text:
# Near-threshold production of 𝜔 mesons in the 𝑝𝑛→𝑑𝜔 reaction

## 1 Introduction

The last few years have seen several measurements of $`\eta `$ production in nucleon-nucleon collisions ppeta  but relatively few of $`\omega `$ production Hibou ; TOF . The $`S`$-wave amplitude in the $`\eta `$ case is strong and the total $`pppp\eta `$ cross section largely follows phase space modified by the $`pp`$ final state interaction up to an excess energy $`Q=\sqrt{s}_fm_f60`$MeV, though there is some evidence for an $`\eta pp`$ final state enhancement at very low $`Q`$FJW . Here $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the total centre-of-mass (cm) energy and $`m_f`$ are the masses of the particles in the final state. Quasi-free $`\eta `$ production in proton-neutron collisions has been measured by detecting the photons from $`\eta `$ decay and it is found that for $`Q<100`$MeV the cross section ratio $`R=\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pnpn\eta )/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pppp\eta )6.5`$ Cal1 . Now the $`d\eta `$ final state is pure isospin $`I=0`$, whereas the $`pp\eta `$ is a mixture of $`I=0`$ and $`I=1`$. Up to $`Q60`$MeV the cross section for $`pnd\eta `$ is larger than that for $`pnpn\eta `$ Cal2 , and this can be understood quantitatively in terms of phase space in a largely model-independent way FJW . In all meson production reactions it is important to have data on the different possible isospin combinations in order to constrain theoretical models. It is therefore interesting to see whether a similar isospin dependence is found for the $`\omega `$, the next heavier isoscalar meson.

Unlike the $`\eta `$ case, the $`\omega `$-meson has a significant width (8.4 MeV/c2) and so $`Q`$ is here defined with respect to the central mass value of 782.6 MeV/c2 PDG . The $`pppp\omega `$ total cross section has been measured at five energies in the range $`4Q30`$MeV at the SATURNE SPESIII spectrometer Hibou  and at $`Q=92`$MeV at COSY-TOF TOF  where, in both cases, the $`\omega `$ was identified through the missing mass technique. The energy dependence deduced is rather similar to that of the $`\eta `$, except that the phase space and $`pp`$ final state interaction have to be smeared over the finite $`\omega `$ width, a feature which becomes important close to the nominal threshold Hibou .

Attempts to measure the $`npd\omega `$ reaction using a neutron beam are complicated by the intrinsic momentum spread, which is typically 7% FWHM even for a stripped deuteron beam Sawada . The alternative is to use a deuterium target and effectively measure the momentum of the struck neutron. This is made possible by detecting the very low momentum recoil protons, $`200`$MeV/c, in the $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}d\omega `$ reaction in a silicon telescope placed close to the target. Such an approach is feasible at internal experiments at storage rings such as CELSIUS or COSY because of the thin windowless targets that can be used there. Under these conditions the recoil proton can be largely treated as a “spectator” that only enters the reaction through its modification of the kinematics. The measurement of the fast deuteron in coincidence would then allow us to identify the $`\omega `$ by the missing mass method. By varying the angle and momentum of the spectator proton it is possible to change the value of $`Q`$ while keeping the beam momentum fixed. The principle of this method has been proved at CELSIUS for the $`pnd\pi ^0`$ reaction, where $`Q`$ could be determined to 2 MeV Tord .

## 2 Experimental Set-up

Our experiment was performed using a deuterium cluster-jet target Mue  at the ANKE spectrometer ANKE  situated inside the COoler SYnchrotron COSY-Jülich, with the fast deuteron being measured in the ANKE Forward Detector and the spectator proton in solid state counters. The silicon telescope used for this purpose is described in detail in Ref. NIM\_SP  and only the principal features will be mentioned here. The three silicon layers indicated in Fig. 1, of respectively 60$`\mu `$m, 300$`\mu `$m, and 5 mm, covered polar angles $`83^{}<\theta _{\mathrm{sp}}<104^{}`$ and $`\pm 7^{}`$ in azimuth. Protons with kinetic energies $`T_{\mathrm{sp}}`$ in the range $`26`$MeV traversed the first layer but were stopped in the second, while those in the range $`630`$MeV were stopped rather in the final thick layer. Energy resolution of the order of $`\sigma =150`$keV was obtained. The second and third layers were composed of strips arranged perpendicular to the beam such that for $`T_{\mathrm{sp}}>8`$MeV a resolution of $`\sigma (\theta _{\mathrm{sp}})3^{}`$ could be achieved. For the lower energy protons, neglecting the small non-target background, the finite target size led to $`\sigma (\theta _{\mathrm{sp}})5^{}`$.

There was no difficulty in separating slow deuterons from protons via the $`E\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ method in two ranges: $`2.6<T_{\mathrm{sp}}<4.4`$MeV ($`70<p_{\mathrm{sp}}<91`$MeV/c) and also $`8<T_{\mathrm{sp}}<22`$MeV ($`123<p_{\mathrm{sp}}<204`$MeV/c). This is illustrated for the lower range in Fig. 2. It is seen here that, by choosing the 4.4 MeV upper limit, one avoids the possibility of misidentifying deuterons traversing the first two layers but missing the third.

The ability to identify a deuteron in the telescope in coincidence with a proton in the forward detector also allows us to obtain simultaneously the luminosity by measuring proton-deuteron elastic scattering through a determination of the deuteron kinetic energy. For this purpose we have calculated the elastic proton-deuteron cross section at our energies within the Glauber model Glauber . Such an estimate agrees with the available experimental $`pdpd`$ data at 2.78 GeV/c to within the quoted error of about 10% pd\_data . The 1% uncertainty in the energy of the recoil deuteron, and hence in the momentum transfer, induces only a 3% error through the angular variation of the normalising reaction. Due to uncertainties in the geometrical constraints in the target chamber, the acceptance correction introduces a 15% systematic error in the absolute cross section normalisation. The overall systematic luminosity error used to determine absolute cross sections was thus taken to be 20%. It should be noted, however, that the error in the relative normalisation between different beam energies is at most 5%.

In order to distinguish deuterons with momenta around 2 GeV/c, arising from the $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}d\omega `$ reaction, from a proton background that is two orders of magnitude higher, inclined Čerenkov counters were installed behind the multi-wire proportional chambers and scintillator hodoscope of the forward detection system of ANKE ANKE ; FD . To understand the detection principle, consider the detector response for a proton and deuteron with the same momentum. The opening angle of the Čerenkov light cone for the faster proton is larger. Thus part of the light can reach the photomultiplier after being totally reflected in the counter, whereas all the light produced by the deuteron leaves the counter. A momentum-dependent threshold was applied so as not to change the differential distributions.

The hodoscope, consisting of two layers of scintillation counters, provides an additional criterion for the deuteron identification using the energy loss in both layers. By simultaneously varying the $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$-cut and Čerenkov efficiency level, an optimal combination was found which leads to only a 20% loss of deuterons while giving a 92% suppression of protons due to the Čerenkov counters alone. Projecting the energy loss in the second layer along the predicted energy loss of deuterons ($`\beta _d^2`$), one obtains the dotted histogram shown in Fig. 3. A further cut on the analogous distribution in the first layer reveals a clear deuteron peak (solid line). Moreover, the shape of the remaining proton background can be determined using the energy loss distribution of suppressed particles which, after scaling, is drawn as the dashed line. This shows that the proton background is on the 10% level.

## 3 Data Analysis

Having identified a spectator proton in the telescope and a deuteron in the forward array and furthermore measured their momenta and directions, one can evaluate the missing mass $`m_X`$ in the reaction. To clarify the effects of the kinematics, it is sufficient to treat the spectator as being non-relativistic. To order $`p_{\mathrm{sp}}^2`$ we have then

$$m_X^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\stackrel{~}{m}_X^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+2(𝐩_d𝐩)𝐩_{\mathrm{sp}}2\left(\frac{E+m_dE_d}{m_p}\right)p_{\mathrm{sp}}^2,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}_X`$ is the value obtained at $`p_{\mathrm{sp}}=0`$. Here $`p`$ and $`E`$ are the laboratory momentum and total energy of the incident proton, $`p_d`$ and $`E_d`$ those of the produced deuteron, and $`m_d`$ and $`m_p`$ the masses of the deuteron and proton respectively. The square of the $`pn`$ cm energy, $`s`$, can be evaluated purely using measurements in the spectator counter and from this $`Q`$ can be derived:

$$s=(m_d+m_\omega +Q)^2\stackrel{~}{s}+2pp_{\mathrm{sp}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sp}}\left(\frac{E+m_d}{m_p}\right)p_{\mathrm{sp}}^2,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is the value for a stationary neutron. Because the telescope is placed around $`\theta _{\mathrm{sp}}90^{}`$, $`s/\theta _{\mathrm{sp}}`$ is then maximal and so the value of $`Q`$ depends sensitively upon the determination of the polar angle of the spectator with respect to the beam direction.

Since in our set-up the fast deuteron is measured near the forward direction, the same sort of sensitivity is also found for $`m_X`$ when using Eq. (1). Now for each beam momentum the beam direction could not be established to much better than $`0.1^{}`$, and this may induce a systematic shift of a few MeV/c2 in the value of $`m_X`$. On the other hand, in view of the $`\omega `$ width, the uncertainty in the beam momentum ($`<1`$MeV/c) is unimportant for both $`Q`$ and $`m_X`$ at this level of accuracy. The struck neutron is slightly off its mass shell but the off-shellness is controlled by the spectator momentum and rests small throughout our experiment.

In Fig. 4 we show our results from the first two silicon layers ($`70<p_{\mathrm{sp}}<91`$MeV/c), where the spectator hypothesis should be very good. The angular information is important for the missing mass determination but, in view of the limited statistics, we had to sum over rather wide bins in excess energy. Experience with $`\omega `$ production in proton-proton collisions shows that there is considerable multi-pion production under the $`\omega `$ peak Hibou . Without measuring the products of the $`\omega `$ decay, this can only be reliably estimated by comparing data above and below the $`\omega `$ threshold. Two of the four momenta correspond to largely below-threshold measurements and two above, at mean values of $`Q`$ equal to about 28 and 57 MeV.

There is an indication of a weak $`\omega `$ signal at the highest energy and, in order to evaluate its significance, we have to master the large multipion background over our range of energies. Two different approaches have been undertaken to overcome this problem. In the first, pion production is modelled within a phase-space Monte Carlo description. The second method is identical to that used in the analysis of the $`pppp\omega `$ experiment Hibou , where the data below $`\omega `$ threshold were taken to be representative of the background above, being merely shifted kinematically due to the changed beam energy such that the upper edges of phase space match. This matching of the ends of phase space can also be used to check the set-up of the system at each momentum. The only significant discrepancy was found at 2.807 GeV/c where, in order to account for a slight displacement observed in the data, 3 MeV/c2 has been subtracted from all $`m_X`$ values at this beam momentum. As will be shown in the next section, the two different analysis methodologies give consistent results within the error bars.

