependence of the proton distribution at high $`p_T`$ becomes available and the existence of the scaling $`\mathrm{\Phi }_p(z)`$ can then be examined directly from the data, as is done in II. If the conjecture is verified, then the data provide empirical evidence for proton being the hadronization product of three quarks, rather than other mechnisms such as gluon junction 4 ; 19 .

One way to check Eq. (42) is to calculate the $`p/\pi `$ ratio, $`R_{p/\pi }`$, at different centrality bins, where

$$R_{p/\pi }(p_T,N)=\frac{dN_p}{p_Tdp_T}(N)/\frac{dN_\pi }{p_Tdp_T}(N).$$
(43)
In I this ratio has been calculated for $`N=N_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Using Eqs. (41) and (42) we now can calculate it for $`N<N_{\mathrm{max}}`$. There is no data in the $`p_T`$ range where our prediction is reliable. However, PHENIX does have preliminary data on $`R_{p/\pi }`$ for $`p_T<3.7`$ GeV/c for two centrality bins, 0-5% and 60-91% 14 . They differ by roughly a factor of 3 with large errors for $`p_T3`$ GeV/c. Assuming that the ratio of ratios is likely to remain the same at higher $`p_T`$, we can calculate it for comparison, with the definition

$$r(p_T)=R_{p/\pi }(p_T,N=350)/R_{p/\pi }(p_T,N=15),$$
(44)
where $`N=15`$ is taken to correspond to 60-91% centrality. The result is shown in Fig. 12 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. While the tendency of $`r(p_T)`$ to increase at low $`p_T`$ is disturbing, the level of $`r(p_T)3`$ for $`p_T>5`$ GeV/c is in rough agreement with the data at $`p_T3`$ GeV/c. If $`A_p(N)`$ were the same as $`A_\pi (N)`$, then $`r(p_T)`$ would be much lower by a factor of 8.4 and can be ruled out even by the preliminary data 14 . Thus, until sufficient data become available to test directly the scaling formula (41) for protons, we shall use Eq. (42) for the normalization factor.

On the basis of Eq. (41) we now can calculate the $`p_T`$ distributions, $`dN_p/p_Tdp_T`$, that are experimentally measurable. They are shown in Fig. 13 for $`N=30,150,`$ and 350 for $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. It is interesting to note that the distributions for $`N=150`$ and 350 differ only slightly in the log scale, due undoubtedly to the near cancellation of the two opposing properties: the increase of the number of hard collisions at higher $`N`$ and the suppression of high $`p_T`$ protons in larger dense medium.

## V Scaling Distribution of Kaons

For the production of kaons in the recombination model we need two inputs: the strange quark distribution and the recombination function for a $`K`$ meson. The former has been considered in our study of the strangeness enhancement problem in heavy-ion collisions 18 . The latter is given in Ref. 13 .

It is known that the number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons produced in heavy-ion collisions is enhanced by more than a factor of 2. Since the enhancement is due mainly to gluon conversion and Pauli blocking, the relevant question in the context of the parton model is what the percentage of the gluon conversion into the strange quarks is. The amazing answer found in Ref. 18  is that it is only 8%. Due to the large number of gluons produced in heavy-ion collisions that is enough to raise the strange quark density by a factor of 2.1 to 2.3 from the intrinsic level in a free proton, depending on collision energy.

To be precise, let us use the notation where the symbols $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`s`$ denote the total number of light and strange quarks, respectively, $`\mathrm{}`$ being $`u+d`$, in contrast to $`q`$ being $`u`$ or $`d`$. Let $`\mathrm{}_v,\mathrm{}_s,s_s`$ and $`g`$ denote the numbers of valence quarks, light sea quarks, strange quarks and gluons, respectively, before the gluons are converted to $`\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`s\overline{s}`$ for recombination to form hadrons. Since only the ratios of these numbers will be relevant below, they will be given modulo a common multiplicative factor that need not be specified. The numbers for RHIC at 130 GeV are 18

