text:
# Quantum creep and quantum creep transitions in 1D sine-Gordan chains

## Abstract

Discrete sine-Gordon (SG) chains are studied with path-integral molecular dynamics. Chains commensurate with the substrate show the transition from collective quantum creep to pinning at bead masses slightly larger than those predicted from the continuous SG model. Within the creep regime, a field-driven transition from creep to complete depinning is identified. The effects of disorder in the external potential on the chain’s dynamics depend on the potential’s roughness exponent $`H`$, i.e., quantum and classical fluctuations affect the current self-correlation functions differently for $`H=1/2`$.

sine-Gordon model, Frenkel-Kontorova model, tunneling, creep

The discrete sine-Gordon (SG) chain, also known as Frenkel-Kontorova (FK) model , is a generic model for the motion of an elastic object composed of discrete degrees of freedom through an external potential. To name a few of its applications, the SG model is used for the description of driven charge-density waves in solids, coupled Josephson junctions , the sliding motion of an adsobed layer of atoms over a subtrate , and most recently electronic conductance in nanotubes , see also the reviews  on electronic transport in one-dimensional structures. A lot of attention has been devoted to the (discrete) classical FK model both at zero and finite temperatures  and the (continuum) quantum-mechanical SG model . However, less is known about the quantum-mechanical properties of the discrete quantum FK (QFK) model, in particular about its dynamical properties. Numerical approaches have lead to a clear picture, how quantum fluctuations renormalize the thermal equilibrium structure, but results are often limited to zero (or small) external fields  or to variational approaches . While quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations yield numerically exact results for static properties, they only allow one to calculate small-frequency dynamical properties indirectly, i.e., conclusions on the existence of a phonon gap are drawn by studying the temperature dependence of the internal energy . In some cases, more dynamical information can be withdrawn from QMC if the functional form of the low-energy spectrum is known .

It is well established for the SG model that the effects due to thermal and those due to quantum fluctuations differ qualitatively. Thermal fluctuations automatically lead to creep, while quantum fluctuations do not. At finite $`T`$, kink anti-kink pairs will be activated and a small external force will eventually be able to drive the pairs apart, resulting in net mass transport . If one assumes random interaction between the elastic object and the embedding system, thermal creep is also present in higher dimensions, as shown in a sophisticated renormalization group (RG) study . Strictly speaking this implies that the pinning or the static friction force $`F_s`$ is zero and that the kinetic friction force $`F_k`$ vanishes linearly with sliding velocity $`v_0`$ in the limit of $`v_00`$, even thoug the proportionality coefficient $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=lim_{v_00}F_k/v_0`$ may be large. In order for the 1D, quantum sine-Gordon model to creep, it is not sufficient to have arbitrarily small quantum fluctuations, but the effective masses $`m`$ (defined as density times period of substrate potential) must be less than a certain critical value $`m_c`$ (at fixed momentum cut-off and fixed substrate strength) . For $`m>m_c`$, thermal fluctuations and/or finite external forces are required to initiate mass transport. Recent RG studies  suggest that $`m_c`$ is also finite in higher dimensions if the elastic manifold is pinned through an external random potential.

In many of the above mentioned cases, including the quantum SG model, it is necessary to go beyond standard RG theories , because otherwise the effect of creep or alternatively the effect of a vanishing excitation gap at zero wave vectors might be artificially removed. It is thus desirable to have numerical techniques which allow one to (i) verify the results of RG studies, (ii) obtain results beyond continuum approximations allowing an accurate determination of critical values such as $`m_c`$ for discrete systems, and (iii) obtain dynamical responses of the system for arbitrary external forces. In this Letter, we first intend to establish that (adiabatic) path integral molecular dynamics (aPIMD)  is a well-suited technique to tackle the many-body dynamics of elastic manifolds moving through embedding systems. We will then study the FK chain’s dynamics as a function of the external field. This analysis includes new results for the quantum dynamics of a FK chain with various types of disordered substrates.

PIMD is a method to calculate static  and dynamic  properties of many-body quantum systems in thermal equilibrium. It is based on the isomorphism between the partition function of a quantum mechanical point particle and that of a classical ring polymer. The number of monomers per ring is called Trotter number $`P`$. Recent progress was made concerning the dynamical interpretation: It was suggested that real time correlation functions $`C(t)`$ of observables linear in velocity $`v`$ and/or position $`x`$ can be calculated exactly with adiabatic PIMD methods . The $`C(t)`$’s follow from the equivalent correlation functions $`C_\mathrm{c}(t)`$ defined for the ring polymer’s centroids (center of mass), provided that the $`P1`$ inner degrees of freedom are in full thermodynamic equilibrium for every given position of the centroids. Furthermore, the characteristic time constant of the centroids’ thermostats must be large compared to the intrinsic relaxation time of the system. If these two conditions are satisfied, $`C(t)`$’s and $`C_\mathrm{c}(t)`$’s Fourier transforms are related through the equation $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\omega )=\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2(\mathrm{coth}(\beta \mathrm{}\omega /2)+1)\stackrel{~}{C}_\mathrm{c}(\omega )`$, where $`\beta `$ is the inverse thermal energy. In the following, only centroid spectra $`\stackrel{~}{C}_\mathrm{c}(\omega )`$ will be considered, as they reflect directly the density of states.

While we refer to Ref. 21 and to a future longer-version publication for more details of our implementation, we may note that we used a representation of our system that is diagonal in the harmonic part of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$. Moreover, higher-order corrections to the high-temperature density matrix were included in our treatment leading to $`P^4`$ convergence . We made sure that the relative systematic errors of the internal energy with respect to the classical ground state due to the use of finite $`P`$ was less than $`10^3`$. While PIMD is a finite-temperature method, it is possible to extract zero-$`T`$ behavior by analyzing the convergence of the results by decreasing $`T`$, just like the thermodynamic limit can be approximated from finite-size extrapolations. We will first consider the most simple QFK model, which corresponds to a discrete, elastic chain, which is commensurate with the underlying potential or substrate. The Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ reads

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\widehat{p}_n^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}k(x_nx_{n+1})^2V_0\mathrm{cos}(x_n/b),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{p}_n`$ and $`x_n`$ are, respectively momentum and position of particle $`n`$, $`k`$ is the stiffness of the spring connecting two neighbored particles, $`V_0`$ is the coupling strength to the embedding system, and $`2\pi b`$ is the substrate’s lattice constant. The periodic boundary condition $`x_{n+N}=x_n+2\pi bN`$ makes the chain commensurate with the substrate. Our system of units will be defined by $`V_0`$, $`b`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and Boltzmann’s constant $`k_B`$. Unless otherwise noted, we vary the mass $`m`$ but leave the harmonic intrachain coupling $`k=0.1`$ $`V_0/b^2`$ constant. This value of $`k`$ is much smaller than the maximun curvature of the potential $`\mathrm{max}(_x^2V(x))=V_0/b^2`$. This challenges the continuum approximations, which assume slow variations of the reduced positions $`x_n2n\pi b`$ with index $`n`$.

Classically, the dispersion relation of the chain is simply given by

$$\omega ^2(q)=\frac{1}{m}\left[4k\mathrm{sin}^2(qb/2)+\stackrel{~}{k}_0\right]$$
(2)
where $`q`$ denotes the phonon’s wavenumber and $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0=k_0:=V_0/b^2`$. Early calculations  suggested that this classical, zero-temperature value is renormalized to a reduced effective coupling $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0`$ due to zero-point and/or thermal fluctuations. Also for the discrete, commensurate 1D QFK model, Eq. (2) with a non-trivial value for $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0`$ turns out to provide an excellent approximation to our calculated phonon spectra. The dispersion relations of our chain are shown in the right-hand side of Fig. 1 for two different masses. (The dispersion relation was obtained by fitting Lorentzians to spectra similar to those shown below in Fig. 3. In the commensurate system, the lines are much sharper than in the disordered case.) The classical zero-temperature dispersion relation is inserted for comparison. Each curve requires only one fit parameter, namely the value for $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0`$. The dispersion relation does not change when particle number $`N`$ and Trotter number $`P`$ (sufficiently small but fixed $`\beta /P`$) are increased. We want to note that all relevant imaginary-time correlation functions could be well reproduced from the centroid spectra $`C_c(\omega )`$, which made us confident to use the dynamic interpretation of adiabatic PIMD.

The phonon excitation gap apparently becomes zero at a value $`m_\mathrm{c}0.02`$ $`\mathrm{}^2/V_0b^2`$, as shown in the left-hand side of Fig. 1. This in turn implies that sliding can be induced with an arbitrarily small external driving force for $`mm_\mathrm{c}`$. As we will show later, the system creeps in the zero-gap regime when subjected to a small external driving force. The discreteness of the chain alters the value of the mass $`m_c`$ at which the transition from finite gap (no creep) to zero gap (creep) takes place. The continuum model predicts this transition to occur at $`m_c=0.016`$ $`\mathrm{}^2/V_0b^2`$ . Thus for $`k=0.1V_0/b^2`$, the value for $`m_c`$ differs by about 20% between the discrete FK and the continuum SG model. This discrepancy will decrease as the spring stiffness within the chain increases as compared to the maximum curvature $`k_0=V_0/b^2`$ of the embedding potential. Without showing the data explicitly, we would like to comment again on the imaginary-time behavior, as this behavior does not rely on the correctness of the claims made for adiabatic PIMD. For $`m>m_c`$, we observe a finite plateau value in the imaginary-time correlation function $`G(\mathrm{\Delta }n,\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=\{x_{n+\mathrm{\Delta }n}(\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )x_n(\tau )2\pi b\mathrm{\Delta }n\}^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ $`\mathrm{}`$. Similar to what one would expect from a (quantum) Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition , $`G(\mathrm{\Delta }n,\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )`$ increases logarithmically both with $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ for $`m<m_c`$. An accurate determination of $`m_c`$’s value would yet remain much more difficult in terms of an imaginary-time analysis as compared to the one based on centroid dynamics.