Most of the background can be described by phase space convoluted with the ANKE acceptance, which provides a severe cut at low $`m_X`$. It should be noted that the available $`npd\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ data in our energy range show the deuteron distribution to be fairly isotropic in the cm system Abd . In the absence of neutron data, we parameterised the total cross section $`\sigma (s)`$ for the production of $`N`$ pions in proton-proton collisions by

$$\sigma (s)=A\left(1\frac{s_0}{s}\right)^{p_1}\left(\frac{s_0}{s}\right)^{p_2},$$
(3)
where $`s_0`$ is the threshold for $`N\pi `$ production. The exponent $`p_1`$ is fixed by phase space, but $`A`$ and $`p_2`$ are free parameters adjusted to reproduce the $`ppd(N\pi )`$ data for 2, 3 and 4 pion production pi\_data . The assumption that each of the three contributions follows a $`(N+1)`$-body phase space, undistorted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\rho `$ resonances, gives a description of the $`m_X`$ distributions for different beam energies. To model the $`pnd(N\pi )`$ background, the energy dependence from the $`pp`$ case has been used to fix the $`p_i`$, with the $`A`$ being adjusted to reproduce simultaneously our experimental distribution at 2.7 GeV/c and the phase-space maximum at 2.9 GeV/c. The relative normalisation between these two momenta was determined from the $`pd`$ elastic scattering data. The adjusted A values, together with the relative normalisation established from the luminosity measurement, were used to describe the multi-pion background at 2.6 GeV/c and at 2.8 GeV/c, as shown in Fig. 4.

Our method gives a plausible description of the background under the $`\omega `$ peak at $`Q57`$MeV but any $`\omega `$ signal at $`Q28`$MeV lies close to the maximum of the phase-space acceptance and the evaluation of its strength depends much more critically upon the background assumptions. Nevertheless, within the parametrisation of Eq. (3), it is impossible to describe the phase-space maxima simultaneously at the four energies in Fig. 4 without invoking some $`\omega `$ signal at $`Q28`$MeV.

To describe the $`\omega `$ contribution to the missing mass spectra, we take the $`pnd\omega `$ matrix element to be constant over the $`Q`$-bin so that the cross section follows phase space. This, combined with the decrease of acceptance at large $`Q`$, means that the mean value of $`Q`$ is not quite at the centre of the bin. Other plausible assumptions, such as a constant cross section, would lead to negligible changes in the evaluation of the cross section and mean value of $`Q`$. In the simulation of the $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}d\omega `$ reaction, the cross section is smeared over the Fermi motion in the deuteron using the PLUTO event generator PLUTO . This employs the Hamada-Johnston wave function DWF  though, at these small values of spectator momenta, other more realistic wave functions give indistinguishable results. The same event generator is used also for the multipion background.

Turning now to our second approach, the authors of ref. Hibou  noticed that, apart from the $`\omega `$ signal, the shape of the $`ppppX`$ missing mass spectrum varied little with beam energy provided that one looked at the distribution with respect to the maximum missing mass. More quantitatively, if $`\beta `$ and $`\beta _n`$ are c.m. velocities at energies $`T`$ and $`T_n`$ respectively, the measured momenta and angles of the protons were first transformed, event-by-event, from the laboratory to the c.m. system with the velocity $`\beta `$ and then transformed back to the laboratory with the velocity $`+\beta _n`$. To see to what extent this approach is valid for the ANKE spectrometer, which has a much smaller overall acceptance than that of SPESIII Hibou , we have reconstructed the missing mass for the copious proton production $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}pX`$. The data at the four different beam momenta, kinematically shifted to 2.9 GeV/c and normalised to the same total number of events, are shown in Fig. 5.

It is clear from the figure that for $`m_X>1.4`$ GeV/c2 the shifted data are in mutual agreement at all beam momenta. For lower missing masses one sees the effect of the production of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ isobar, whose position in the shifted mass scale depends, of course, upon the beam momentum. The figure also nicely illustrates the influence of the ANKE acceptance cut, which strongly favours events close to the maximum missing mass.

When the identical analysis procedure is applied to the $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}dX`$ data, the backgrounds away from the $`\omega `$ peak at the different momenta are again found to be completely consistent. An average background could therefore constructed and this is shown for the two above-threshold momenta in Fig. 6. The differences between the experimental data and constructed background shows evidence for structure in the $`\omega `$ region and these have been fitted to $`\omega `$ peaks whose widths were fixed by the Monte Carlo simulation. The $`\omega `$ masses obtained from the fits at the two momenta, $`780\pm 8`$ and $`787\pm 4`$ MeV/c2, do not differ significantly from the expected value.

## 4 Results

By comparing the residual signal in Fig. 4 with a simulation of $`\omega `$ production over this range of spectator energies and angles, we would conclude from simulated background model that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pnd\omega )=(2.9\pm 0.8)\mu `$b at $`Q=(28_{20}^{+16})`$MeV and $`(8.5\pm 2.8)\mu `$b at $`Q=(57_{15}^{+21})`$MeV, where the uncertainty in $`Q`$ reflects the total width of the bin and only the statistical error in the cross section is quoted. The corresponding numbers obtained using the SPESIII background technique, $`(2.2\pm 1.4)\mu `$b and $`(9.4\pm 3.3)\mu `$b respectively, are consistent with the first method, though the statistical errors are larger because we had to subtract a background with limited statistics. This contrasts with our first approach where we imposed the condition that the background should be smooth. Averaging the two sets of results, we obtain $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}=(2.6\pm 1.6\pm 2.3)\mu `$b and $`(9.0\pm 3.2_{2.5}^{+3.6})\mu `$b at the two excess energies. The second, systematic, error bar includes some contribution arising from the ambiguity of the background discussed above but others, such as the uncertainty in the luminosity, are common to both the signal and background.

In view of the limited statistics it might be helpful to quote upper limits resulting from the fits to the count differences shown in Fig. 6. At the 90% confidence level the cross sections at 2.8 and 2.9 GeV/c are below $`(7.5\pm 5)\mu `$b and $`(17\pm 6)\mu `$b respectively, where the second figure is the rescaled systematic uncertainty.

One source of systematic uncertainty comes from the restricted angular acceptance of ANKE ANKE , a problem that becomes more serious with increasing $`Q`$. The simulation of the acceptance, illustrated in Fig. 7 for an isotropic production distribution, shows that, while the distribution is fairly flat at 2.8 GeV/c, few events would be accepted close to $`90^{}`$ at 2.9 GeV/c. Although at our energies we might expect $`S`$-wave production to dominate, when this acceptance is weighted with the possible pure $`P`$-wave angular variations of $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, the resulting overall acceptance estimate at 2.9 GeV/c is changed by factors of of 1.7 and 0.65 respectively. These are, however, extreme scenarios and a systematic error of half of the difference between these values is a generous estimate of this uncertainty. In more refined experiments, where the statistics will allow us to determine the angular distribution, this limitation will be avoided.

The reduction of flux due to the presence of a second nucleon in the deuteron target (shadowing) has been estimated in the $`\eta `$-production case to be about 5% of the $`NN`$ cross section PINOT  and such a correction has been applied to our data. These values are shown in Fig. 8 along with those for the $`pppp\omega `$ reaction.

Due to the momentum distribution in the deuteron, the statistics for spectators in the higher range, $`8<T_{\mathrm{sp}}<22`$MeV, are only about a third of those in the lower range. Nevertheless, the corresponding missing mass spectra are consistent with those shown for the lower spectator energies in Fig. 4, with $`\omega `$ cross sections compatible with our results in Fig. 8.

We have checked our methodology by identifying events corresponding to the $`pdp_{\mathrm{sp}}d\pi ^0`$ reaction at 1.22 GeV/c. Using the same procedures as for the $`\omega `$ analysis, we find $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pnd\pi ^0)=(1.6\pm 0.3)`$mb at $`Q=(135\pm 9)`$MeV, where the statistical error is negligible. This value is to be compared to $`1.53`$mb deduced from a compilation of the isospin-related $`ppd\pi ^+`$ reaction SAID .

## 5 Conclusions

In any meson exchange model, the relative strength of $`\omega `$ production in $`pp`$ and $`pn`$ collisions depends sensitively upon the quantum numbers of the exchanged particles. If only a single isovector particle, such as the $`\pi `$ or $`\rho `$, were exchanged then, neglecting the differences between the initial and final $`NN`$ interactions, one would expect $`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pnpn\omega )/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(pppp\omega )=5`$. This would explain most of the 6.5 factor found in the $`\eta `$ case Cal2 . Assuming that the ratio $`d\omega `$ to $`pp\omega `$ is as for $`\eta `$ production, the parametrisation of the available $`pppp\omega `$ data Hibou ; TOF  leads to the solid curve, which lies about a factor of three above our data. Another estimate is a little lower but similar in shape Grishina . Both curves lie within the extremes of the predictions of the Jülich theory group JTG , where the major uncertainty arises from the relative strengths of production and exchange current terms.

Taking our 90% C.L. upper limit on the cross section, augmented by the corresponding systematic uncertainty, would barely bring the data into agreement with the solid line of Fig. 8. Even considering only these upper limits, the model predictions appear higher than the data. Any theoretical overestimation might be explained if there were significant isoscalar exchange, perhaps through the $`\omega `$ itself.

In summary, we have carried out the first measurement of the $`pnd\omega `$ reaction by detecting the spectator proton from a deuterium target in coincidence with a fast deuteron. Although the data are of very limited statistical significance, they suggest that the cross section lies below the published theoretical predictions.

In order to clarify the situation further, we are constructing second generation silicon telescopes that will increase the acceptance significantly. It would then be of interest to try to extend this study to the $`\varphi `$ region so that one could investigate the OZI rule in the $`I=0`$ channel to see if the deviations are similar to those in the $`I=1`$ channel.

The work reported here formed part of the PhD thesis of one of the authors \[IL\]. We are most grateful to the team of the IKP semiconductor detector laboratory, D. Protić, T. Krings and G. Fiori, who developed and supported the necessary material for our spectator counters. We wish to thank D. Prasuhn, J. Stein, B. Lorentz and the COSY team for carrying out the beam development required by the condition that our detectors are only 5 cm from the circulating proton beam. P. Wieder, W. Borgs and S. Mikirtichiants helped in preparing and performing the experiment. The work has been financially supported by the DFG (436 RUS 113/630/71), the Russian Academy of Science (RFBR02-02-0425) and the FZ-Jülich (COSY-064).


format: text

text:
# References

Supersymmetric variational energies of 3d confined potentials111PACS No. 03.65.Fd, 11.30.Pb, 31.15.Pf - Key words: Supersymmetric quantum mechanics, variational method, confinement

Elso Drigo Filho 222elso@df.ibilce.unesp.br 333Work partially supported by CNPq

Instituto de Biociências, Letras e Ciências Exatas, IBILCE-UNESP

Rua Cristovão Colombo, 2265 - 15054-000 São José do Rio Preto - SP

Regina Maria Ricotta  444regina@fatecsp.br

Faculdade de Tecnologia de São Paulo, FATEC/SP-CEETPS-UNESP

Praça Fernando Prestes, 30 - 01124-060 São Paulo-SP

Brazil

Abstract

Within the approach of Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics associated with the variational method a recipe to construct the superpotential of three dimensional confined potentials in general is proposed. To illustrate the construction, the energies of the Harmonic Oscillator and the Hulthén potential, both confined in three dimensions are evaluated. Comparison with the corresponding results of other approximative and exact numerical results is presented.