$`\mathrm{}_v`$ $`=`$ $`0.30,\mathrm{}_s=0.37,`$ (45)
$`s_s`$ $`=`$ $`0.18,g=2.46.`$
It is also found that the fraction of gluon conversion to the strange sector is $`\gamma =0.08`$, i.e.,

$$s_c=\gamma g,\mathrm{}_c=(1\gamma )g,$$
(46)
where the subscript $`c`$ denotes converted quarks. The net strange to light quark ratio after conversion is then

$$\frac{s}{\mathrm{}}=\frac{s_s+s_c}{\mathrm{}_v+\mathrm{}_s+\mathrm{}_c}=0.128.$$
(47)
Setting $`u=d`$ for simplicity, we have $`\mathrm{}=2q`$ and

$$s/q=0.256.$$
(48)
Since $`s_c=\gamma g=0.197,`$ the strange quark multiplicity originally at $`s_s`$ is more than doubled by gluon conversion.

The above consideration is at the quark level. How that translates to hadron abundance must take into account hyperon production in addition to kaon production, since the effects of associated production cannot be ignored. The problem of partitioning the total strange quark numbers into various channels of strange hadrons competing for those quarks has been treated in Ref. 18 . It is found there that the fraction $`\kappa `$ of $`s`$ quark forming $`\overline{K}`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }`$ of $`\overline{s}`$ antiquark forming $`K`$ can be deduced from the data. That is, defining

$$\overline{K}=\kappa s,K=\overline{\kappa }\overline{s},$$
(49)
where $`\overline{K}=K^{}+\overline{K}^0`$ and $`K=K^++K^0`$ denote the numbers of $`K`$ mesons of various types, one has at 130 GeV collision energy

$$\kappa =0.628,\overline{\kappa }=0.713.$$
(50)
For the purpose of calculating $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio, let us use $`\overline{s}^{}`$ to denote the number of $`\overline{s}`$ quarks to recombine with $`u`$ quark to form $`K^+`$, and we have

$$\overline{s}^{}=\frac{0.256}{2}\overline{\kappa }q=0.091q.$$
(51)
We shall assume that the $`z`$ distribution of the $`\overline{s}^{}`$ quark is the same, apart from normalization, as that of the $`u`$ quark, so we get

$$F_{\overline{s}^{}}(z)=0.091F_q(z).$$
(52)
In the recombination model we expect the produced $`K^+`$ to have also a scaling distribution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_K(z)=𝑑z_1𝑑z_2z_1z_2F_q(z_1)F_{\overline{s}^{}}(z_2)R_K(z_1,z_2,z).$$
(53)
The recombination function for the $`K`$ meson is similar to that of the pion given in I

$$R_K(z_1,z_2,z)=R_K^0z^2G_K(\frac{z_1}{z},\frac{z_2}{z}),$$
(54)
where $`G_K(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ is the valon distribution in the $`K`$ meson 13

$$G_K(\xi _1,\xi _2)=g_K\xi _1^a\xi _2^b\delta (\xi _1+\xi _21)$$
(55)
with $`g_K=B(a+1,b+1)^1`$. The parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined from the analysis of $`Kp`$ collisions and are found to be $`a=1`$ and $`b=2`$ (see the second paper in Ref. 13 ). Since $`K^+`$ is the only state in the pseudoscalar octet that has $`u\overline{s}`$ content, we have $`R_K^0=1`$ and thus

$$R_K(z_1,z_2,z)=\frac{1}{B(2,3)}\frac{z_1z_2^2}{z^5}\delta \left(\frac{z_1}{z}+\frac{z_2}{z}1\right).$$
(56)
We now can calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K(z)`$ using Eqs. (15), (52), (53), and (56). Since for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K(z)`$ we have, as in Eq. (41),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_K(z)=A_K(N)K_K^2(s,N)\frac{dN_K}{p_Tdp_T}(s,N),$$
(57)
where $`A_K=A_\pi `$ and $`K_K=K_\pi `$, we obtain for the $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ ratio

$$R_{K/\pi }(p_T,N)=\frac{dN_K}{p_Tdp_T}/\frac{dN_\pi }{p_Tdp_T}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_K(z(p_T,N))}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\pi (z(p_T,N))},$$
(58)
where $`\pi ^+`$ is taken to be the same as $`\pi ^0`$.