To study the response to an externally applied field, a homogeneous force $`F`$ is applied to each particle by adding a term $`F_nx_n`$ to $`\widehat{H}`$ in Eq. (1). In Fig. 2 the FK chain’s sliding velocity is shown as a function of the driving force for $`m=0.02`$. This is the value of $`m`$, where the gap closes. It is found that the response in $`v`$ is linear with $`F`$ at very small and very large $`F`$ with different values for the effective damping coefficient $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}=F/v`$. While (quantum) continuum approximations predict $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to be zero , the chain’s discreteness is known to change this property in classical systems, because kink-phonon interactions damp solitons . Interestingly, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is independent of temperature $`T`$ as $`T`$ approaches zero in both linear regimes. This rules out the possibility that thermal fluctuations assist the system to overcome energy barriers at small $`F`$. Our observation is yet in partial contrast to the behavior of Luttinger liquids, which show $`v/FT^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha >0`$ .

Another similarity with the dynamics of the classical (discrete) FK model is seen at an external force $`F=0.02`$, where the friction-velocity relation exhibits a cusp, separating a low-friction, low-velocity from a high-friction, high-velocity regime . Finally, at external forces $`F>0.025`$, the response crosses over into a completely unpinned regime, in which the motion of the FK chain is mainly opposed by the drag coefficient associated with the heat bath. In that regime, soliton-related dissipation mechanisms become unimportant. Transport of chains consisting of beads with masses $`m>m_c`$ requires either finite temperatures and/or finite forces. For example for $`m=5m_c`$, our numerical data provides an upper bound for the mobility or inverse effective damping $`\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}^1(m=0.1)<210^6\gamma _{\mathrm{eff}}^1(m=0.02)`$.

The previous analysis shows that PIMD can distinguish well between zero gap and finite gap. It is now possible to generalize the treatment for which the quantum mechanical ground state (of the continuum model) is not known analytically. One of the topics of current scientific interest is the interplay of disorder and quantum fluctuations . Here we want to investigate the effect of disorder on the spectral properties of the quantum FK chain. This is done by replacing the external potential $`V_0\mathrm{cos}(x_n/b)`$ in Eq. (1) with a random potential $`U_H(x)`$, which is constructed in the following way: We add patches of the functional form $`V_0\mathrm{cos}(x/b)`$ of length $`\pi b`$ where the underlying domain is chosen randomly to be either $`[0,\pi b]`$ or $`[\pi b,2\pi b]`$. The patches are shifted by a constant so that no discontinuity in the potential occurs. This leads to $`\{V(x+\mathrm{\Delta }x)V(x)\}^2\mathrm{\Delta }x^{2H}`$ on scales $`b<<\mathrm{\Delta }x<<\pi bN`$. The corresponding surface roughness exponent $`H`$ takes the value $`H=1/2`$. In order to construct a random potential with $`H=0`$, the potential is either zero on a length of $`\pi b`$ or - with same probability - it takes the functional form of $`V_0\{1+\mathrm{cos}(x/b)\}`$ on the interval $`\pi x/b<\pi `$. Our numerical analysis of the results for the case $`H=0`$ suggests a finite gap for a mass $`m>m_c^{(H=0)}`$ and zero gap for $`m<m_c^{(H=0)}`$, in agreement with the predictions by Gorokhov et al. . For the model potential under consideration, one phonon branch is observed at very large $`m`$, which then forms a broad band for masses larger than but in the order of $`m_c`$. At $`m<m_c`$, there is only one relatively narrow branch, which can be well described with Eq. (2) and $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0=0`$.

The situation is more complex for disordered potentials with roughness $`H=1/2`$. In particular, we find that classical and quantum system behave qualitatively different. In agreement with the predictions by Chauve et al. , there is no indication for the classical mobility to become zero at finite temperatures. In contrast, the quantum mechanical mobility always appears to be zero for $`H=1/2`$, no matter how small $`m`$ is. Whenever, we were prompted to believe the quantum $`H=1/2`$ system was depinned, doubling the system size dramatically reduced the velocity-velocity spectrum $`C(q,\omega )`$ near zero wavelengths and zero frequencies. The zero-wavevector spectrum $`C(q=0,\omega )`$ for classical and quantum mechanical FK chains is shown in the left-hand side of Fig. 3, where the qualitative difference of $`C(q,\omega )`$ in the limit $`(q,\omega )(0,0)`$ is bourne out. (Note that due to statistical uncertainties and finite system size, one can never observe $`C(0,0)=0`$ in a computer simulation.)

The spectrum at finite wavelengths of the quantum system, which is shown on the right-hand-side of Fig. 3 shows two phonon branches. The figure is the average over 12 different disorder realizations. A single realization shows much sharper lines. It appears that the system is not self-averageing.

In conclusion, we find that the regular zero-temperature, discrete, quantum sine Gordon model has an insulating region with $`m>m_c`$ and finite gap, while for $`mm_c`$ the gap closes resulting in finite resistance. Similar behaviour is found for a quantum chain on a disordered potential with roughness exponent $`H=0`$. However, $`H=1/2`$ automatically leads to a zero-temperature insulator, even though small thermal fluctuations are sufficient to induce creep.

###### Acknowledgements.

Support from NSERC, SHARCNET, the BMBF through Grant 03N6015, and from the Materialwissenschaftliche Forschungszentrum Rheinland-Pfalz is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Kurt Binder and Stefan Kehrein for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Algorithm of construction of all knots, links with given number of crosses on diagram of knot, link, using braids.

## 1. Introduction

Classification of knots, here and below we consider knots, links and braids in $`R^3`$, is one of the basic problems of the theory of knots, starting with works of Tait . To classify knots means somehow or other to order a set of all knots, for example, to divide a set of all knots on equivalence classes to any reference indication, property of knots and to build all knots (or to specify really working algorithm of build-up of all knots) for the given equivalence class. It seems natural as such reference indication to take the least number of crosses of a knot (at an identification of a knot with its diagram – a projection to some plane). By virtue of Alexander’s known theorem (see, for example, ) any knot can be presented as closure of some braid. Braids are organized much easier knots. Therefore, it is natural to use braids for classification of knots. Before describing of proposed algorithm of construction of knots (links) with the given number of crosses on the diagram of a knot (link), we shall make some estimates.

## 2. Preliminary estimates

In computer program, implementing proposed algorithm, it is supposed to use partially “br9z.p” program in the language Pascal, written by Short and Morton in 1985. “Br9z.p” program is taken from the site of the Liverpool mathematical group www.liv.ac.uk. In this program, authors used connection of group of knots $`B_n`$ with permutation group $`S_n`$. The permutation group of a set with $`n`$ elements consists of $`n!`$ elements. Therefore, in “br9z.p” program for braids coding the two-dimensional array $`m`$ by a size $`\left(n!\right)\times n`$ of numbers from 0 up to $`n`$ was used. As already $`9!=362880`$ is very major number, Short and Morton have been forced to be restricted to a maximum number of threads of braids $`n=9`$ (in “jones12.p” program, written in 1994, Morton increased number of threads up to 12 by usage of a special representation of the braid group $`B_n`$ on $`2^n`$ dimensional space). Using results of Vogel , we shall prove, that in the problem of classification of knots (links) it is possible to substitute $`4n^25n+2`$ for $`n!`$. For comparison, we may mark, that $`49^259+2=281`$ is much less $`9!=362880`$.

###### Proposition.

There is a representation of a knot (link) as closure of braid with $`n`$ threads and length of this braid (i.e. an amount of generators in braid representation as product of standard generators $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ of the group $`B_n`$) does not exceed $`4n^25n+2`$, where $`n`$ – number of crosses for the given diagram of a knot (link).

###### Proof.

The diagram of (oriented) knot, link as a result of the operation of erasure of crosses disintegrates on (oriented) closed curves, named Seifert circles, \- see fig. 1 (fig. 1 is taken from ). Each cross can break up no more than to 2 Seifert circles. Therefore, after an erasure of all diagram crosses we shall have $`s2n`$ Seifert circles, where $`n`$ number of crosses.

This estimate is strict in the sense, that there are links, for which $`s=2n`$: for example, $`n`$-component link, consisting of $`n`$ eight curves, represented on the top or on the bottom of fig. 2, after an erasure of all crosses, obviously, disintegrates on $`2n`$ Seifert circles.

In , Vogel’s article is cited from the book , Vogel proposed the algorithm of representation of link as closure of braid, and proved the estimate: obtained braid has $`n`$ threads and its length (i.e. an amount of generators in braid representation as product of standard generators $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ of the group $`B_n`$) does not exceed $`n+\left(s1\right)\left(s2\right)`$, where $`n`$ – number of crosses on the diagram of knot (link). Assuming in Vogel’s estimate $`s2n`$, we can assert, that there is a representation of a knot (link) as closure of braid with $`n`$ threads and braid length does not exceed $`n+\left(s1\right)\left(s2\right)4n^25n+2`$, where $`n`$ – number of crosses of the given diagram of knot (link). ∎

Incidentally, it is possible to mark, that proposed by Vogel algorithm of representation of a link as closure of braid, from our point of view, is difficult for realization in practice for two reasons:

1) a starting point of algorithm is coding of knot (link) – very intricate problem, actually substituting classification of knots;

2) the operation of replacement of infinity (see, for example, ), used in the algorithm, is difficult for programming.

If the problem is restricted to classification only knots, then coding of representing braids becomes greatly simpler, as it is possible to be restricted to braids, which correspond to cyclical permutation of the order $`n`$ – see above.

## 3. Description of algorithm

The algorithm of construction of all knots (links) with the given number $`n`$ of crosses on the diagram of a knot (link) can be formulated as follows.