1. Introduction

Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics, (SQM), was conceived in 1981 as the simplest field theory that would provide understanding of the supersymmetry breaking mechanism of higher dimensional field theories, . Since then this formalism has become a new field of research and a great deal of work, both analytical and numerical, has been done to get better knowledge of the exactly solvable, the partially solvable, the isospectral, the periodic and the non-exactly solvable potential problems, (see  for the latest review). In particular, few of these latter have been investigated through a novel methodology based on the association of the variational method with SQM formalism. The conjunction of this well known quantum mechanism with SQM has given a simple framework to investigate spectral problems of Hamiltonian systems associated to the three dimensional Hulthén, Morse and Screened Coulomb potentials,-. The main basis of the method consists in setting an Ansatz for the superpotential. Based on the superalgebra intrinsic of SQM we are able to evaluate the wavefunction which naturally contains free parameters introduced by the Ansatz. Having in hands our ideal wavefunction, the calculations to be done are the usual variational calculations in which the parameters are varied until the energy expectation value reaches its minimum.

More recently the application of this methodology to exploit the energy spectra of a confined quantum mechanical system gave encouraging results: the confined 3-dimensional hydrogen atom showed results compatible with those obtained from other approximative methods and numerical calculation, .

Motivated by these results and considering the widespread interest in quantum confined systems, particularly in the studies of semiconductor heterostructures (nanostructures like quantum dots, quantum wires, quantum wells), -, as well as in field theory, , in this work we propose a systematic construction of the superpotential for 3d confined systems, that yields, through SQM, to the trial wavefunction pursued.

To illustrate the construction, the technique is applied here to get the $`1s`$ and $`2p`$ energy states for the confined Harmonic Oscillator and for the $`1s`$, $`2p`$ and $`3d`$ energy states of the confined Hulthén, both in three dimensions. They are very good when compared to recent results obtained from other approximative methods as well as exact numerical results, -.

In what follows, in order to be self consistent and to set up the notation, we present a brief description of SQM and its association with the variational method. At this point we introduce our recipe for the superpotential in the general case. Then we show the results of the application of this formalism to the confined Harmonic Oscillator and Hulthén potential. Comparison with the corresponding results of other approximative and exact numerical results is presented in the tables, followed by a discussion and our conclusions.

2. Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics and the Variational Method

The starting point is the factorization of a Hamiltonian $`H`$ associated to a given potential $`V(r)`$, in terms of bosonic operators $`A^\pm `$ and the lowest energy eigenvalue $`E_0`$. In $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ units, this is written as

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+V(r)=A^+A^{}+E_0.$$
(1)
We recall that for the cases we are considering the potential is symmetric so that equation (1) is the radial equation and $`V(r)`$ includes the barrier potential term. The bosonic operators are defined in terms of the so called superpotential $`W(r)`$,

$$A_1^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{d}{dr}+W(r)\right).$$
(2)
Thus, substituting the bosonic operators into equation (1) we conclude that, as a consequence of the factorization of the Hamiltonian $`H`$, the Riccati equation must be satisfied,

$$W^2W^{}=2\left(V(r)E_0\right),$$
(3)
where $`W^{}=\frac{dW}{dr}`$. Also through the superalgebra, the eigenfunction for the lowest state is related to the superpotential $`W`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(r)=Nexp(_0^rW(\overline{r})𝑑\overline{r}).$$
(4)
The above scheme works perfectly well if the potential is exactly solvable. However, if the potential is non-exactly solvable, the Hamiltonian is not exactly factorizable, i.e., there is no superpotential that satisfies equation (3). On the other hand, the Hamiltonian can be factorized in terms of an approximated superpotential giving rise to an effective potential. This is achieved by making an Ansatz for the superpotential, which naturally introduces free parameters in the problem, denoted by the set $`\{\mu \}`$. Thus, through the superalgebra, the wavefunction, (equation (4)), is evaluated. It is the trial wavefunction of the usual variational method, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ and depending on $`\{\mu \}`$. Therefore, having in hands the main ingredient of the variational method, namely the trial wavefunction, the energy expectation value given by

$$E_\mu =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^{}H\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu 𝑑r}{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^2𝑑r}$$
(5)
can be evaluated and the parameters can be varied until it reaches its minimum value, $`E(\overline{\mu })`$, which is an upper limit of the sought energy level. Indeed, the Ansatz in the superpotential drives us to an effective potential $`V_{eff}`$ that has a similar form as the original potential, i.e.,

$$V_{eff}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{W}^2\overline{W}^{}\right)+E(\overline{\mu })$$
(6)
where $`\overline{W}=W(\overline{\mu })`$ is the superpotential for $`\{\mu =\overline{\mu }\}`$, the set of parameters that minimises (5). The above methodology was applied in the search of approximate energy levels of 3-dimensional systems, like the Hulthén, Morse and Screened Coulomb potentials, -.

Concerning the confinement, it is remarkable that for the confined cases we have treated so far, the confined Coulomb, , and the present cases of the confined Oscillator and Hulthén potentials, the Ansatz set in the superpotential is restricted to an extra confining term added to the superpotential used in the non-confined case, i.e.,

$$W_{confined}=W_{nonconfined}+\frac{constant}{Rr}$$
(7)
where $`R`$ is the radius of confinement. The advantage of this choice is that it allows us a previous comparative analysis between the original potential (non-confined) and the effective potential, containing the infinite (confining) barrier. This is corroborated by the fact that in the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit the non-confined superpotential is recovered. Moreover, the trial wavefunction will naturally vanish at the barrier $`R=r`$ and not as an input, as it is usual in the variational calculation.

3. The Confined Harmonic Oscillator

The radial Hamiltonian equation for the Harmonic Oscillator potential, written in atomic units is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l(l+1)}{2r^2}+\frac{r^2}{2}.$$
(8)
As the Harmonic Oscillator potential is symmetric, the confinement is introduced by an infinite potential barrier at radius $`r=R`$. Thus we make the following Ansatz for the superpotential

$$W(r)=\frac{\mu _1}{r}+\frac{\mu _2}{Rr}+\mu _3r$$
(9)
which depends of $`R`$, the radius of confinement, and of three variational parameters, $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$. As stated in expression (7), the first and the last terms are already known from the non-confined case, . The second term deals with the confinement. This is explicitly shown through the effective potential. From equation (6), it has the following form

$`V_{eff}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_3}{2}}r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_1(\overline{\mu }_11)}{2r^2}}\overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_3{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_3}{2}}+`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_2(\overline{\mu }_21)}{2(Rr)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_2}{r(Rr)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_2\overline{\mu }_3r}{(Rr)}}+E(\overline{\mu })`$
which is clearly infinite at $`r=R`$, as expected for a confining system. Notice that the effective potential is evaluated for the values of the set of parameters $`\{\overline{\mu }\}`$ that minimise the energy. Our trial wavefunction for the variational method is obtained from the superalgebra through equation (4), using the superpotential given by the Ansatz made in equation (9). It is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu (r)=\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3,r)r^{\mu _1}(Rr)^{\mu _2}e^{\mu _3r^2/2}.$$
(11)
It depends of three free parameters, $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ and vanishes at $`r=R`$. We use this trial wavefunction to calculate the energy expection value, given by the equation (5), evaluated with the Hamiltonian (8). Its minimisation with respect to the three parameters gives $`E(\overline{\mu })`$, which, from now on, we call $`E_{vsqm}`$. The results are given in the tables below for different values of the confining radius $`R`$ and states $`1s`$ and $`2p`$, corresponding to the values of $`l=1`$ and $`2`$ of the angular momentum, respectively. Comparison is made with exact numerical, $`E_{exact}`$, perturbative, $`E_{pert}`$, , other variational, $`E_{var}`$, , WKB, $`E_{wkb}`$,  and modified WKB results, $`E_{centri},`$, through the percentage errors,

$$\delta _{vsqm}=\frac{|E_{exact}E_{vsqm}|}{E_{exact}}\%$$
(12)
and

$$\delta _{pert}=\frac{|E_{exact}E_{pert}|}{E_{exact}}\%.$$
(13)
The same percetage errors are applied to the other results. We must note that the perturbative results lost their accuracy for large values of the radius of confinement, for which they are outside the convergence region. For the results of Table 1, $`R<1.72`$ and of the Table 2, $`R<1.84`$.

It should be stressed that in the limit of no-confinement, i. e. $`R\mathrm{}`$, the variational SQM results also agree with the exact non-confined problem, corresponding to the removal of the infinite barrier. In this case the energy is exact and is given by

$$E=2n+L+3/2.$$
(14)
Thus for $`n=0`$ and $`l=0`$, state $`1s`$, the exact result is $`E_R\mathrm{}=1.5000`$, (Table 1), and for $`n=0`$ and $`l=1`$, state $`2p`$, the exact result is $`E_R\mathrm{}=2.5000`$, (Table 2).

Table 1. Energy eigenvalues (in Rydbergs) and percentage errors for different values of $`R`$ for the $`1s`$ state, ($`l=0`$).
R $`E_{exact}`$ $`E_{vsqm}`$ $`\delta _{vsqm}`$ $`E_{pert}`$ $`\delta _{pert}`$ $`E_{wkb}`$ $`\delta _{wkb}`$ $`E_{var}`$ $`\delta _{var}`$    1.0 5.0755 5.0865 0.22 - - 5.0627 0.25 5.1313 1.10  1.5 2.5050 2.5104 0.22 2.5046 0.02 2.5082 0.13 2.5265 0.86  2.0 1.7648 1.7664 0.09 1.7588 0.34 1.9882 12.7 1.7739 0.52  2.5 1.5514 1.5529 0.10 - - 1.5564 0.32 1.5567 0.34  3.0 1.5061 1.5069 0.05 1.1532 23.4 1.5061 0.00 1.5105 0.29  4.0 1.5000 1.5002 0.01 \- 4.341728 - 1.5000 0.00 1.5033 0.22  5.0 1.5000 1.5000 0.00 -48.076319  1.5000 0.00 1.5025 0.17  10.0 1.5000 1.5000 0.00 - - 1.5000 0.00 - -

Table 2. Energy eigenvalues (in Rydbergs) and percentage errors for different values of $`R`$ for the $`2p`$ state, ($`l=1`$).

| R | $`E_{exact}`$ | $`E_{vsqm}`$ | $`\delta _{vsqm}`$ | $`E_{pert}`$ | $`\delta _{pert}`$ | $`E_{wkb}`$ | $`\delta _{wkb}`$ | $`E_{var}`$ | $`\delta _{var}`$ | $`E_{centri}`$ | $`\delta _{centri}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 0.3 | 112.188 | 112.231 | 0.04 | 112.188 | 0.00 | - |  | - | - |  | - |
| 1.0 | 10.2822 | 10.2847 | 0.02 | - | - | 10.2643 | 0.17 | 10.3188 | 0.36 | 10.2876 | 0.05 |
| 1.5 | 4.9036 | 4.9046 | 0.02 | 4.9034 | 0.00 | 4.9084 | 0.01 | 4.9169 | 0.27 | 4.9068 | 0.07 |
| 2.0 | 3.2469 | 3.2471 | 0.01 | 3.2434 | 0.11 | 3.2490 | 0.07 | 3.2514 | 0.14 | 3.3081 | 1.88 |
| 2.5 | 2.6881 | 2.6891 | 0.04 | - | - | 2.7079 | 0.74 | 2.6901 | 0.07 | 2.6835 | 0.17 |
| 3.0 | 2.5313 | 2.5322 | 0.04 | 2.3104 | 0.73 | 2.5310 | 0.01 | 2.5337 | 0.10 | 2.5313 | 0.00 |
| 4.0 | 2.5001 | 2.5003 | 0.01 | -1.5656 | 163 | 2.5001 | 0.00 | 2.5015 | 0.06 | 2.5001 | 0.00 |
| 5.0 | 2.5000 | 2.5000 | 0.00 | -34.0358 | - | 2.5000 | 0.00 | 2.5012 | 0.05 | 2.5000 | 0.00 |
| 10.0 | 2.5000 | 2.5000 | 0.00 | - | - | 2.5000 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - |

4. The Confined Hulthén Potential

The radial Hamiltonian equation for the Hulthén potential, written in atomic units is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{l(l+1)}{2r^2}\frac{\delta e^{\delta r}}{1e^{\delta r}}$$
(15)
Once again, as the potential is symmetric, the confinement is introduced by the infinite potential barrier at radius $`r=R`$. The associated Ansatz for the superpotential follows the equation (7) and the expression for the superpotential given for the unconfined case, as in ,

$$W(r)=B_1\frac{e^{\mu _1r}}{(1e^{\mu _1r})}+C_1+\frac{\mu _2}{Rr}$$
(16)
where

$$B_1=\mu _1(l+1),C_1=\frac{1}{2}\mu _1+\frac{1}{l+1}.$$
(17)
This superpotential gives rise through the superalgebra, (4), to the following trial wavefunction

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }(\mu _1,\mu _2,r)(1e^{\mu _1r})^{\frac{B_1}{\mu _1}}e^{C_1r}(Rr)^{\mu _2}.$$
(18)
It depends of two free parameters, $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ and vanishes at $`r=R`$, as expected, since the effective potential, evaluated by using equations (6), (16) and (17), is infinite at this point. Its general form is

$`V_{eff}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_1e^{\overline{\mu }_1r}}{1e^{\overline{\mu }_1r}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{2\overline{\mu }_1r}}{(1e^{\overline{\mu }_1r})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_2(\overline{\mu }_21)}{2(Rr)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+1)\overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_2e^{\overline{\mu }_1r}}{(Rr)(1e^{\overline{\mu }_1r})}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_2}{2(Rr)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_2}{(l+1)(Rr)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mu }_1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l+1}})^2+E(\overline{\mu }).`$
As in the previous case, $`\{\overline{\mu }\}`$ is the set of parameters that minimise the energy, given by $`E(\overline{\mu })`$, which we also call, from now on, $`E_{vsqm}`$. The results are in the tables below, for different values of the parameter $`\delta `$ and the confining radius $`R`$, for the states $`1s`$, $`2p`$ and $`3d`$, corresponding to the values of $`l=1,2`$ and $`3`$ of the angular momentum, respectively. Comparison is made with exact numerical, $`E_{exact}`$, from the 1/N approximation, $`E_{1/N}`$,  and modified WKB results, $`E_{centri}`$, .

For $`R\mathrm{}`$ exact values of the energy are only for the $`l=0`$ case, and are given by

$$E=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{n}\frac{n\delta }{2})^2$$
(20)
Thus for $`\delta =0.1`$ and $`n=1`$ the exact result is $`E_R\mathrm{}=0.45125`$, (Table 3).

Table 3. Energy eigenvalues (in Rydbergs) for different values of $`R`$, $`n=1`$ and $`l=0,1,2`$, (states $`1s`$, $`2p`$ and $`3d`$) and $`\delta =0.1`$.

| R | l | $`E_{exact}`$ | $`E_{vsqm}`$ | $`\delta _{vsqm}`$ | $`E_{1/N}`$ | $`\delta _{1/N}`$ | $`E_{centri}`$ | $`\delta _{centri}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.0 | 0 | -0.45053 | -0.44945 | 0.24 | -0.45109 | 0.12 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.00865 | -0.00808 | 6.59 | -0.00294 | 66.0 | -0.00782 | 9.60 |
| 7.0 | 0 | -0.45111 | -0.45043 | 0.15 | -0.45181 | 0.16 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.04069 | -0.04037 | 0.79 | -0.03324 | 18.3 | -0.03976 | 2.29 |
| 8.0 | 0 | -0.45122 | -0.45076 | 0.10 | -0.45193 | 0.16 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.05783 | -0.05762 | 0.36 | -0.05293 | 8.47 | -0.05510 | 4.72 |
| 9.0 | 0 | -0.45125 | -0.45090 | 0.08 | -0.45188 | 0.14 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.06728 | -0.06712 | 0.24 | -0.06389 | 5.04 | -0.06612 | 1.72 |
| 10.0 | 0 | -0.45125 | -0.45098 | 0.06 | -0.45179 | 0.12 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.07257 | -0.07243 | 0.19 | -0.07008 | 3.43 | -0.07196 | 0.84 |
| 25.0 | 0 | -0.45125 | -0.45125 | 0.00 | -0.45131 | 0.01 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.07918 | -0.07915 | 0.04 | -0.07920 | 0.03 | -0.07921 | 0.04 |
|  | 2 | -0.01390 | -0.01380 | 0.72 | -0.01332 | 4.17 | -0.01381 | 0.65 |
| 50.0 | 0 | -0.45125 | -0.45125 | 0.00 | -0.45126 | 0.00 |  |  |
|  | 1 | -0.07918 | -0.07918 | 0.00 | -0.07920 | 0.03 | -0.07920 | 0.03 |
|  | 2 | -0.01448 | -0.01448 | 0.00 | -0.01450 | 0.14 | -0.01450 | 0.14 |

Table 4. Energy eigenvalues (in Rydbergs) and percentage errors for different values of $`R`$ for the $`2p`$ state, ($`l=1`$) and $`\delta =0.2`$.

| R | $`E_{exact}`$ | $`E_{vsqm}`$ | $`\delta _{vsqm}`$ | $`E_{1/N}`$ | $`\delta _{1/N}`$ | $`E_{centri}`$ | $`\delta _{centri}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8 | -0.01731 | -0.01708 | 1.33 | -0.01242 | 28.3 | -0.01607 | 7.16 |
| 9 | -0.02749 | -0.02731 | 0.65 | -0.02428 | 11.7 | -0.02612 | 4.98 |
| 10 | -0.03339 | -0.03323 | 0.48 | -0.03118 | 6.62 | -0.03389 | 1.50 |
| 25 | -0.04188 | -0.04178 | 0.24 | -0.04199 | 0.26 | -0.04192 | 0.10 |
| 50 | -0.04189 | -0.04189 | 0.00 | -0.04196 | 0.17 | -0.04191 | 0.05 |

5. Discussion and conclusions

The study of the two 3-dimensional confined quantum systems considered here was made through the mechanism based on the association of the variational method with SQM, using the recipe given to construct the superpotential, equation (7). For the two cases considered, namely, the Harmonic Oscillator and the Hulthén potential, the Ansatz, as given by equations (9) and (16), respectively, naturally introduced free parameters in the superpotential. Thus, using the superalgebra the wave functions were evaluated, showing, of course, explicit dependence on these parameters, equations (11) and (18), respectively. They were our optimal wave functions, used to calculate the energy expectation values, equation (5), as in the usual variational method. The parameters were varied until this expectation value reached its minimum, giving rise to the searched energy states.

The peculiar feature of the approach is that, when doing the Ansatz to the superpotential following the recipe of equation (7), we were able to evaluate the effective potential, equation (6), and also equations (10) and (19), which resemble the real, confining potential under consideration. In both cases, the effective potential is surely infinite at the border, $`r=R`$, and as a result the wave function, evaluated through the superalgebra, equation (4), naturally vanishes at the border because it finds a potential barrier that increases until becoming impenetrable at $`r=R`$. Furthermore, for increasing values of $`R`$ the border effects vanish and our effective potential becomes the original non-confined potential. The results for the energies improved, when compared with the corresponding results of other approximative and exact numerical results, converging to the results of the non-confined system. On the other hand, for small values of $`R`$, stronger are the border effects, but even so very small deviation from the exact numerical results were found.

We conclude that our main result is the recipe given for the superpotential when confinement takes place, equation (7). The inclusion of the confining term $`\frac{1}{Rr}`$ in the superpotential was crucial to describe border effects. This prescription showed to be appropriate to get good results for the cases considered so far and can be a first trial to exploit other confined systems through this method. It is remarkable that the approach was applied to different systems. Contrary to the Coulomb potential, , and the Harmonic Oscillator, the Hulthén potential is not exactly solvable in three dimensions. This makes our recipe good enough to work in the general case and reinforces the fact that the association of the superalgebra of SQM with the variational method gives a simple and useful framework to investigate confined systems in general.


text:
# On compatibility of Bohmian mechanics with standard quantum mechanics

## Abstract

It is shown that the apparent incompatibility of Bohmian mechanics with standard quantum mechanics, found by Akhavan and Golshani \[quant-ph/0305020\], is an artefact of the fact that the initial wavefunction they use, being proportional to a $`\delta `$-function, is not a regular wavefunction.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta

In , Golshani and Akhavan argued that Bohmian mechanics  was not compatible with standard quantum mechanics. They studied a case in which a 2-particle wavefunction $`\psi (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,t)`$ describing a pair of entangled particles moving in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane was such that the Bohmian trajectories of the particles obey

$$y_1(t)+y_2(t)=0,$$
(1)
provided that the initial positions of the particles obey

$$y_1(0)+y_2(0)=0.$$
(2)
They have shown that (1) is incompatible with standard quantum mechanics and suggested that this could be used to distinguish experimentally between Bohmian mechanics and standard quantum mechanics. Not surprisingly, an experiment  has confirmed standard quantum mechanics.

Struyve et al.  criticized the conclusion of Golshani and Akhavan. They stressed that, owing to the quantum equilibrium hypothesis , it is not possible to achieve the initial condition (2) in a laboratory. Instead, initial positions are distributed according to the quantum mechanical role

$$\rho (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,0)=\psi ^{}(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,0)\psi (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,0).$$
(3)
The initial distribution (3) implies that particle positions are distributed according to the quantum mechanical role $`\rho =\psi ^{}\psi `$ at any time $`t`$. In this way, they have shown that there is no incompatibility between Bohmian mechanics and standard quantum mechanics, as far as the situation in  is studied.

Recently, Akhavan and Golshani replied to the criticism of Struyve et al. by arguing  that the initial condition (2) is achieved in a situation in which the initial wavefunction $`\psi (x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2,0)`$ is proportional to

$$\psi (y_1,y_2)=\delta (y_1y_2),$$
(4)
which, in a similar way, leads to (1) and thus to incompatibility between Bohmian mechanics and standard quantum mechanics. In this short paper we show that this result is an artefact of the fact that the wavefunction (4) is not a regular wavefunction. When the $`\delta `$-function in (4) is regularized in an appropriate way, no incompatibility between Bohmian mechanics and standard quantum mechanics sustains.