In Fig. 14 we show $`R_{K/\pi }(p_T)`$ for $`N=350`$ and 200 and $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ GeV. Since the determination of $`\kappa `$ and $`\overline{\kappa }`$ in Eq. (50) is by use of the data on particle ratios, which are not reliable for non-central collisions, we have no confidence in the strangeness enhancement factor deduced when $`N`$ is low. For $`N>200`$ Fig. 14 shows that the $`K/\pi `$ ratio is not sensitive to centrality, and only mildly dependent on $`p_T`$. This result awaits direct check by experimental data.

## VI Conclusion

From the scaling distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ obtained from the data on $`\pi ^0`$ production, we have derived many quantities by use of the recombination model. They are the distributions of quarks, protons, and kaons, and their respective dependences on centrality. All that is made possible by the discovery of the universal function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ valid for all centrality and collision energy. The scaling variable $`z`$ that unites the $`p_T`$ dependences for all $`N`$ and $`\sqrt{s}`$ quantifies the difficulty of producing transverse motion, and for that interpretation it can be termed transversity. A particle produced at a particular $`p_T`$ at high $`\sqrt{s}`$ has a lower transversity than that of the same particle produced at the same $`p_T`$ but at a lower $`\sqrt{s}`$, because it is easier in the former case that involves a smaller momentum fraction. Similarly, it is easier to produce a particle at a given high $`p_T`$ when $`N`$ is low than to do the same at a higher $`N`$ because there is less degradation of the transverse momentum at lower $`N`$. Thus the former particle has lower transversity than the latter. With this way of viewing transverse motion we see that it is the transversity of the produced particles that has the universal property at whatever centrality and collision energy.

The quantitative results that we have obtained have their limitations due to the assumptions that we have made. For example, for the proton $`z`$ distribution we have assumed that $`F_{\overline{q}}(z)/F_q(z)`$ is a constant, which has some phenomenological support in that the observed $`\overline{p}/p`$ ratio is roughly constant in $`p_T`$; however, that ratio fails to maintain constancy at very peripheral collisions. Thus our result is not likely to be valid when $`N`$ is very low. Similarly, whether $`F_{\overline{s}^{}}(z)/F_q(z)`$ is a constant and over what range of $`N`$, if it is, are not known. The centrality dependence of the strangeness fraction of gluon conversion is also unknown. Our result on $`K/\pi `$ ratio can therefore only be regarded as preliminary, pending experimental guidance to improve our simplifying assumptions. Despite these uncertainties for non-central collisions, the recombination model has enabled us to calculate the scaling behavior of the quark, proton, and kaon distributions, the latter two of which are subject to direct experimental test.

For non-central collisions we have only calculated the $`p_T`$ distribution, averaged over the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. Clearly, the dependence on $`\varphi `$ is important as it contains dynamical information. It will be very interesting to investigate whether centrality scaling persists in restricted $`\varphi `$ bins, and if it does, how the scaling curves depend on $`\varphi `$. On the basis of the universality in transversity distribution, we expect that such $`\varphi `$-dependent scaling curves can be put into an overall $`\varphi `$-independent scaling curve upon rescaling. At the price of lower statistics this can be checked by appropriate analysis of the $`\pi ^0`$ production data.

Ultimately, the important issue to focus on is the implication of the existence of the scaling behavior on the possible formation of quark-gluon plasma. At this stage of our understanding a conservative statement that can be made is that the discovery of scaling violation might provide a strong hint for a drastic change of dynamics, possibly associated with a phase transition. Without waiting for LHC to enlighten us with that possibility, a more urgent issue to settle is why, if the quark-gluon plasma has been created already at existing collision energies, the change of the nature of the dense medium does not affect the scaling behavior that we have found to be universal between 17 and 200 GeV. Either the scaling behavior is insensitive to the change, or the change has already occurred at collision energy less than 17 GeV. If both of these alternatives are incorrect, then the only way out is that quark-gluon plasma has not yet been created at RHIC. These are the unintended, but remarkable, consequences of the scaling behavior. It is thus paramount to understand whether a phase transition can lead to a violation of the scaling behavior found here.

## Acknowledgment

We are grateful to W. A. Zajc and D. d’Enterria for their very helpful comments. This work was supported, in part, by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40972.