1. In the braids group $`B_n`$, $`n2`$ with standard generators $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ we select words with $`4n^25n+2`$ characters. If the problem is restricted to classification only knots, we select words with $`4n^25n+2`$ characters, which corresponds cyclical permutation of the order $`n`$.

2. Using Duhornoy algorithm of reduction , we reject superfluous braids – we select only one representative from each equivalence class of braids (it is necessary to pay attention, that the algorithm of reduction can increase a word length).

3. We use Markov relations (see, for example, ) for final selection of braids, giving at closure different knots (links).

Item 2, apparently, without major detriment, can be omitted. Leaving in items 2-3 braids with minimum word length (minimum amount of crosses), as a result of closure of selected braids we shall receive diagrams of knots (links) with minimum number of crosses. As a result of work of suggested algorithm we shall build all knots and links, which diagrams have $`mn`$ crosses. Therefore, if we are interested only in knots (links) with the least number of crosses on the diagram $`m=n`$, we should use algorithm twice: first to find a set of knots (links) $`K_{n1}`$ with the least number of crosses on the diagram $`mn1`$, then to find a set of knots (links) $`K_n`$ with the least number of crosses on the diagram $`mn`$, then the set of knots (links) $`K_n`$ with the least number of crosses on the diagram $`m=n`$ is equal to set difference $`K_n=K_nK_{n1}`$.

## Conclusion

In conclusion, it would be desirable to mark, that at preparation this article the report on Third Khariton School Readings  has been used. With necessary for understanding of problems discussed above theoretical questions on the theory of knots it is possible to familiarize, for example, in chapters 1-3 of the book .

The program, implementing proposed algorithm, and results of its work is supposed to be described in the following article.


text:
# Unusual Properties of Superoscillating Particles

## I Introduction

Consider a differentiable function which contains, according to its Fourier transform, only wavelengths larger than some finite minimum wavelength $`\lambda _{\text{min}}`$. Intuitively, one expects that this function cannot oscillate on length scales significantly smaller than $`\lambda _{\text{min}}`$. In fact, however, it has been found that such functions are able to oscillate locally with wavelengths that are arbitrarily smaller than $`\lambda _{\text{min}}`$. The phenomenon is known as superoscillation, and indications of its occurrence have been discussed in various contexts, from evanescent waves and seeming superluminal propagation to the transplanckian problem of black holes, see aha1 -ak-bh . In the field of information theory, see e.g. shannon ; ferreira , the phenomenon of superoscillating functions had been observed even earlier, see levi .

In this Letter, we investigate the rather unusual properties of quantum mechanical wave functions which superoscillate. For example, superoscillating particles tend to absorb energy from objects, thereby acting as “cooling-rays”. Superoscillations come at a price, however, which is that they are generally of small amplitude. Thus, our aim here is to calculate and investigate the wave functions which possess the most pronounced superoscillations, building on the methods of ak-bh ; levi ; slepian .

We find that the maximum amplitude of superoscillations decreases polynomially with the frequency and exponentially with the duration of the superoscillating stretch. We find that this scaling behavior is consistent with information theoretic considerations. Finally, we propose a method by which, in principle, superoscillating wave functions might be produced experimentally.

To be precise, let us consider the set of wave functions with momentum cutoff $`p_{\text{max}}`$:

$$\psi (x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}_{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{\frac{ixp}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p$$
(1)
Such wave functions are linear combinations of plane waves whose wavelengths are at least as large as $`\lambda _{\text{min}}=h/p_{\text{max}}`$. Nevertheless, as was shown in ak-bh , such wave functions can oscillate arbitrarily quickly on arbitrarily long stretches, in the following sense: For any $`N`$ arbitrarily chosen points $`\{x_k\}_{k=1}^N`$ and arbitrarily chosen amplitudes $`\{a_k\}_{k=1}^N`$, there exist square integrable wave functions $`\psi `$ which at the prescribed points take the prescribed amplitudes

$$\psi (x_k)=a_k,\text{for all}k=1,2,\mathrm{},N$$
(2)
while also obeying the momentum cutoff expressed in Eq.1. Note that $`\psi `$ will be differentiable, as is every wave function $`\psi `$ of the form given in Eq.1. Note also that we are not yet normalizing $`\psi `$.

If we choose the spacing of the points $`\{x_k\}`$ to be small compared to the minimum wavelength, $`x_{k+1}x_k\lambda _{\text{min}}`$, while choosing oscillatory amplitudes $`\{a_k\}`$, e.g. $`a_k=(1)^k`$, then we say that the resulting wave function $`\psi `$ is superoscillating. Intuitively, the superoscillations do not show as high frequencies in the Fourier transform because of subtle cancellations in the Fourier integration over all of the wave function, i.e. over both its superoscillating and non-superoscillating parts. We will find that to this end the amplitudes in the superoscillating part of the wave function must be significantly smaller than the amplitudes in the non-superoscillating parts.

## II Maximal superoscillations

Our aim, therefore, is to calculate those normalized wave functions which possess the most pronounced superoscillations. The strategy will be to use a variational principle to first calculate that wave function $`\psi `$ of the form of Eq.1 which possesses the smallest norm while obeying the arbitrarily chosen constraints of Eqs.2. Second, we normalize the wave function. In this way, having minimized the norm of $`\psi `$, we insure that after the normalization of $`\psi `$ the amplitudes of the superoscillations are maximal.

Explicitly, we minimize the norm $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)𝑑x=_{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)𝑑p`$ of the wave function $`\psi `$, subject to the constraints of Eq.2, which can also be written as:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}_{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{\frac{ix_kp}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p=a_k$$
(3)
Thus, with Lagrange multipliers $`\mu _r`$, the Lagrangian of the variational problem reads

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(p)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)𝑑p`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _r}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)e^{\frac{ix_rp}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p+c.c.,`$
from which we obtain:

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)+\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mu _r^{}}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}e^{\frac{ix_rp}{\mathrm{}}}=0$$
(4)
Using Eq.3, we have therefore:

$$\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _r^{}_{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}e^{\frac{ip}{\mathrm{}}(x_kx_r)}𝑑p=a_k$$
(5)
We define the symmetric matrix $`\{S_{k,r}\}_{k,r=1}^N`$ through:

$`S_{k,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}e^{\frac{ip}{\mathrm{}}(x_kx_r)}𝑑p`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left((x_kx_r)p_{\text{max}}/\mathrm{}\right)}{\pi (x_kx_r)}}`$
Note that $`S`$ is invertible since it is positive definite:

$$\underset{r,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_r^{}S_{r,k}v_k=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}\left|\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_le^{ipx_l}\right|^2𝑑p$$
(7)
Eq.5 now takes the form

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{k,r}\mu _r^{}=a_k,$$
(8)
and we can solve for the coefficients $`\mu _r^{}`$:

$$\mu _r^{}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{r,m}^1a_m$$
(9)
Using Eq.4, we finally obtain the desired wave function in the momentum space representation:

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{r,m}^1a_me^{\frac{ix_rp}{\mathrm{}}}$$
(10)
In the position representation, the superoscillating wave function reads:

$`\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{r,m}^1a_me^{\frac{i(xx_r)p}{\mathrm{}}}dp`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,m=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{r,m}^1a_m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left((xx_r)p_{\text{max}}/\mathrm{}\right)}{\pi (xx_r)}}`$
We see that $`\psi `$ is a delicate linear combination of shifted copies of the function $`\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x/\lambda _{\text{min}})/x`$ each of which is of only slow variation. Among all wave functions which obey Eq.1 and which take the prescribed amplitudes $`a_k`$ at the $`N`$ prescribed positions $`x_k`$, the wave function given in Eq.11 possesses the smallest norm. Thus, the normalized wave function $`\psi ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{\psi }\psi `$ superoscillates with the largest achievable amplitudes:

$$\psi ^{(n)}(x_k)=\frac{a_k}{\psi },\text{for all }k=1,\mathrm{},N$$
(12)
## III Self-acceleration through single slit

The properties of superoscillating wave functions are unusual:

Consider a low-momentum particle as it passes through a narrow slit in a screen. The particle’s position in the direction parallel to the screen thereby becomes determined to within the width $`L`$ of the slit. By the uncertainty principle, this implies that the particle’s momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ parallel to the screen becomes uncertain, such as to obey $`\mathrm{\Delta }p\frac{\mathrm{}}{L}`$. Thus, as is well-known, a particle may acquire momentum when passing through a narrow slit.

We can now see, however, that the uncertainty principle is not the only reason why particles can acquire momentum when passing through a slit. Namely, consider an incident low-momentum particle whose wave function in the direction parallel to the screen possess spatial superoscillations just where the wave function hits the slit in the screen.

In this case, the wave function which emerges from the slit is spatially oscillating with the very short wavelength of the superoscillations where the slit is and is zero elsewhere. The emerging wave function’s rapid oscillations now do show as high frequencies in its Fourier transform. This is because the emerging wave no longer possesses the high-amplitude non-superoscillating parts which cancelled the high frequencies’ occurrence in the incident wave’s Fourier transform. Thus, the emerging quantum particle acquires a correspondingly high momentum expectation value.

Crucially, since the superoscillating stretch of the particle’s wave function can be chosen arbitrarily wide, also the width of the slit can be chosen arbitrarily wide. This shows that this new mechanism by which particles are accelerated when passing through a slit occurs independently from and on top of the uncertainty relation.

## IV Scaling behavior

Superoscillations come at a price, however, which is that in normalized wave functions any superoscillations are generally of very small amplitude, implying that particles are not very likely to be found in regions where their wave function is superoscillating.