For simplicity, we suppress the $`x`$-dependence of the wavefunction. Since the wavefunction $`\psi (y_1,y_2,t)`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation, the density $`\rho (y_1,y_2,t)=\psi ^{}(y_1,y_2,t)\psi (y_1,y_2,t)`$ satisfies the continuity equation

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{(\rho v_{y_1})}{y_1}+\frac{(\rho v_{y_2})}{y_2}=0,$$
(5)
where $`v_{y_k}(y_1,y_2,t)`$ (with $`k=1,2`$) are the Bohmian velocities determined by the wavefunction $`\psi (y_1,y_2,t)`$. The fact that the assumption that particles are initially distributed according to $`\rho (y_1,y_2,0)`$ leads to the result that they are distributed according to $`\rho (y_1,y_2,t)`$ at any time $`t`$ is a direct consequence of Eq. (5). On the other hand, the result of Akhavan and Golshani  corresponds to a situation in which the initial distribution of particles (2) is given by $`\rho (y_1,y_2,0)`$, but at later times the distribution of particles is not given by $`\rho (y_1,y_2,t)`$. Therefore, their result must be a consequence of a failure in Eq. (5).

It is clear that the failure is due to the use of the wavefunction (4) proportional to a $`\delta `$-function. In fact, the $`\delta `$-function is not a function at all, but rather a functional, meaningful only when integrated over the argument of the functional. Moreover, the square of the $`\delta `$-function, which appears in $`\rho `$, is not well defined even as a functional. Therefore, Eq. (5) does not make sense for the wavefunction proportional to (4). In order to make sense of it, one has to regularize the irregular “function” $`\delta (y)`$ (where $`yy_1y_2`$). The most natural regularization is to use a Gaussian with a small but finite width $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ and then, at the end of calculation, to consider the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }y0`$. With finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, the initial positions of the particles do not satisfy (2). Instead, they are distributed according to the Gaussian with the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$. It is clear that for any finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$, the distribution of particles at later times will be given by the quantum mechanical distribution $`\rho =\psi ^{}\psi `$. In that sense, the quantum mechanical distribution at later times is achieved even in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }y0`$. Therefore, there is no incompatibility between Bohmian mechanics and standard quantum mechanics.

The source of the wrong conclusion of Akhavan and Golshani in  can also be understood in the following qualitative way. Assume that the width of the initial wavefunction is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_i`$, while that of the final wavefunction is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_f`$. Let their ratio be $`R=\mathrm{\Delta }y_f/\mathrm{\Delta }y_i`$. If the width of the initial distribution of particles is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_i`$, then the width of the final distribution of particles is equal to the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_iR`$. The reasoning in  can be reduced to the following reasoning: one studies a case in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_i=0`$, so one concludes that the final distribution has the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_iR=0R=0`$. However, in this reasoning, one forgets that $`R=\mathrm{}`$. The correct reasoning is $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_iR=0\mathrm{}`$, which is indeterminate. The regularization of the indeterminate expression leads to the result that the product is finite and equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }y_f`$, in agreement with standard quantum mechanics.

Finally, note that a wavefunction proportional to a $`\delta `$-function is an idealization that never realizes in nature. Therefore, even if the formal arguments in  were correct (which, as argued above, were not), they would not correspond to an incompatibility of Bohmian mechanics with standard quantum mechanics in realistic situations.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.


text:
# Motivation and possibilities of affordable low-frequency radio interferometry in space

## 1 Introduction

Because of the existence of ionospheric plasma, radio frequencies below 10-30 MHz are difficult or impossible to study using ground-based radio telescopes, whereas low-frequency space-based interferometric arrays with good angular resolution have not yet been built. There are many interesting phenomena to study by low-frequency radio astronomy. This has been pointed out in many references, e.g., Basart BasartEtAl97a (1997)b and Kassim and Weiler KassimAndWeiler90 (1990). These references also give comprehensive lists of radioastronomy research topics for low-frequency space interferometry, which will not be repeated here. Additionally, activities have started lately to make the first radio measurements of extrasolar planets (exoplanets). A more detailed investigation of this is a subject of this paper (section 2 below). Before going into the details of radio detection of exoplanets, we list briefly the principal possibilities to study exoplanets in general (Clark Clark98 (1998), for recent short review, see Schneider Schneider2002 (2002)):

1. Detecting the planet-induced wobbling motion of the parent star from the Doppler effect it induces in its spectral lines (Mayor and Queloz MayorAndQueloz95 (1995)). The method gives estimates for the mass and orbiting distance of the planet. This is the primary method for detecting new exoplanets at the moment.
2. Detecting the wobbling motion astrometrically (Benedict et al. BenedictEtAl2002 (2002)).
3. Observing transit situations where the planet moves in front of the parent star and produces a small change in the light curve of the star (Henry et al. HenryEtAl2000 (2000), Charbonneau et al. CharbonneauEtAl2000 (2000)). One can find the orbiting distance and the planetary radius by this method, and in principle also obtain information about the atmospheric composition of the planet. The method requires that the orbital plane is favourably aligned, so it cannot be used for systematic searches in the local neighbourhood.
4. Using gravitational microlensing events caused by remote exoplanets (Bennett and Rhie, BennettAndRhie2000 (2000)). This technique has the potential of providing statistics of exoplanet orbital distances and masses in the galaxy.
5. Direct observation of a nearby exoplanet in visual or infrared (the DARWIN mission, http://sci.esa.int/home/darwin/index.cfm, Fridlund and Kaltenegger FridlundAndKaltenegger2002 (2002)). Like the transit technique, this method gives the size and orbital distance, and in its more sophisticated forms also information about the composition of the exoplanet atmosphere. It allows for a systematic study of all exoplanets in the local neighbourhood.
6. Optical or infrared observation of an exoplanet with the help of diffraction at the dark limb of the moon (Richichi Richichi2003 (2003)).
7. Direct observation of the exoplanet’s radio signal. This will give the magnetic field of the planet. Like the visible and infrared direct observation, the method is suitable mainly for nearby exoplanets.

The last method listed is the one elaborated on this paper. It is the only method capable of giving information about the exoplanet’s magnetic field and it has not been as extensively developed as some other methods. When combined with direct infrared or optical methods it allows us to study a given exoplanet more closely than with the other methods mentioned. In section 2 we discuss the theoretical possibilities for exoplanet radio detection and in section 3 we discuss two possible affordable but powerful antenna configurations in space. We close the paper with a summary.

## 2 Exoplanet cyclotron maser emissions

In the radio frequencies there have been a few attempts to detect the cyclotron maser emissions from giant gas exoplanets (Winglee et al. WingleeEtAl86 (1986), Bastian et al. BastianEtAl2000 (2000), Zarka et al. ZarkaEtAl97 (1997)), although no exoplanet radio signal has yet been detected. These searches were ground-based and thus they were limited to frequencies above the ionospheric cutoff. Actually, the frequencies used thus far have been quite high: for example the lowest frequency used by Bastian et al. (BastianEtAl2000 (2000)) was 74 MHz (the highest frequency at Jupiter is 39.5 MHz). The same frequency was probed with 0.12 Jy sensitivity again in 2002 with no exoplanet detected (Farrell et al. FarrellEtAl2003 (2003)).

In Earth’s case, the cyclotron maser emission is called the auroral kilometric radiation (AKR) and its frequency range is 50-800 kHz (Gurnett Gurnett74 (1974)), i.e. much lower than the ionospheric cutoff of $`10`$ MHz. The total AKR power emitted by the Earth is $`10^710^8`$ W on the average (Gallagher and Gurnett GallagherAndGurnett79 (1979)) and $`10^9`$ W during intense magnetic storms (Gurnett Gurnett74 (1974), Gurnett91 (1991)), which means that AKR power is of the order of one percent of the particle precipitation power. The peak AKR power is therefore about $`2\times 10^8`$ times less than the total solar radiation power incident on the top of the atmosphere ($`1.7\times 10^{17}`$ W). Due to the radiation balance, the latter number, $`1.7\times 10^{17}`$ W, is equal to the total power that the Earth radiates away in infrared; thus the maximum outgoing AKR power is $`2\times 10^8`$ times smaller than the outgoing visible and infrared radiation. As the energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength, the energy of an AKR photon (typically 3 km, corresponding to 100 kHz) is $`3\times 10^8`$ times smaller than the energy of a typical infrared photon emitted (10 $`\mu `$m, corresponding to 300 K). Since the number of radiated photons per time is equal to the output power divided by the photon’s energy, the maximum number of AKR photons is likely to be comparable to the number of photons emitted in the infrared. The infrared emission has been proposed to be used for possible detection of earthlike extra-solar system planets (exoplanets) using interferometric techniques. As an example, if an earthlike exoplanet is at 10 parsec distance and it radiates 100 kHz photons with 1 GW power, the AKR photon flux is $`1.5\times 10^{37}`$ s-1. In one second, $`10^7`$ of these photons pass through a one square kilometer area near the Earth.

The photon count estimate thus shows that in principle, receiving auroral radio emissions from an earthlike exoplanet should be possible and not more difficult than receiving its infrared signal. If a radio signal from an earthlike exoplanet would be received, it might significantly increase our knowledge of such planets in general, because the frequency of the emission is the electron gyrofrequency ($`f/\mathrm{Hz}=28B/\mathrm{nT}`$) and we can thus get knowledge of the magnetic field at the bottom of the planet’s auroral acceleration region, thus giving a lower limit for the surface magnetic field (Wu and Lee WuAndLee79 (1979)). How quickly the emission varies in time reflects the time constant of the substorm cycle (substorms occur at unpredictable and quasi-random times, but the number of substorms over a long enough observation period should depend only on the avearge properties of the solar wind and the size of the magnetosphere), which is related to the size of the magnetosphere. At least if the exoplanet is sufficiently earthlike, it should have an identifiable substorm cycle. If a planet has a significant internal magnetic field, it must be produced by a dynamo working in a liquid core. The dynamo action needs a Coriolis force to work, thus the presence of a magnetic field tells that the planet is rotating fast and that it has a liquid core. If the planet is otherwise earthlike and with suitable surface temperature (Franck et al. FranckEtAl2000 (2000)), these conditions increase the likelihood that it could have conditions suitable for life. Fast enough rotation keeps the day/night temperature difference within reasonable limits and the presence of a liquid core is necessary, although not sufficient, to have plate tectonics to work (Bostrom Bostrom2000 (2000)). Plate tectonics is, on the other hand, probably required to recycle carbon back into the mantle and thus prevent a runaway CO2 greenhouse effect that would turn the planet inhabitable (Gonzales et al. GonzalesEtAl2001 (2001), Franck et al., FranckEtAl99 (1999), FranckEtAl2000 (2000)). Thus, measuring the radio emissions could be a way to investigate if a planet which is known to be roughly earthlike from other measurements is indeed habitable, or even to make such a judgement without being able to detect the planet at all by other means.