To see this, note that due to Eq.12, the superoscillations’ amplitude is suppressed by $`\psi `$, for which Eq.4 yields:

$`\psi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mu _r^{}e^{\frac{ix_rp}{\mathrm{}}}\right|^2𝑑p`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _r^{}\mu _k}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{p_{\text{max}}}^{p_{\text{max}}}}e^{\frac{i(x_kx_r)p}{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\mu }^{}S\stackrel{}{\mu },`$
We used vector notation: $`\stackrel{}{\mu }=\{\mu _r\}_{r=1}^N`$. Using Eq.9, we obtain:

$$\psi ^2=\stackrel{}{a}^{}S^1\stackrel{}{a}$$
(13)
Clearly, the largest suppression occurs when $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is an eigenvector of the symmetric matrix $`S^1`$ with the largest eigenvalue, i.e. when $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ is an eigenvector of the symmetric matrix $`S`$ with the smallest eigenvalue, say $`s_{\text{min}}`$. The normalized wave function $`\psi ^{(n)}`$ then superoscillates with the amplitudes:

$$\psi ^{(n)}(x_k)=s_{\text{min}}^{1/2}\frac{a_k}{\stackrel{}{a}}$$
(14)
Explicitly, let us prescribe the superoscillating amplitudes at equidistant points with spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, namely $`x_k=k\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ for $`k=0,\mathrm{},(N1)`$. In this case, we obtain a matrix $`S`$ whose eigenvalues were studied in slepian : The definition of the prolate matrix $`\rho (N,W)`$ in Eq.21 of slepian  matches ours through $`S_{r,k}=\rho _{r,k}(N,W(\mathrm{\Delta }x))/\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ with $`W(\mathrm{\Delta }x)=\mathrm{\Delta }xp_{\text{max}}/h`$.

Eq.64 of slepian  then straightforwardly yields the scaling of $`s_{\text{min}}`$, and thus of $`\psi ^{(n)}(x_k)`$, for fixed $`N`$ and decreasing spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$:

$$\psi ^{(n)}(x_k)s_{\text{min}}^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^{N1}$$
(15)
Thus, if a fixed number $`N/2`$ of equidistant superoscillations is compressed into a smaller region, i.e. if the superoscillations’ wavelength $`2\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is reduced, then the superoscillation amplitude decreases polynomially with the wavelength of the superoscillations.

In the case where the superoscillation wavelength, i.e. the spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, is held fixed and the number $`N`$ of superoscillations is increased, we can use Eqs.13,58 from slepian  to readily find the scaling behavior of the smallest eigenvalue $`s_{\text{min}}`$ of $`S`$ for large $`N`$, to obtain:

$$\psi ^{(n)}(x_k)s_{\text{min}}^{1/2}N^{1/4}e^{\gamma N/2}$$
(16)
Here, $`\gamma `$ is positive and depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ but not on $`N`$. Thus, we proved that the amplitude of superoscillations decreases exponentially with the number of superoscillations, i.e. with the length of the superoscillating stretch, as had in fact been conjectured by Berry, in berry1 .

While these scaling results imply exceedingly small superoscillation amplitudes, we note that if the superoscillating stretch of a wave function does pass through a slit, then the emerging superoscillations’ amplitudes get boosted to normal levels through the renormalization of the wave function.

## V Open questions

The phenomenon of superoscillations raises a number of fundamental questions, which we here only begin to address:

1) In the single slit setup of above, the superoscillating particles which do pass through the slit will gain arbitrary predetermined amounts of momentum and energy. Due to momentum and energy conservation, this gain must be balanced by a corresponding loss in the momentum and energy of the screen. Thus, those particles are accelerated by strong interactions with the slit walls, which are in effect cooling the screen. Indeed, wave functions can act as “cooling rays” where they superoscillate. The energy picked up by those particles is available to do work because the particle’s motion after the screen is directed, since their momentum is largely predetermined. Consistency with the second law of thermodynamics therefore requires either a) that the cooling effects of superoscillating parts of the wave functions are necessarily offset by the presence of a heating non-superoscillating part or b) that it is necessarily entropy-expensive to produce superoscillating wave functions.

2) Further, the rate at which incident particles pass through the slit and thereby take energy from the screen does not depend on the screen’s temperature. How, therefore is it ensured that the screen always has sufficient energy and momentum available for those particles which happen to pass through the slit? The answer should be, although we do not prove this here, that if the position of a cold screen is known sufficiently accurately to ensure that it is the superoscillating part of incident wave functions which passes through the slit, then by the uncertainty relation the screen possesses sufficient momentum uncertainty to be able to provide the required momentum to the superoscillating particles which pass through the slit. Conversely, if the screen is known to possesses very little momentum, then by the uncertainty relation the position of the screen and its slit cannot be known with sufficient precision to ensure for the emerging particles that it was the superoscillating part of their wave function which passed through the slit.

3) Generally, one may expect that in a single-particle experiment, if a property of the particle can be predicted, the particle ought to have possessed that property before the measurement. However, we now know for example that if a low-momentum particle is found in a region where its wave function is rapidly superoscillating then it will be found to possess a very large and predictable momentum. Nevertheless, the particle clearly did not possess this large momentum beforehand and only acquires it in the measurement process.

4) Continuing this argument, one might expect that a superoscillating stretch of a wave function could act as a false source of gravity. Namely, a delocalized particle might locally gravitate and be curving space according to the scale of energy-momentum density that it would possess if the particle was found in that local region, rather locally gravitating according to its actual energy-momentum if there is no measurement. Such false sources of gravity should be suppressed effectively by the fact that the amplitudes in superoscillating stretches of wave functions are very low, as we saw.

5) Interestingly, our finding that the superoscillations’ amplitude decreases exponentially with the length of the superoscillating stretch becomes plausible after translation into the language of information theory. Namely, instead of wave functions with a finite momentum cutoff, consider signals with a finite bandwidth. We see that by using superoscillating signals it is in principle possible to encode arbitrary amounts of information into a short interval of a low-bandwidth signal which then passes through a low-bandwidth channel of some fixed finite noise level. However, as Shannon showed in shannon , signals which pass through a channel of bandwidth $`\omega _{\text{max}}`$ can deliver information at most at a rate $`\omega _{\text{max}}\mathrm{log}_2(1+S/N)`$, where $`S/N`$ is the signal-to-noise ratio. Thus, the price for superoscillatory information compression in signals is an exponential increase in the required signal power, which is consistent with our finding of an exponential increase of the functions’ norm. This example suggests that if there is an actual short-wavelength cutoff for physical fields in nature, say at the Planck scale, it may usefully be thought of as a finite upper bound on information density.

6) The question arises how superoscillating wave functions might be produced experimentally. For example, can we design a potential $`V(x)`$ whose ground state has a superoscillating stretch? One possibility might be to start with a harmonic oscillator potential centred about $`x=0`$. Its ground state’s momentum range is effectively cut off at high momenta since it behaves as $`e^{kp^2}`$. Let us add to the potential several relatively sharp spikes in close proximity, close to $`x=0`$. The ground state’s wave function should then become quickly varying in the region where the spikes are, while also suppressed in amplitude. Whether this would effectively constitute a superoscillatory ground state remains to be studied.

Acknowledgement: A.K. and P.J.S.G.F. were in part supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal respectively.


text:
# Observed 𝐷_𝑠(2317) and tentative 𝐷(2100–2300) as the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet

## Abstract

The very recently observed $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ meson is described as a quasi-bound scalar $`c\overline{s}`$ state in a unitarized meson model, owing its existence to the strong $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ OZI-allowed coupling to the nearby $`S`$-wave $`DK`$ threshold. By the same mechanism, a scalar $`D_0^{}`$(2100–2300) resonance is predicted above the $`D\pi `$ threshold. These scalars are the charmed cousins of the light scalar nonet $`f_0(600)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`K_0^{}(800)`$, and $`a_0(980)`$, reproduced by the same model. The standard $`c\overline{n}`$ and $`c\overline{s}`$ charmed scalars $`D_0`$ and $`D_{s0}`$, cousins of the scalar nonet $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`K_0^{}(1430)`$, and $`a_0(1450)`$, are predicted to lie at about 2.64 and 2.79 GeV, respectively, both with a width of some 200 MeV.

The $`D_{sJ}^{}(2317)^+`$ (or simply $`D_s(2317)`$) charmed meson, just discovered  by the BABAR collaboration (see also Ref. ), is claimed  to “send theorists back to their drawing boards,” in view of its low mass. If indeed the tentative $`J^P=0^+`$ assignment gets confirmed, there appears to be a discrepancy with typical quark potential models, which predict a mass of 2.48  or 2.49 GeV  for this state.

The aim of this Letter is to demonstrate that there is no difficulty  to obtain a low-mass scalar $`D_s(2317)`$, with a standard $`c\overline{s}`$ configuration, provided one takes into account its OZI-allowed coupling to the nearby but closed $`DK`$ threshold at about 2.36 GeV. The strong $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ coupling to this $`S`$-wave threshold will turn out to conjure up a nonperturbative pole, not related to the confinement spectrum, which is forced to settle down on the real energy axis due to the lack of phase space. Conversely, the same threshold pushes the ground-state confinement pole to much higher energies, which may thus have precluded its detection so far. By the same token and as a spin-off, we shall also predict two additional charmed scalar mesons, i.e., with a $`c\overline{n}`$ ($`n=u`$ or $`d`$) configuration, still needing experimental confirmation.

The mechanism responsible for the low-mass charmed scalar mesons is precisely the same that produces the light scalar-meson nonet, i.e., the $`f_0(600)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`a_0(980)`$ , and $`K_0^{}(800)`$ . The latter scalar mesons were predicted with great accuracy in Ref. , in the framework of a unitarized quark model for all mesons. In more detail, and employing a simpler yet less model-dependent formulation, it has been shown  how unitarization leads to structures in the scattering amplitude for $`S`$-wave meson-meson scattering which are not and even cannot be anticipated by the naive quark model. Especially, from the behavior of the scattering poles near threshold , we learn that, in the limit of decoupling from the meson-meson continuum, all members of the light scalar-meson nonet disappear into the background. On the other hand, all other mesons end up as genuine $`q\overline{q}`$ states in this limit.

Now, it is straightforward to apply the latter, simple model to charmed mesons: one just has to replace one of the model’s effective-quark-mass parameters by the charmed mass. If we then take the other parameters fixed, which e.g. yield an excellent fit to the $`S`$-wave $`K\pi `$ phase shifts up to 1.6 GeV , then we obtain the movement of complex-energy poles as depicted in Figs. 1 and 2, corresponding to the $`c\overline{n}`$ and $`c\overline{s}`$ states, respectively.

Next, we interpret with some care each of the two figures, in both of which the relevant parts of the complex $`E`$ plane are depicted, where $`E`$ represents the total invariant mass for elastic meson-meson scattering in an $`S`$ wave. Figure 1 refers to $`D\pi `$ and Fig. 2 to $`DK`$ scattering. Each figure displays two trajectories, representing the positions, as a function of the overall coupling parameter $`\lambda `$, of the lowest two of an infinity of singularities in the corresponding scattering amplitudes.

The $`S`$ matrix of our unitarized meson model contains, in principle, all possible two-meson scattering channels. In the model of Refs. , one single set of parameters applies to all channels, from the light flavors to bottom. These parameters are: four constituent quark masses, $`m_u=m_d`$, $`m_s`$, $`m_c`$, and $`m_b`$, one confinement parameter, $`\omega `$, one overall coupling constant, $`\lambda `$, and two shape parameters of the transition potential.

When studying $`D\pi `$ elastic scattering, one could then select this particular channel from a larger $`S`$ matrix. For the purpose of the present investigation, we use here, as mentioned above, a simplified version of the model, discussed in Ref. , which contemplates just one scattering channel. Nevertheless, the parameters are kept unaltered with respect to the light scalar mesons, except for the quark masses, of course. By comparing the results of the full model  with those of the one-channel limit of Ref. , we verify that the higher, closed channels do not have much influence on the general scattering properties, but have some effect on the precise pole positions.

The two singularities studied in each of Figs. 1 and 2 are the two lowest-lying poles of the scattering amplitude. We study their positions as a function of the overall coupling constant $`\lambda `$. The here chosen physical value of $`\lambda `$ equals 0.75, as in Refs. . However, by just showing the respective pole positions at $`\lambda =0.75`$ in Figs. 1 and 2, important information on their differences would be concealed. Moreover, the display of the pole trajectories reveals what could happen if Nature were to choose a somewhat different value for $`\lambda `$. We shall come back to this point further on.

As one observes from the two figures, the behavior upon decoupling ($`\lambda 0`$) is completely different. Whereas the higher of the two singularities in each figure ends up at the genuine $`c\overline{n}/\overline{s}`$ confinement ground state, which are at 2.44 GeV for $`c\overline{n}`$ and 2.55 GeV for $`c\overline{s}`$, respectively, for our model parameters, the lower poles disappear into the background, with ever increasing width. A similar behavior has been observed for the $`S`$-matrix poles of the light scalar mesons .

The lower pole in $`D\pi `$ scattering (Fig. 1) does not end up below threshold when the overall coupling $`\lambda `$ is increased to the physical value $`\lambda =0.75`$, and settles at $`E=2.030.075i`$ GeV. Hence, in experiment it will be observed as a structure from threshold upwards in the partial-wave scattering cross section. For the given pole position, this corresponds to a peak at about 2.1 GeV, with a width of 150 MeV, thus coming out some 70 MeV higher than the real part of the pole. This shift is manifest in our description of resonances, getting more and more sizable as the resonance width increases. For instance, in our fit of the $`S`$-wave $`K\pi `$ phase shifts, the cross-section peak shows up more than 100 MeV above the $`K_0^{}(800)`$ pole . On the other hand, one should also realize from Fig. 1 that a very modest decrease of $`\lambda =0.75`$ would give rise not only to a larger real part of the pole position, but also of the imaginary part, thereby amplifying the mentioned shift upwards. Such a decrease of $`\lambda `$ can be justified on the basis of flavor symmetry . Therefore, we expect a $`D_0^{}`$ resonance somewhere in the energy interval 2.1–2.3 GeV, possibly with a width of several hundred MeV . This may correspond to the preliminary $`D_0^{}(2290)`$ resonance reported by the BELLE collaboration , with a mass of 2.29 GeV and a width of 305 MeV.

The lower pole in $`DK`$ scattering (Fig. 2) settles on the real axis for $`\lambda 0.335`$. However, for the sake of clarity we have depicted its trajectory slightly away from the real axis. The pole trajectory for increasing $`\lambda `$ ends up on the real axis at 2.21 GeV, i.e., well below threshold. Then it moves upwards as a virtual bound state, towards threshold, where for $`\lambda 0.5`$ it turns into a real bound state. For $`\lambda =0.75`$ we find the pole at 2.28 GeV. Such a behavior was already forecast in Ref. . If we were to decrease $`\lambda `$ a little, again owing to flavor symmetry, we would find  a bound-state pole even closer to the experimental value of 2.317 GeV.

The higher poles in $`D\pi `$ and $`DK`$ scattering, which stem from the scalar radial ground states at 2.44 GeV for $`c\overline{n}`$ and 2.55 GeV for $`c\overline{s}`$, move upwards in the second Riemann sheet. For the physical value of the overall coupling, $`\lambda =0.75`$, they constitute resonance poles. These poles come out some 200 MeV higher than what at first sight would be expected, not only from the naive quark model, but also from the central resonance positions of $`D_1(2420)`$ and $`D_2^{}(2460)`$ with respect to $`D_0`$, and $`D_{s1}(2536)`$ and $`D_{sJ}^{}(2573)`$ with respect to $`D_{s0}`$. However, one should just compare this with the following situations, in order to understand why our findings are not unreasonable:
a) $`a_0(1450)`$, with respect to $`a_1(1260)`$ and $`a_2(1320)`$,
b) $`f_0(1370)`$, with respect to $`f_1(1285)`$ and $`f_2(1270)`$.
Actually, in our full unitarized model, both the $`a_0(1450)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$ stem from coinciding poles, connected to the model’s $`q\overline{q}`$ scalar ground state at 1.29 GeV in the decoupling limit.

Summarizing, we have demonstrated in the foregoing how a low-mass scalar $`D_s`$ meson can be easily obtained by including its coupling to the most relevant OZI-allowed two-meson channel, i.e., $`DK`$. However, this bound state is of a highly nonperturbative nature, which in no way can be obtained in single-channel quark models, no matter how sophisticated the used confinement mechanism. In particular, we have employed a simple unitarized model, which successfully reproduces the light scalar nonet, so as to obtain a value of 2.28 GeV for the lowest scalar $`D_s`$ state, when leaving the parameters unchanged with the exception of the quark masses. Therefore, we conclude that the recently discovered $`D_s(2317)`$ is probably a scalar meson of the latter type, being a cousin of the light scalar mesons, rather than belonging to the scalar $`q\overline{q}`$ confinement spectrum, such as, we believe, the $`D_{s1}(2536)`$ and $`D_{sJ}^{}(2573)`$. Due to a similar coupling to the $`D\pi `$ threshold, we predict a $`D_0^{}`$(2100–2300) resonance, which may have been found already . As a final remark concerning the $`D_s(2317)`$, we should note that it becomes a bound state — actually a quasi-bound state owing to the, here disregarded, isospin-violating $`D_s\pi `$ decay mode — contrary to the $`D_0^{}`$(2100–2300) and the light scalar mesons, which are all resonances. This peculiarity is due to the high value of the lowest OZI-allowed threshold ($`DK`$), while the $`D_0^{}`$(2100–2300) as well as all light scalar mesons have a threshold involving at least one pion, which thus lie lower on a relative scale.

Besides the latter results, we have also obtained some additional predictions for charmed scalar mesons. For the standard charmed $`q\overline{q}`$ spectrum we expect the lowest $`S`$-wave resonances to occur at about 2.64 GeV for $`D`$, and at about 2.79 GeV for $`D_s`$, both with a width of some 200 MeV. However, these values may be subject to a modest change when flavor-symmetry arguments are applied as above . In any case, note that also these two states, though being perturbative in the sense that they can easily be linked to the confinement spectrum, turn out to suffer a drastic, quite nonperturbative effect from unitarization.

Acknowledgments: We thank F. Kleefeld for useful information on the distribution of $`S`$-matrix poles in the complex $`E`$ and $`k`$ planes. This work was partly supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia of the Ministério da Ciência e da Tecnologia of Portugal, under contract number POCTI/FNU/49555/2002.


text:
# Cellular Approach to Long-Range 𝑝_𝑡 and Multiplicity Correlations in the String Fusion Model

## 1 Introduction.

The colour strings approach  is widely applied for the description of the soft part of the hadronic and nuclear interactions at high energies.

In the frame work of this approach the string fusion model was suggested in papers . Later it was developed - and applied for the description of the long-range multiplicity and $`p_t`$ correlations in relativistic nuclear collisions -.

In the paper  we have formulated some simple cellular analog of the string fusion model, which enables explicit analytical calculations of the correlation functions in some asymptotic cases and can simplify calculations in the case of real nuclear collisions.

In that paper we have checked up the assumptions of the cellular approach and the validity of a suggested Gauss approximation in the simplest (no fusion) case when the explicit solution of the model can be found.

In the present paper in the framework of proposed cellular approach we calculate $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation functions and correlation coefficients in two cases: with local and with global string fusion.

The calculations are done both numerically and in some asymptotic cases analytically using the Gauss approximation. The results of both calculations are in a good agreement, which proofs the validity of proposed Gauss approximation.

At large string density $`\eta 1`$ the connection between the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients are found in both cases: with local or global string fusion. At that for the correlation coefficient the scaling takes place. It depends only on one combination $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$ of the variables $`\eta `$ and $`\mu _0`$ ($`\mu _0`$ is the mean multiplicity emitting by a single string).