There are two principal difficulties in detecting exoplanet radio signals:

1. Interstellar and interplanetary plasma distort the radio waves, limiting the maximum angular resolution that can be reached (Linfield Linfield96 (1996)). If the angular resolution is not good enough, the exoplanet’s radio signal is lost in the diffuse background emission, independent of how large radio telescope is used. The amount of diffuse background emission is, however, essentially unknown: what is known is a very low angular resolution map (Brown Brown73 (1973)) and it is not known to what extent the map comes from truly diffuse emissions and to what extent localised sources. If it comes from localised sources, the possibilities for detecting exoplanets increase correspondingly. The only way to find it out is to build a spaceborne low-frequency interferometer.
2. The maximum angular resolution set by the interstellar plasma is in any case almost certainly worse than what would be required to separate the planet from its parent star. Thus in practice the whole stellar system will be seen as one point source. If the parent star or the giant planets outshine the earthlike exoplanet in the radio frequency used, detecting the planet’s own signal may then be difficult. However, during certain times even the Earth’s AKR may outshine the radio emissions of the Sun so this is not necessarily a problem. For cyclotron emissions of Jupiter-like exoplanets the problem is less severe anyway. It means, however, that attention must be given to methods to distinguish planetary and stellar radio emissions. One way to help distinguishing them is that planetary emissions are circularly polarised while the stellar emissions are not.

To make progress towards solving both problem areas, new high sensitivity and high angular resolution measurements are needed. These are only possible to obtain using spaceborne low-frequency interferometers.

Even if these studies should show that it is not possible to detect earthlike exoplanets due to one of the problems listed above, these new instruments would greatly contribute to the ongoing search for radio signals from gaseous exoplanets. The reason is twofold. Firstly, a much better sensitivity can be expected for a spaceborne interferometer than for ground-based telescopes. The sensitivity mainly depends on the baseline, which can be selected according to the requirements (see also section 3.4.). The radio flux density at the Earth is estimated by Farrell et al. FarrellEtAl99 (1999). Secondly, the ionospheric cutoff can be avoided. The maximum frequency emitted by a planet is equal to the gyrofrequency on the planet’s surface. Planets orbiting their host stars in very close orbits (i.e. $`d0.1`$ A.U.) are subject to strong tidal dissipation, leading to gravitational locking. For such planets the rotation period equals the orbital period, and fast rotation is not possible. Commonly employed scaling-laws for the planetary magnetic moment (see, e.g. CainEtAl95 (1995)) which are usually based on an $`\alpha \omega `$-dynamo always yield a magnetic moment rapidly decreasing with increasing rotation period. This puts the expected emission frequencies of several planets (51 Peg, $`\nu `$ And, 55 Cnc) well below ionospheric cutoff FarrellEtAl99 (1999). Furthermore, as the emitted flux density decreases with increasing frequency, even those planets which do emit at higher frequencies will be easier to detect at lower frequencies Rucker2002 (2002).

## 3 Low-frequency antenna design in space

A lot of work has been done to design a low-frequency array in space under the ALFA project (Jones et al. JonesEtAl2000 (2000)). While this body of work provides useful background information, we shall take a fresh approach which takes into account exoplanet detection and recent developments in space technology. This is the reason why the technical solutions we will come up with further below are different from those proposed in the ALFA project.

To reach good angular resolution at low frequencies, interferometry with multiple spacecraft is needed, while the number of spacecraft should be kept at minimum to make the mission less expensive. To increase the ability of the system to observe faint sources, either the number of interferometric measurement points (spacecraft) can be increased or the antenna on each spacecraft can be made more directing. In this paper we especially concentrate on the latter option because it appears more promising in terms of cost-effectiveness. We shall also assume that a rather wide frequency band (e.g., 0.3-30 MHz) must be covered; this precludes designing the antennas specifically for one frequency.

In order to be practical and affordable, at least the following technical requirements must be met. The total mass of the antenna must not exceed a few hundred kilograms. The antenna must be such that it can be packed densely during launch and deployed in space. The construction must not be overly sensitive to micrometeor damage. The length of stiff structures must be kept below a few tens of meters.

Based on these requirements, we considered and rejected many design ideas. A simple dipole wire antenna is technically easy to deploy and is very lightweight (the mass of one kilometre of wire can be made as small as $`1`$ kg). For wavelengths larger than the dipole wire length, a dipole antenna works well. For shorter wavelengths the gain pattern becomes complicated and the effective area is of the order of wavelength squared. Thus by using a set of independent dipoles of different lengths (lengths e.g. scaling like powers of two), a wanted frequency range can be covered. This may not be too bad in terms of effective area, but a drawback of dipoles is that they are hardly directing at all. In theory, directing antennas are not needed since a similar effect can be produced digitally if the number of measurement points is large enough, but in practice the finite dynamic range of A/D converters makes it impossible to detect very faint source in the presence of strong radio “noise” from Earth’s AKR, Jupiter and the Sun unless the antenna elements themselves are also directing.

The surface of a large gas-filled balloon could be used as an antenna or a spherical reflector, but such a construction is vulnerable to micrometeors (the gas would escape through the holes made by the meteors). A spinning disk-shaped thin mylar or kapton membrane (dielectric) with conducting antenna patterns wired on it is too heavy even if made from 1 $`\mu `$m membrane. Frequency-independent spiral-shaped wire antennas could be periodically realised in the spin plane by adjusting the spin rate of the spacecraft periodically, but their directivity and effective area is not so much better than those of a simple dipole wire antenna that the extra technical effort involved would be warranted. A Yagi-Uda antenna can be made very directing, but its frequency range is too narrow to be useful.

### 3.1 Planar log-periodic spin-plane antenna

Figure 1 shows a log-periodic wire antenna in the spin plane, spanned by rotating masses. The antenna itself is only on one side of the spacecraft, but for mechanical stability, masses are added on the other side as well. The radius of the dashed circle should be $`2`$ km (the length of the outermost antenna wire should be one half the longest wavelength wanted). Deploying such a system is more complicated than deploying ordinary dipole antennas, but should not be too difficult. The thin antenna wires are stretched between the radial support wires which are kept in shape by the rotating masses. For optimal operation the antenna wires should have a definite thickness which depends on their length (Balanis Balanis97 (1997)). Using such thick wires is out of question, but a similar effect could probably be obtained without increasing the antenna mass by using thin conducting bands. A band is also expected to be more micrometeor-resistant than a wire since a meteor only punches a hole in it but does not break the band like it breaks the wire in case of a hit. Thus the meteor danger should not prohibit the use of kilometer-long wires. The feasibility of deploying and maintaining long wires has also been demonstrated in practice. A 20 km long tether has been almost sucessfully deployed from the Space Shuttle in 1996, although the tether broke due to ohmic heating produced by an induced current in the near-Earth high magnetic field (high induced currents occur only at low Earth orbit where the magnetic field is large). Furthermore, the IMAGE satellite has flown with 500 m tip-to-tip booms for two years now (Burch Burch2003 (2003)).

A log-periodic antenna operates well over a wide wavelength range determined by the minimum and maximum length of the antenna rods. The directivity of a log-periodic antenna is usually 7-10 dB (Balanis Balanis97 (1997)). For a maximum wavelength of 600 m (500 kHz) the antenna length should be $``$ 2 km (the exact length depends on the amount of directivity and on the frequency range), having a total amount of wire of $`10`$ km. A 0.4 mm diameter wire with aluminium mass density (2700 kg m-3) has mass per length of 0.34 kg/km so the total mass of wires would be a few kilograms. Even together with the rotating masses that keep the support wires stretched, the antenna mass would remain well below 100 kg.

The object to be measured with a spinning log-periodic antenna should be in the spin plane and useful data of that object can be taken only a short period during each spin. The effective area of a log-periodic antenna is similar to an optimal dipole at each frequency so the chief benefit of the log-periodic construction is its directivity.

### 3.2 Parabolic “spidernet” reflector with two spacecraft

It is not possible to increase the effective area of an antenna element much beyond the square of the wavelength without using a collector, which must be some type of a parabolic reflector in practice. A parabolic reflector has a very good directivity and an effective area which is roughly equal to its physical area. It works for wavelengths shorter (preferably: much shorter) than its radius.

A circular disk made of wires (a “spidernet”, Fig. 2) can be kept in shape by spinning, and it acts as a reflector for waves whose wavelength is longer than the wire mesh spacing. To collect the radiation, however, the dish must be bent, which necessitates a long (half the dish radius) solid axis. For example, if the dish radius is 500 m, the solid axis should be 250 m long. Constructing such a solid axis and deploying it in space is a technological challenge, although probably not impossible since the force that the axis has to withstand is not large.

The length of the required solid axis required to support the parabolic dish decreases if the dish is made more planar, but then the focal point moves away from the spacecraft. Using two spacecraft, one holding the reflector dish and the other hosting the receiving antenna looks more promising, however. For example, with a 20 m long solid spinning axis one can keep in shape a parabolic dish of 1 km diameter. The focal point (the receiver spacecraft) is then 3 km away.

Assuming a spidernet wire mesh with $`d=5`$ m wire spacing, frequencies up to $`50`$ MHz are reflected. If the spidernet radius is $`R=500`$ m, the area is $`A=8\times 10^5`$ m2 and the total length of wire required to weave the net is $`L=2A/d=300`$ km. If the wire mass per length is the same as given above (0.34 kg/km), the total wire mass is then 100 kg. An equivalent solid membrane dish of the same area would be much heavier, or about 2000 kg if one uses a very thin membrane of 1 $`\mu `$m thick and with aluminium mass density. The mass estimate of 100 kg was based on wire diameter 0.4 mm. Probably most of the wires could be thinner because they are repeated every 5 m; a few tens of kilograms might be a realistic estimate for the spidernet mass. On the other hand, to keep the spidernet in its shape it needs to be rotated and a mass which is a few times larger than the spidernet mass must reside on the circumference. The actual mass of the reflector construction depends on the adopted spin rate, the wanted upper frequency limit and the employed materials, but the above consideration shows that reaching a mass of as small as 100 kg is not out of the question.

The shape of the parabolic spidernet reflector needs not be very accurate at the long wavelengths and long focal length considered here. A numerical experimentation using the NEC code shows that even a cone-shaped reflector works almost as well as a parabola for the parametre values discussed above. As is well-known for parabolic dishes, the directivity of the antenna as a whole is low for low frequencies and increases up to the cutoff frequency which is determined by the mesh spacing of the spidernet. For example, with dish radius of 500 m, a directivity of 16 dB is obtained at 4 MHz.

The deployment of a spidernet with its support wires (Fig. 2) should occur automatically by the centrifugal force. The technical construction of the reflector spacecraft is made easier by the fact that it does not need many other devices or outstanding instruments.

### 3.3 Receiver cooling

Based on currently existing measurements of the galactic radio noise at low frequencies, cooling of the receiver should be unnecessary since the sky temperature is much larger than 300 K. However, since accurate maps of the radio sky at low frequencies have not been made, including a simple passive radiator cooling down to $`30`$ K might still prove valuable since the background emission may turn out to consist of pointlike sources in some regions of the sky.