The paper organized as follows. In the next section we recall the formulation of the cellular approach in the case with a local string fusion.

In the section 3 we develop Gauss approximation at large string density $`\eta `$ in the local fusion case.

In the section 4 the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients are calculated at large $`\eta `$ in the case with local string fusion and connection between these two coefficients is found.

In the section 5 the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation functions and correlation coefficients are calculated at large $`\eta `$ for ”homogeneous” situation (a constant mean density of strings) in the case with local fusion. It’s shown that in this situation the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients become equal and the $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$-scaling takes place. The obtained results are compared with the results of numerical calculations using formulas of section 2.

In the section 6 we recall the formulation of the cellular approach in the case with a global string fusion. The exact closed formulas for the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation functions in this case are obtained.

In the section 7 we develop Gauss approximation at large string density $`\eta `$ for the global fusion case. The $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation functions and coefficients for this case are calculated and compared with the results of numerical calculations using formulas of section 6.

The behavior of the correlations at small string density is studied in Appendix A.

## 2 Cellular approach to the local string fusion.

Let us recall the formulas obtained for this case in . We consider the collision of nuclei in two stage scenario when at first stage the colour strings are formed, and at the second stage these strings, or some other (higher colour) strings formed due to fusion of primary strings, are decaying, emitting observed particles.

In principle, one can consider two types of fusion. The case with a local fusion corresponds to the model, where colour fields are summing up only locally and the global fusion case corresponds to the model, where colour fields are summing up globally - all over the cluster area - into one average colour field, the last case corresponds to the summing of the sources colour charges. (In section 5 of  we have referred to these cases as A) and B) correspondingly.)

In the transverse plane depending on the impact parameter $`b`$ we have some interaction area $`S(b)`$. Let us split this area on the cells of order of the transverse string size. Then we’ll have $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ cells, where $`\sigma _0=\pi r_0^2`$ is the transverse area of the string and $`r_00.2fm`$ is the string radius.

In the case with a local fusion the assumption of the model is that if the number of strings belonging to the $`i`$-th cell is $`\eta _i`$, then they form higher colour string, which emits in average $`\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ particles with mean $`p_t^2`$ equal to $`p^2\sqrt{\eta _i}`$, compared with $`\mu _0`$ particles with $`p_t^2=p^2`$ emitting by a single string.

If we denote by $`n_i`$ and $`\overline{n}_i`$ \- the number and the average number of particles emitted by the higher string from $`i`$-th cell in a given rapidity interval, then

$$\overline{n}_i=\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}$$
(1)
From event to event the number of strings $`\eta _i`$ in $`i`$-th cell will fluctuate around some average value - $`\overline{\eta }_i`$. Clear that in the case of real nuclear collisions these average values $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ will be different for different cells. They will depend on the position ($`𝐬`$) of the $`i`$-th cell in the interaction area ($`𝐬`$ is two dimensional vector in transverse plane). To get the physical answer we have to sum the contributions from different cells, which corresponds to integration over $`𝐬`$ in transverse plane.

The average local density of primary strings $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ in the point $`𝐬`$ of transverse plane is uniquely determined by the distributions of nuclear densities and the value of the impact parameter - $`b`$. They can be calculated, for example, in Glauber approximation. We’ll do this later in a separate paper. In present paper we consider that all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ are already fixed from these considerations at given value of the impact parameter - $`b`$.

Let us introduce some quantities, which will play important role in our consideration:

$$N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _i,\overline{N}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{\eta }_i$$

$$r=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\eta _i},\overline{r}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}$$
(2)
then clear that $`N`$ is the number of strings in the given event and $`\overline{N}`$ is the mean number of strings for this type of events (at the fixed impact parameter $`b`$).

To go to long-range rapidity correlations we have to consider two rapidity windows $`F`$ (forward) and $`B`$ (backward). Each event corresponds to a certain configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ of strings and certain numbers of charged particles $`\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}`$ emitted by these strings in the forward rapidity window. Then the total number of particles produced in the forward rapidity window will be equal to $`n_F`$:

$$n_F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}n_i$$
(3)
The probability to detect $`n_F`$ particles in the forward rapidity window for a given configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ of strings is equal to

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\underset{\{n_1,\mathrm{},n_M\}}{}\delta _{n_F,_in_i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_{\eta _i}(n_i)$$
(4)
where $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ is the probability of the emission of $`n_i`$ particles by the string $`\eta _i`$ in the forward rapidity window. By our assumption (1)

$$\overline{n}_i\underset{n_i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_ip_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}$$
(5)
If we denote else by $`W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)`$ the probability of realization of the string configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$ in the given event, then the average value of some quantity $`O`$ under condition of the production of $`n_F`$ particles in the forward window will be equal to

$$O_{n_F}=\frac{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)}$$
(6)
One has to omit in this $`M`$-fold sums one term, when all $`\eta _i=0`$, which corresponds to the absence of inelastic interaction between the nucleons of the colliding nuclei (see details in Appendix A).

If the $`O`$ in the number of particles produced in the backward rapidity window $`n_B`$ in the given event, then we have to use for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\mu _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\eta _i}=\mu _0r$$
(7)
If the $`O`$ in the mean squared transverse momentum of particles produced in the backward rapidity window $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2`$ in the given event, then we have to use for $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\sqrt{\eta _i}}{_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i}}p^2\sqrt{\eta _i}=p^2\frac{_{i=1}^M\eta _i}{_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i}}=p^2\frac{N}{r}$$
(8)
Later we’ll assume that numbers of primary strings in each cell $`\eta _i`$ fluctuate independently around some average quantities $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ uniquely determined by the distributions of nuclear densities and the value of the impact parameter - $`b`$ (see above), then

$$W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}w(\eta _i),\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _iw(\eta _i)=\overline{\eta }_i$$
(9)
For clearness we’ll sometimes address to a simple ”homogeneous” case, when all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ (but not the $`\eta _i`$, which fluctuate from event to event!) is equal each other in the interaction area $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$ (a constant mean density of strings). The parameter $`\eta `$ coincides in this case with the parameter $`\eta `$ used in the papers  and has the meaning of the mean number of strings per area of one string ($`\eta =(\mathrm{mean}\mathrm{string}\mathrm{density})\times \sigma _0`$). In general case the parameters $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ have the same meaning, but with mean string density depending on the point $`𝐬`$ in the transverse interaction plane
($`\overline{\eta }_i=(\mathrm{mean}\mathrm{string}\mathrm{density}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{point}𝐬)\times \sigma _0`$).

As it was shown in  if we assume else the Poissonian form of $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ ($`\rho _a(x)`$ is the Poisson distribution with $`\overline{x}=a`$):

$$p_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\rho _{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_i)e^{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}\frac{(\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i})^{n_i}}{n_i!}$$
(10)
then we find the Poissonian distribution for

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\rho _{\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_F)$$
(11)
with $`n_F_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}=\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}=\mu _0r=n_F_r`$ and $`\sigma _{rF}^2=n_F_r=\mu _0r`$, which we can replace at large $`\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ by Gauss distribution:

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _{rF}}e^{\frac{(n_Fn_F_r)^2}{2\sigma _{rF}^2}}$$
(12)
It was also shown in the section 6 of  that if we assume the Binomial form of $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$ then we find the Binomial distribution for $`P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)`$ with $`n_F_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}=\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}=\mu _0r=n_F_r`$ and $`\sigma _{rF}^2=n_F_r(1\lambda )=\mu _0r(1\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda 0`$ corresponds to the Poisson limit and $`\lambda 1`$ corresponds to the case when each higher string emits fixed number of particles - $`n_i=\overline{n}_i=\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}`$ in each event.

Moreover appealing to the central limit theorem of the probability theory one can state that at large $`M`$ we’ll have formula (12) for any type of $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$.

## 3 Gauss approximation at large string density for the local fusion.

Now we’ll evaluate $`_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}`$ at the condition that all $`\overline{\eta }_i1`$. At this condition we can use Gauss approximation for each $`w(\eta _i)`$

$$w(\eta _i)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _{\eta _i}}e^{\frac{(\eta _i\overline{\eta }_i)^2}{2\sigma _{\eta _i}^2}}$$
(13)
with $`\sigma _{\eta _i}^2=\overline{\eta }_i(1\lambda _\eta )`$, where again $`\lambda _\eta 0`$ corresponds to the Poisson limit and $`\lambda _\eta 1`$ corresponds to the case with a fixed number of strings $`N=\overline{N}=_{i=1}^M\overline{\eta }_i`$ (see the section 6 of ).

As in  we have then

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _0\frac{𝑑\eta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\eta _Mr\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{\phi (\eta _i,n_F)}}{𝑑\eta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\eta _M\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{\phi (\eta _i,n_F)}}$$
(14)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=p^2\frac{𝑑\eta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\eta _M\frac{N}{r}\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{\phi (\eta _i,n_F)}}{𝑑\eta _1\mathrm{}𝑑\eta _M\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}e^{\phi (\eta _i,n_F)}}$$
(15)
Recall that $`N=_{i=1}^M\eta _i`$ and $`r=_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i}`$. Here

$$\phi (\eta _i,n_F)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{(\eta _i\overline{\eta }_i)^2}{2\overline{\eta }_i(1\lambda _\eta )}+\frac{(n_F\mu _0r)^2}{2\mu _0r(1\lambda )}$$
(16)
Further we take out factors before exponent at the point, where $`\phi `$ is minimal, after that the rest integrals in the numerator and in the denominator are being reduced, and we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _0r^{}$$
(17)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=p^2\frac{N^{}}{r^{}}$$
(18)
The $`N^{}`$ and $`r^{}`$ are the values of $`N`$ and $`r`$ in the point $`\{\eta _1^{},\mathrm{},\eta _M^{}\}`$, where $`\phi (\eta _i,n_F)`$ is minimal:

$$\frac{\phi (\eta _i,n_F)}{\eta _i}=0$$
(19)
This leads to the system of equations:

$$\frac{\eta _i^{}}{\overline{\eta }_i}1=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\eta _i^{}}}\left(\frac{n_F^2}{\mu _0^2r^2}1\right)$$
(20)
Recall that $`r^{}=_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\eta _i^{}}`$ and

$$\kappa =\frac{1\lambda _\eta }{1\lambda }$$
(21)
For the meaning of $`\kappa `$ see the end of the previous section and the section 6 of , for both Poissonian distributions $`\kappa =1`$ and $`\kappa `$ is the relative width of the $`p(n_i)`$ and $`w(\eta _i)`$ distributions in other cases. The (20) defines $`\eta _i^{}`$ as function of $`n_F`$.

Introducing short notations

$$z_i=\sqrt{\frac{\eta _i^{}}{\overline{\eta }_i}},f=\frac{n_F}{\mu _0\overline{r}}=\frac{n_F}{n_F},a_i=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}}$$
(22)
we can rewrite (20) as

$$z_i^3z_i=a_i\left(f^2\frac{\overline{r}^2}{r^2}1\right)$$
(23)
where $`\overline{r}=_{i=1}^M\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}`$, $`r^{}=_{i=1}^Mz_i\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}`$ and $`N^{}=_{i=1}^Mz_i^2\overline{\eta }_i`$. The (23) defines $`z_i`$ as function of $`f`$: $`z_i=z_i(f)`$. Then we can calculate $`n_B_{n_F}`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ as a function of $`n_F`$ using (17) and (18).

## 4 $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients at a large string density for the local fusion.

The correlation coefficients are defined in the same way as in the section 4 of :

$$b\frac{dn_B_{n_F}}{dn_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(24)
and

$$\beta \frac{dp_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{dn_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(25)
or for ”relative” quantities

$$\overline{b}\frac{dn_B_{n_F}/n_B}{dn_F/n_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(26)
and

$$\overline{\beta }\frac{dp_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}/p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2}{dn_F/n_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(27)
(Note the same definition of $`pt`$$`n`$ correlation coefficient $`\overline{\beta }`$ in  (see formula (44) in ), see also remark in Appendix B).

In short notation using (17) and (18) we have:

$$\overline{b}=\frac{1}{\overline{r}}\frac{dr^{}}{df}|_{f=1}$$
(28)
and

$$\overline{\beta }=\frac{\overline{r}}{\overline{N}}\frac{d(N^{}/r^{})}{df}|_{f=1}$$
(29)
We can’t solve the equations (23) for to find $`z_i=z_i(f)`$ explicitly, but to calculate the correlation coefficients we need to know only $`z_i^{}(1)=\frac{dz_i(f)}{df}|_{f=1}`$, which can be done explicitly.

We see that at $`f=1`$ (23) has the obvious solution:

$$f=1,z_i=1,\eta _i^{}=\overline{\eta }_i,r^{}=\overline{r},N^{}=\overline{N}$$
(30)
We need to calculate $`z_i^{}(f)`$ only at $`f=1`$. Differentiating (23) on $`f`$ and using then again (30) we find

$$z_i^{}(1)=a_i\frac{4\overline{r}}{4\overline{r}+\mu _0\kappa M}$$
(31)
with $`a_i=\mu _0\kappa /(4\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i})`$. Then

$$\overline{b}=\frac{1}{\overline{r}}\frac{dr^{}}{df}|_{f=1}=\frac{1}{\overline{r}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}z_i^{}(1)\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\overline{r}/M}$$
(32)
and

$$\overline{\beta }=\frac{1}{\overline{N}}\frac{dN^{}}{df}\frac{1}{\overline{r}}\frac{dr^{}}{df}|_{f=1}=\frac{1}{\overline{N}}\frac{dN^{}}{df}|_{f=1}\overline{b}$$
(33)
Using

$$\frac{dN^{}}{df}|_{f=1}=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}z_i^{}(1)\overline{\eta }_i=\frac{2\mu _0\kappa \overline{r}^2}{\mu _0\kappa M+4\overline{r}}$$
(34)
we have

$$\overline{\beta }=\left(\frac{2\overline{r}^2}{\overline{N}M}1\right)\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\overline{r}/M}=\left(\frac{2\overline{r}^2}{\overline{N}M}1\right)\overline{b}$$
(35)
We see the connection between $`pt`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients. Note that due to obvious inequality:

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}\right)^2M\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{\eta }_i$$
(36)
we have $`\overline{r}^2M\overline{N}`$ and hence always $`\overline{\beta }\overline{b}`$.

Clear that at equal $`\overline{\eta }_i\eta `$ we have $`\overline{r}=M\sqrt{\eta }`$, $`\overline{N}=M\eta `$, $`\overline{r}^2=\overline{N}M`$ and

$$\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\sqrt{\eta }}$$
(37)
From (32) we see that $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficient is always positive. Can $`pt`$$`n`$ correlation coefficient be negative? Let us consider nonhomogeneous situation when $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta _+`$ at $`i=1,\mathrm{},M_1`$, $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta _{}`$ at $`i=M_1+1,\mathrm{},M`$, $`M_1M`$ and $`\eta _+\eta _{}1`$. Then $`\overline{r}=M_1\sqrt{\eta _+}+(MM_1)\sqrt{\eta _{}}M_1\sqrt{\eta _+}`$, $`\overline{N}=M_1\eta _++(MM_1)\eta _{}M_1\eta _+`$ and we have

$$\overline{\beta }\left(2\frac{M_1}{M}1\right)\overline{b}$$
(38)
We see that at $`M_1<M/2`$ we can have $`\overline{\beta }<0`$.

## 5 The $`\mu _0/\eta ^{1/2}`$-scaling at large string density.

Let us consider for clearness homogeneous case, when all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ is equal each other in the interaction area $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$ (a constant mean density of strings). In this case we can explicitly calculate at large string density $`\eta `$ not only the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients, but also the corresponding correlation functions for the version with a local string fusion.

We have seen in the end of previous section that in this case the coefficients for $`n`$$`n`$ and $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations defined as (26) and (27) are coincide:

$$\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\sqrt{\eta }}=\frac{a}{a+1}$$
(39)
where $`a=\mu _0\kappa /(4\sqrt{\eta })`$.

In this homogenous case $`\overline{\eta }_i\eta `$ we can also calculate the correlation functions $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ and $`n_B_{n_F}`$ at any $`n_F`$. Due to symmetry, the system of equations (23) have symmetrical solution $`z_i=z`$ and can be reduced to one equation

$$z^3z=a\left(\frac{f^2}{z^2}1\right)$$
(40)
because $`\overline{r}=M\sqrt{\eta }`$, $`r^{}=zM\sqrt{\eta }`$ and $`N^{}=z^2M\eta `$ with

$$f=\frac{n_F}{\mu _0M\sqrt{\eta }}=\frac{n_F}{n_F},a=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\eta }}$$
(41)
The (40) defines the function $`z=z(f)`$ and then using (17) and (18) we can calculate

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _0r^{}=\mu _0M\sqrt{\eta }z(f)=n_Bz(f)$$
(42)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=p^2\frac{N^{}}{r^{}}=p^2\sqrt{\eta }z(f)=p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2z(f)$$
(43)
So we have at any $`n_F=n_Ff`$:

$$\frac{n_B_{n_F}}{n_B}=\frac{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2}=z(f)$$
(44)
From (39) and (40) we see that in this homogenous case at large string density $`\eta `$ there is an remarkable scaling. The $`pt`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients and correlation functions depend only on one combination $`a=\mu _0\kappa /(4\sqrt{\eta })`$ of parameters.

We present the correlation function $`z(f)`$ (44) in Figs. 1,2 and the correlation coefficient $`\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}`$ (39) as function of $`\eta `$ in Figs. 3-5 (the solid lines). We present also in Figs. 3-5 the results of our direct numerical MC calculations of the $`pt`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients in the local fusion case based on formulas (6-8) (empty and filled points correspondingly).

We see that in the case with local fusion at small string density we have large $`n`$$`n`$ correlations (the same as in the case without string fusion ) and no $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlations. (The analysis at very small values of $`\eta 1/M`$ see in Appendix A.)

At large string density in the homogeneous case the $`p_t`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients become equal and the $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$-scaling takes place. We see also that in this limit our Gauss asymptotic is in a good agreement with results of the numerical calculations and $`M`$-independence takes place.

## 6 The global fusion at large string density. Exact solution.

In this case at first stage we also have $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$ cells (like in the case with local fusion) with $`\eta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$ fluctuated around $`\overline{\eta }_i`$. Then (unlike the local fusion case) we have to find average $`\eta _c=\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i=\frac{N}{M}`$ for given event, and then to generate particles from one cluster with average multiplicity equal to $`\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _c}=`$ $`\mu _0M\sqrt{\eta _c}`$ $`=\mu _0M\sqrt{N/M}`$ $`=\mu _0\sqrt{MN}`$. The general formulae for this case was obtained in the section 5 of :

$$O_{n_F}=\frac{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)p_{\mu _c\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}W(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M)p_{\mu _c\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}}(n_F)}$$
(45)
where $`\mu _c=\mu _0M`$ with $`M=S(b)/\sigma _0`$. The assumption $`\overline{\eta }_i>>1`$ is essential, as only in this situation we can consider that the transverse area of the cluster $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ is equal to all interaction area $`S(b)`$ ($`b`$-impact parameter).