### 3.4 Orbit selection and baseline for interferometry

To avoid manmade signals, a radioastronomical spacecraft should be either orbiting the Moon so that it is periodically behind it or it should be as far away from the Earth as possible, possibly even orbiting the Sun. In the Moon orbit case, data must be stored in the spacecraft and transmitted to Earth when the eclipse period stops, or it must be relayed to Earth by yet another spacecraft. Nowadays it is no problem to have sufficient memory onboard to store eclipse period data, so the Moon orbit is attractive because of its other benefits, e.g. cheaper communication link to Earth because of the relatively short distance. However, if the wanted interferometer baseline is longer than the radius of the Moon, the Moon orbit cannot be used. The maximum feasible baseline is determined by the amount of scattering and bending caused by interstellar and interplanetary plasma. The properties of interstellar plasma (density and density gradients) are still largely based on models rather than data (Rickett Rickett90 (1990), Linfield Linfield96 (1996)), so accurate answers do not exist. It has been estimated by the ALFA proposal scientists that baselines longer than 100 km are not useful in the 0.03-30 MHz range (Jones et al. JonesEtAl2000 (2000)); however, this estimate is based on the assumed average properties of the interstellar plasma in the kiloparsec scale. It may be that especially in our local neighbourhood ($`<30`$ parsec) there are at least some directions where the interstellar plasma is tenuous and smooth enough to allow for higher angular resolution than the 10 arcmin what is provided by a 100 km baseline at 1 MHz. Especially when trying to observe exoplanets, the local neighbourhood is important, and there an angular resolution as high as possible is required, so it is our suggestion that the baseline should preferably be 500–1000 km, giving angular resolution of 1-2 arcmin at 1 MHz. Since the plasma effects decrease as $`1/f^2`$ and the angular resolution as $`1/f`$, at high frequencies the bottleneck is the spacecraft separation rather than plasma effects.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to continue and refresh the interest towards low-frequency radio astronomy by pointing out one intriguing possible application area (exoplanets) and by outlining two possible technical constructions (one simple and one more ambitious) of a single-satellite antenna with high directivity. Detecting nearby earthlike exoplanets with radio methods is certainly very difficult, but the same is true for any other method thus far proposed. Because the limits of the radio method depend strongly on the properties of the interstellar plasma, which are currently not accurately known, the way forward is to try and implement the method. In the best case one could study the same exoplanets by both optical, infrared and radio methods; while each method used alone is incomplete, they are much more powerful when used together.

Regarding the technical methods to construct spaceborne low-frequency antennas, the simpler solution, a log-periodic antenna in the spin plane is lightweight and relatively easy to construct. Its main drawback is a modest effective area and the fact that the instrument cannot be continuously pointed towards an object (this could also be a benefit if several objects are to be scanned during the spin).

The more ambitious solution, but still quite affordable and feasible using current technology, is a large spidernet parabolic network paired with a separate receiver satellite containing e.g. dipole antennas. To reflect low-frequency waves, a coarse mesh of thin conducting wires is enough, which makes it possible to construct very large dish reflectors with radius 500-1000 m with a mass as small as 100 kg.

Since the purpose of the paper is not to present a concrete new mission, there are many technical details that we did not investigate, for example, the optimal antenna configuration (set of dipoles, or perhaps spiral antennas) in the receiver satellite of the spidernet configuration. By bringing in the exoplanet viewpoint we wanted to exemplify that low-frequency arrays in space would be interesting also for magnetospheric and auroral physicists outside the traditional domain of radioastronomy. Interpreting an exoplanet radio data in an optimal way requires a detailed knowledge of magnetospheric physics and the ability to quantitatively simulate magnetospheric and auroral processes in conditions that are not exactly similar to any of the examples we have studied in the solar system.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Lennart Åhlén, Bo Thidé, Kaj Wiik and Esko Valtaoja for useful information and discussions.


text:
# Cosmological density perturbations from perturbed couplings

\[

## Abstract

The density perturbations generated when the inflaton decay rate is perturbed by a light scalar field $`\chi `$ are studied. By explicitly solving the perturbation equations for the system of two scalar fields and radiation, we show that even in low energy-scale inflation nearly scale-invariant spectra of scalar perturbations with an amplitude set by observations are obtained through the conversion of $`\chi `$ fluctuations into adiabatic density perturbations. We demonstrate that the spectra depend on the average decay rate of the inflaton & on the inflaton fluctuations. We then apply this new mechanism to string cosmologies & generalized Einstein theories and discuss the conditions under which scale-invariant spectra are possible.

\]

In inflationary cosmology the seeds of large-scale structure are originated from quantum fluctuations of a light scalar field responsible for inflation– called the inflaton. The adiabatic perturbations generated from inflaton fluctuations exhibit nearly scale-invariant spectra, as required by observations . The energy scale of inflation is determined by the amplitude of large-scale perturbations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). For example, in the simple model of chaotic inflation with potential $`V=(1/2)m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2`$, the mass of the inflaton $`\varphi `$ is constrained to be $`m_\varphi 10^6m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) normalization  (Here $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}1.22\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is the Planck mass).

On the other hand, if inflation occurs at a much lower scale, the amplitude of density perturbations is too low to explain the temperature anisotropy in CMB. In this case we need to consider some other mechanism to generate sufficient density perturbations.

Recently a number of authors  independently proposed an alternative method to produce scalar metric perturbations using the spatial variation of the inflaton decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since the coupling strength is generally a function of the vacuum expectation value of scalar fields in string theory, it is natural to consider the case where the coupling fluctuates due to scalar field perturbations. When there exists some light field whose mass is smaller than the Hubble rate (such as modulus ), its large-scale fluctuations are not exponentially suppressed during inflation. This can provide another source of scalar metric perturbations in addition to the inflaton. In fact the authors in  considered the decay of the inflaton by treating it as a matter fluid and showed that density perturbations can be generated by the perturbed decay rate, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In this work we shall extend the analysis of Ref.  to the more realistic situation where the inflaton is treated as a scalar field, and completely follow the evolution of metric perturbations during inflation and reheating. This is particularly important when we treat the dynamics of reheating consistently, since the fluid approach can lead to some loss of information (like parametric resonance) by averaging over the scalar field oscillations. We will analyze the case where perturbations of both the inflaton and the decay rate coexist, and estimate the amplitude and the spectral index of metric perturbations after inflaton decay. We shall also apply this new mechanism to string-inspired cosmologies & generalized Einstein theories.

Let us consider the chaotic inflationary scenario with potential $`V=(1/2)m_\varphi ^2\varphi ^2`$. During reheating, the inflaton $`\varphi `$ decays to standard light particles through the interaction, $`\lambda _0\varphi \sigma \sigma `$, whose decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is proportional to $`\lambda _0^2`$ . The inflaton can also decay via non-renormalizable interactions with superfields, e.g., $`\varphi (q/M)qq`$ ($`M`$ is some mass scale), in which case the vacuum expectation value of a scalar component of the $`q`$ superfields, $`\chi `$, gives rise to an effective coupling, $`\lambda =\chi /M`$ . Following Ref.  we shall analyze the case where the effective coupling $`\lambda (\chi )`$ is dependent on the field $`\chi `$ as

$`\lambda (\chi )=\lambda _0\left(1+\chi /M+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (1)
When the coupling, $`(1/2)g^2\varphi ^2\chi ^2`$, exists during the reheating stage, this can lead to explosive particle production called preheating . In order for preheating to occur, we require the large resonance parameter, $`q_{\mathrm{re}}g^2\varphi ^2/(4m_\varphi ^2)1`$, at the end of inflation , in which case large-scale perturbations in $`\chi `$ are exponentially suppressed during inflation due to the heavy effective mass, $`g|\varphi |`$, relative to the Hubble rate, $`H`$. Then the perturbations of the coupling $`\lambda (\chi )`$ are vanishing small, which do not affect the evolution of metric perturbations. Therefore in this work we do not take into account the effect of preheating coming from the interaction, $`(1/2)g^2\varphi ^2\chi ^2`$. When this interaction is added to the Born decay term, $`\lambda _0\varphi \chi ^2`$, this gives rise to the form of the effective coupling (1) perturbed by the inflaton $`\varphi `$ instead of $`\chi `$. However we are interested in the case where the coupling is perturbed by a light field $`\chi `$ other than the inflaton.

Hereafter we will analyze the two-field system of $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ with radiation. We assume that the field $`\chi `$ has a small mass, $`m_\chi `$, relative to the Hubble rate, $`H\dot{a}/a`$, during inflation (here $`a`$ is a scale factor). Radiation is generated through the decay of the inflaton with the $`\chi `$-dependent coupling (1). Consider the following perturbed metric for scalar perturbations in the longitudinal gauge :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })dt^2+a^2(t)(12\mathrm{\Psi })\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j.`$ (2)
At linear order one has $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ due to the vanishing anisotropic stress. Then the Fourier transformed, linearized Einstein equations are ***After this work was completed, the authors in Ref.  developed a gauge-invariant formalism for the large-scale curvature perturbations with spatial and time variations of the inflaton decay rate using the formalism in Ref. . See Ref.  for a related work.

$`(k^2/a^2)\mathrm{\Phi }+3H(\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+H\mathrm{\Phi })(4\pi /m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2)(\dot{\varphi }^2+\dot{\chi }^2)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (3)
$`=(4\pi /m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2)\left[\dot{\varphi }\delta \dot{\varphi }+m_\varphi ^2\varphi \delta \varphi +\dot{\chi }\delta \dot{\chi }+m_\chi ^2\chi \delta \chi +\delta \mu \right],`$ (4)
$`\delta \ddot{\varphi }+(3H+\mathrm{\Gamma })\delta \dot{\varphi }+\left(k^2/a^2+m_\varphi ^2\right)\delta \varphi `$ (5)
$`=4\dot{\varphi }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}2m_\varphi ^2\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }(2\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$ (6)
$`\delta \ddot{\chi }+3H\delta \dot{\chi }+\left(k^2/a^2+m_\chi ^2\right)\delta \chi =4\dot{\chi }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}2m_\chi ^2\chi \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (7)
$`\delta \dot{\mu }+4H\delta \mu =4\mu \left[\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k/3a)v\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }\left[2\delta \dot{\varphi }+(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma })\dot{\varphi }\right],`$ (8)
$`\dot{v}+(4H+\dot{\mu }/\mu )v=(k/a)\left[\mathrm{\Phi }+(\delta \mu +3\mathrm{\Gamma }\dot{\varphi }\delta \varphi )/4\mu \right],`$ (9)
where $`k`$ is a comoving wave number (the $`k`$ subscript is implicit) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the inflaton decay rate that is smaller than the Hubble rate during inflation. $`\delta \mu `$ is the perturbation of radiation whose energy density is given by $`\mu `$, and $`v`$ is the velocity of the radiation fluid.

The decay rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, is proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$, and $`\lambda `$ is dependent on the field $`\chi `$ through the relation (1). Therefore the fluctuation of the decay rate can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \lambda }{\lambda }}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \chi }{\chi +M}},`$ (10)
where we dropped the contributions coming from the higher-order terms in Eq. (1). When the mass of the field $`\chi `$ is smaller than $`H`$, large-scale $`\chi `$ fluctuations are not suppressed during inflation, thereby providing source terms for the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

We shall analyze the situation where the background field $`\chi `$ is not dynamically important relative to the inflaton $`\varphi `$ in order to avoid the second stage of inflation to occur. This means that $`\dot{\chi }\dot{\varphi }`$ in Eq. (3), in which case the correlation between adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations is small  due to the negligible angular velocity in field space ($`\mathrm{tan}\theta \dot{\chi }/\dot{\varphi }0`$). In the absence of the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ term the conversion from isocurvature to adiabatic perturbations occurs significantly only when $`\dot{\chi }`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ can be the same order during inflation . This corresponds to double inflationary scenarios driven by two scalar fields, in which case the strength of the correlation is numerically investigated in Refs.  for $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

In the presence of the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fluctuation, the situation is different from the one discussed in Ref. . First of all, even if $`\dot{\chi }`$ is much smaller than $`\dot{\varphi }`$, the conversion of the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fluctuation into the gravitational potential occurs as seen from Eqs. (3), (5) and (8). As long as the mass of $`\chi `$ is light and large-scale $`\chi `$ fluctuations are not suppressed during inflation, this naturally leads to the conversion to the gravitational potential through the perturbed decay rate, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The advantage of this scenario is that we do not need to rely on two $`\chi `$-dependent source terms in Eq. (3) in order to obtain sufficient isocurvature perturbations. In this sense it is also different from metric preheating  where the growth of the $`\chi `$-dependent terms sources the gravitational potential.

In the absence of the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ term, the amplitude of scalar perturbations generated from inflaton fluctuations are estimated as $`\delta _H=\sqrt{512\pi /75}V^{3/2}/(m_{\mathrm{pl}}^3|V_\varphi |)|_{k=aH}`$ . Substituting the value $`\varphi 3m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ corresponding to the 60 e-foldings before the end of inflation, we get $`\delta _H12m_\varphi /m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. Making use of the COBE result $`\delta _H2\times 10^5`$, the inflaton mass is constrained to be $`m_\varphi 1.7\times 10^6m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. The spectral index $`n`$ for the power spectrum, $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_k|^2`$, is estimated as :

$`n=16ϵ+2\eta 1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_\varphi ^2}{3H^2}},`$ (11)
where $`ϵ\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{16\pi }\left(\frac{V^{}}{V}\right)^2\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{3H^2}`$ and $`\eta \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{8\pi }\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{V}\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{3H^2}`$ are the slow-roll parameters. This is a slightly red-tilted spectrum for $`m_\varphi H`$.

The above basic picture of the generation of density perturbations can be substantially modified when the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fluctuations are involved. Let us first estimate the spectral index of the $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuation in Eq. (7) with mass satisfying $`m_\chi \stackrel{<}{}H`$. When the field $`\chi `$ is subdominant relative to $`\varphi `$ ($`\chi \varphi `$), we can neglect the r.h.s. of Eq. (7) coming from the gravitational potential. Then the spectral index for the super-Hubble $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuation is estimated as

$`n_{\delta \chi }=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3H^2}}(m_\varphi ^2m_\chi ^2).`$ (12)
In the presence of the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fluctuation, the power spectra $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ exhibit a spectral tilt which is a mixture of Eqs. (11) and (12). When $`m_\chi `$ is smaller than $`m_\varphi `$, one has slightly red-tilted spectra of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which are close to scale-invariant (see Fig. 1). The spectra of $`\delta \chi `$ are blue-tilted for $`m_\chi >m_\varphi `$, but this does not necessarily mean that the gravitational potential is also blue-tilted. In fact, even when $`m_\chi \stackrel{>}{}3m_\varphi `$, super-Hubble $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuations begin to be exponentially suppressed during inflation, in which case the gravitational potential is dominated by the inflaton fluctuation whose spectrum is given by Eq. (11). Typically we have red-tilted, nearly scale-invariant spectra of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for wide range of the parameter space.

If the inflaton mass is less than $`m_\varphi 10^6m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$, the amplitude of the power spectra $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is suppressed compared to the observed value, $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }10^9`$ (see Fig. 1). Taking into account the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fluctuation, the amplitude of density perturbations can be much higher. In fact, as shown in Fig. 1, it is possible to get nearly scale-invariant power spectra whose amplitude are of order $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }10^9`$.

We also plot in Fig. 2 the parameter range with respect to $`m_\varphi /m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in which the power-spectra, $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }10^9`$, are obtained after inflaton decay. When the $`\chi `$ mass is light relative to the Hubble rate, one gets the perturbations of order $`\delta \chi H`$ after Hubble radius crossing. Therefore the fluctuation of the decay rate is approximately estimated as $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }H/M`$ for $`\chi M`$ from Eq. (10). We can have a considerable amount of fluctuations in $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by varying the mass scale, $`M`$. In Fig. 2 we find that inclusion of the perturbed decay rate allows for the wide possibility to generate the perturbations of order $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }10^9`$ even for $`m_\varphi 10^6m_{\mathrm{pl}}`$. This figure corresponds to the one where $`\chi `$ is much smaller than $`\varphi `$ (and $`M`$). We wish to stress that $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuations can be sufficiently transferred to adiabatic density perturbations even for $`\mathrm{tan}\theta 0`$. When the average decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gets smaller, we require larger values of $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (corresponding to smaller values of $`M`$) to lead to sufficient conversion as confirmed by Eqs. (5) and (8). This behavior is actually seen in our numerical simulations of Fig. 2. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ ($`\lambda _00`$), the above conversion does not occur apart from the standard one discussed in Ref. .

We can apply the above new mechanism for the more general action

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}{16\pi }R\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2F(\phi )(\chi )^2U\right]},`$ (13)
where $`F(\phi )`$ is a function of $`\phi `$ and $`U`$ is a potential of scalar fields including their interactions. The action (13) contains not only various generalized Einstein theories  but also the tree-level Pre-Big-Bang (PBB) cosmology  from the dimensional reduction and 4D effective description of ekpyrotic cosmology .

The effective potential $`U`$ typically includes an exponential term in generalized Einstein theories, which can lead to inflationary solutions . Let us consider the soft inflation model  with $`U=U_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2/p}\phi )`$ and $`F=(1/2)e^{\beta \phi }`$ with $`\beta `$ being a constant (hereafter we set the units such that $`8\pi /m_{\mathrm{pl}}^21`$). We shall assume that the decay rate of the inflaton is perturbed by the field $`\chi `$ with a negligible mass. The evolution of the background is given as $`at^p(\tau )^{p/(1p)}`$ and $`e^\phi \{(p1)\tau \}^{\sqrt{2p}/(1p)}`$ with $`\tau a^1𝑑t(<0)`$ being a conformal time . Assuming that the background field $`\chi `$ is not dynamically important, the perturbed equation for $`\delta \chi `$ is approximately written as

$`\delta \ddot{\chi }+(3H+\beta \dot{\phi })\delta \dot{\chi }+(k^2/a^2)\delta \chi =0.`$ (14)
Introducing new variables, $`be^{\beta \phi /2}a`$ and $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\chi }b\delta \chi `$, we get

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2b^{\prime \prime }/b\right)\delta \stackrel{~}{\chi }=0,`$ (15)
where a prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`\tau `$. When the evolution of $`b`$ is characterized by $`b(\tau )^\gamma `$, the spectral index of the $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuation is given as $`n_{\delta \chi }=4|12\gamma |`$ . In the present case $`\gamma `$ is given by

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p1}}\left(p+\beta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}}\right).`$ (16)
In the limit of $`p\mathrm{}`$, we have $`\gamma 1`$, thereby yielding the scale-invariant spectra, $`n_{\delta \chi }=1`$. In the presence of the noncanonical kinetic term ($`\beta 0`$), we have $`n_{\delta \chi }=1`$ for $`\beta =\sqrt{2/p}`$ or $`\beta =(3p2)\sqrt{2/p}`$ (corresponding to $`\gamma =1`$ or $`\gamma =2`$). If the decay rate of the inflaton is perturbed by the field $`\chi `$, it is possible to generate scale-invariant spectra of density perturbations in a similar way as discussed previously.

In PBB and ekpyrotic cosmologies, one has the contracting phase of the universe in the Einstein frame before the bounce . Let us consider the ekpyrotic scenario whose potential is given by $`U=U_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2/p}\phi )`$ with $`U_0<0`$ and $`0<p<1`$. In this case the contracting phase is characterized by the scale factor, $`a(t)^p(\tau )^{p/(1p)}`$, with $`t<0`$. Since the brane modulus, $`\phi `$, evolves as $`e^\phi \{(1p)(\tau )\}^{\sqrt{2p}/(1p)}`$, we get the same $`\gamma `$ given by Eq. (16) for the fluctuation $`\delta \chi `$. In the case of minimal coupling ($`\beta =0`$), one has $`n_{\delta \chi }=(3p)/(1p)3`$ for $`p0`$. This is the same blue spectral index as the curvature perturbation, $``$, obtained in the system of the brane-modulus only . We can have $`n_{\delta \chi }=1`$ for $`p=2/3`$ , but the system is found to be unstable in this case . When $`\beta =\sqrt{2/p}`$ or $`\beta =(23p)\sqrt{2/p}`$, metric perturbations can be scale-invariant provided that $`\delta \chi `$ fluctuations are sufficiently converted to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the perturbed decay rate.

The PBB scenario corresponds to the vanishing potential with $`p=1/3`$. It is convenient to use the relation $`\varphi =\sqrt{2}\phi `$ between the dilaton $`\varphi `$ in the PBB case and the field $`\phi `$ in the ekpyrotic case . This is equivalent to replacing $`\beta `$ in Eq. (13) for new beta $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, as $`\beta =\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Then the spectral index for $`\delta \chi `$ is given by $`n_{\delta \chi }=4\sqrt{3}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|`$, which allows for scale-invariant spectra for $`|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|=\sqrt{3}`$. Since $`|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|=2`$ for the standard axionic coupling, we have $`n_{\delta \chi }0.54`$ in this case . If we take into account the contribution of the modulus kinetic term, $`n(\alpha )^2`$, in the action (13) (here $`n`$ is the number of compactified dimensions), it is possible to obtain scale-invariant spectra even for $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=2`$ . When the modulus $`\alpha `$ evolves as $`e^\alpha (\tau )^s`$, we get the spectral index $`n_{\delta \chi }=4|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|\sqrt{32ns^2}`$. The scale-invariant spectra follow for $`|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|\sqrt{32ns^2}=3`$.

Of course one must make a numerical analysis in order to check the efficiency of the conversion to adiabatic density perturbations. In string-inspired cosmologies with a contracting phase, noncanonical kinetic terms ($`\beta 0`$) are essentially important to yield scale-invariant spectra in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the perturbed decay rate coming from $`\delta \chi `$. The correlated adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations were discussed in Ref.  for the same action (13) when $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, implying the possibility to generate scale-invariant spectra in entropy field perturbations for $`0<p<1`$. In addition to this, the perturbed decay coupling provides us a new source for isocurvature perturbations, whose conversion to adiabatic perturbations is efficient even when the background field $`\chi `$ is dynamically negligible.

In PBB and ekpyrotic cosmologies, we have radiation just after the bounce through the decay of scalar fields. The spectra of perturbations can be affected by the details of the background evolution around the bounce as was recently analyzed in Ref. . It is certainly of interest to investigate the final spectra of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ by passing through the bounce numerically. Not only in the case of standard inflation, this can also provide us an exciting possibility to generate nearly scale-invariant density perturbations with the amplitude required by observations in the context of string cosmologies.

Acknowledgements – The author is grateful to Bruce Bassett and David Parkinson for useful discussions and comments. He also thanks Anupam Mazumdar for drawing attention to the references . This work is supported from JSPS (No. 04942).