The $`O_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}`$ is the rates of the backward production from configuration $`\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}`$. We have to use for $`n_B_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=\mu _c\sqrt{\eta _c}=\mu _0M\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}\underset{i}{}\eta _i}$$
(46)
and for $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}`$ correlations:

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\},n_F}=p^2\sqrt{\eta _c}=p^2\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}\underset{i}{}\eta _i}$$
(47)
We see that the difference with the case of local fusion consists in replace $`\frac{1}{M}_i\sqrt{\eta _i}\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}_i\eta _i}`$. As a consequence calculations in the case of global string fusion are much more simple, as we can reduce all sums $`_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}`$ to one sum $`_N`$, as in the no fusion case (see section 3 in ). So in the global fusion case we can write simple formulas:

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0\sqrt{M}_N\sqrt{N}W(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}{_NW(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}$$
(48)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=\frac{p^2}{\sqrt{M}}\frac{_N\sqrt{N}W(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}{_NW(N)p_{\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N}}(n_F)}$$
(49)
where $`W(N)`$ is given by the formula

$$W(N)=\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}\delta _{N,_i\eta _i}\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)$$
(50)
We see that in the case of global fusion (one cluster at large $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ with area $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ being equal to all interaction area $`S(b)`$) $`n`$$`n`$ and $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations are connected

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=\frac{p^2}{\mu _0M}n_B_{n_F}\mathrm{or}\frac{n_B_{n_F}}{n_B}=\frac{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2}$$
(51)
Note that unlike the local fusion case in this case we find this result without any assumptions on the properties of $`p(n_F)`$ and $`w(\eta _i)`$ distributions and for arbitrary (even nonequal) $`\overline{\eta }_i`$.

Clear that in this case the results can depend only on mean number of strings $`\overline{N}`$ and on combination $`\mu _M`$:

$$\overline{N}=\underset{i}{}\overline{\eta }_i\mu _M\mu _0\sqrt{M}$$
(52)
Below we’ll calculate numerically the correlation functions on formulas (48) and (49), but at first we would like to find explicit formulas for global fusion case in Gauss approximation. We’ll see that results really depend only on one combination of the variables (52), namely on

$$\frac{\mu _M}{\sqrt{\overline{N}}}=\frac{\mu _0}{4\sqrt{\overline{N}/M}}$$
(53)
and the $`scaling`$ takes place as in the case with local fusion.

## 7 Gauss approximation for global fusion at large string density.

Acting as in the no fusion case in section 4 of  (see also calculations in the Gauss approximation in the section 3 of the present paper) we find

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _M\sqrt{N^{}}=\mu _0\sqrt{M}\sqrt{N^{}}$$
(54)
or keeping in mind (51)

$$\frac{n_B_{n_F}}{n_B}=\frac{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2}=\sqrt{\frac{N^{}}{\overline{N}}}$$
(55)
The $`N^{}`$ is the value of $`N`$ at which the function

$$\phi (N,n_F)=\frac{(N\overline{N})^2}{2\overline{N}(1\lambda _\eta )}+\frac{(n_F\mu _M\sqrt{N})^2}{2\mu _M\sqrt{N}(1\lambda )}$$
(56)
gains its minimum. In short notations

$$z\sqrt{\frac{N^{}}{\overline{N}}},f=\frac{n_F}{\mu _M\sqrt{\overline{N}}}=\frac{n_F}{n_F},a=\frac{\mu _M\kappa }{4\sqrt{\overline{N}}}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\overline{N}/M}}$$
(57)
we find the equation

$$z^3z=a\left(\frac{f^2}{z^2}1\right)$$
(58)
which defines the function $`z=z(f)`$ and then using (55) we can calculate correlation functions

$$\frac{n_B_{n_F}}{n_B}=\frac{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2}=z\left(\frac{n_F}{n_F}\right)=z(f)$$
(59)
and correlation coefficients for the global fusion case

$$\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}=z^{}(1)=\frac{a}{a+1}=\frac{\mu _M\kappa }{\mu _M\kappa +4\sqrt{\overline{N}}}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\sqrt{\overline{N}/M}}$$
(60)
We see again that in Gauss approximation there is the same remarkable $`scaling`$. The $`pt`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlations depend only on one combination of parameters: $`a=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\overline{N}/M}}`$. Note that unlike the local fusion case in this case we find this result for arbitrary (even not equal) $`\overline{\eta }_i`$.

In the homogeneous situation all $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$ and we have

$$\overline{N}=M\eta ,a=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\eta }}$$
(61)
and

$$\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{\mu _0\kappa +4\sqrt{\eta }}=\frac{a}{a+1}$$
(62)
We see that in the $`homogeneous`$ situation in Gauss approximation the results with $`local`$ and $`global`$ fusion coincide (as we have expected in section 5 of ). We have the same equations (40) and (58) with the same value of parameter $`a`$ (41) and (61). Note that in the no fusion case we have had very different equation for $`z(f)`$ (see section 4 of ).

Unlike the local fusion case in the global fusion case we can control the validity of Gauss approximation making calculations on exact formulas (48) and (49) at different values of $`M`$.

Along with the correlation function $`z(f)`$ (44), (59) in Figs. 1,2 and the correlation coefficient $`\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}`$ (39),(60) in Figs. 3-5, calculated on our scaling formulas, which in Gauss approximation are the same for local and global fusion (the solid lines), we present at the same pictures the results of exact calculations in the global fusion case on formulas (48) and (49) at different values of $`M`$ (the dotted and dashed lines).

We present also in Figs. 3-5 the results of our direct numerical MC calculations of the $`pt`$$`n`$ and $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients in the global fusion case based on formulas (45-47) (half-filled squares).

We see that in this case the Gauss approximation works very well and the $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$-scaling is not an artifact of this approximation. More over along with the $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$-scaling at large $`\eta `$ we have also $`M`$-independence for correlation coefficients $`\overline{\beta }`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ (see Figs. 3-5) starting very early (from $`M=4`$).

## 8 Conclusions.

In conclusion let us compare the results obtained in the present paper in the case with string fusion with results obtained in  in the case without string fusion.

We have obtained in the paper  in the case without string fusion:

1. for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{b}=\frac{a}{a+1}`$ with $`a=\mu _0\kappa `$
2. for $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{\beta }=0`$

In the present paper in the case with the global string fusion and in the local fusion case for homogeneous situation ($`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$) we find at large $`\eta `$:

1. for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{b}=\frac{a}{a+1}`$ with $`a=\frac{\mu _0\kappa }{4\sqrt{\overline{N}/M}}=\mu _0\kappa /(4\sqrt{\eta })`$
2. for $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{\beta }=\overline{b}=\frac{a}{a+1}`$ with the same $`a`$

We see that with fusion the $`n`$$`n`$ correlations became weaker, but now as compensation we have the $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations of the same strength. We see also $`\mu _0/\sqrt{\eta }`$-scaling in this case.

For nonhomogeneous situation (different $`\overline{\eta }_i`$) in the case with local string fusion we have find at large $`\overline{\eta }_i`$:

1. for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{b}=\frac{a}{a+1}`$ with $`a=\mu _0\kappa /(4\overline{r}/M)`$
2. for $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations: $`\overline{\beta }=\left(\frac{2\overline{r}^2}{\overline{N}M}1\right)\overline{b}`$ and hence $`\overline{\beta }\overline{b}`$

$$\mathrm{with}\overline{N}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\overline{\eta }_i\mathrm{and}\overline{r}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\overline{\eta }_i}$$

As we have demonstrated above (see (33) and (35)), this leads to $`\overline{\beta }`$ smaller than $`\overline{b}`$: $`\overline{\beta }\overline{b}`$. It’s possible situation (38), in which $`\overline{\beta }<0`$.

At small string density as it’s shown in Appendix A the two types of limit at $`\eta 0`$ can be studied.

1. If one keeps $`M=const`$, then we have $`N1`$ (because the configurations with $`N=0`$, are not considered as events) and we have nor $`p_t`$$`n`$ nor $`n`$$`n`$ correlation.
2. If one keeps $`\overline{N}=const`$, then $`M\eta =const`$ and $`M\mathrm{}`$, hence the strings will be far separated in transverse plane and we’ll have the same results as in the case without string fusion .

Note that the results obtained in our cellular approach are in a good agreement with the results obtained in the framework of the real string fusion model taking into account detail geometry of strings overlapping .

### Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank M.A. Braun and G.A. Feofilov for numerous valuable encouraging discussions. The work has been partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research under Grant No. 01-02-17137-a.

## Appendixes:

## Appendix A Correlations at small string density.

In this appendix we calculate the correlation functions and the correlation coefficients at small string density in the case with local string fusion. (In the case with global fusion this limit has no physical sense (see discussion in the section 5 of )).

For clearness we consider ”homogeneous” case, when all $`\overline{\eta }_i`$ is equal each other in the interaction area $`\overline{\eta }_i=\eta `$. Then in each cell $`i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$) the $`\eta _i`$ fluctuate around this mean value according to Poisson law ($`\rho _a(x)`$ is the Poisson distribution with $`\overline{x}=a`$):

$$w(\eta _i)=\rho _\eta (\eta _i)e^\eta \frac{(\eta )^{\eta _i}}{\eta _i!}$$
(63)
We’ll assume also the Poissonian form of $`p_{\eta _i}(n_i)`$:

$$p_{\eta _i}(n_i)=\rho _{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_i)e^{\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i}}\frac{(\mu _0\sqrt{\eta _i})^{n_i}}{n_i!}$$
(64)
then we have the Poissonian distribution for

$$P_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}(n_F)=\rho _{\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}}(n_F)$$
(65)
with $`n_F_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}=\mu _0_i\sqrt{\eta _i}=\mu _0r=n_F_r`$.

Then we find from (6) for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{n_F}=\frac{\mu _0_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}^{}r\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0r}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}^{}\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0r}(n_F)}$$
(66)
and for $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations:

$$p_{tB}^2_{n_F}=\frac{p^2_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}^{}\frac{N}{r}\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0r}(n_F)}{_{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}^{}\left(_iw(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0r}(n_F)}$$
(67)
Recall that

$$N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\eta _i\mathrm{and}r=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\sqrt{\eta _i}$$

The $`N`$ is the number of strings in the given event.

One has to omit in all $`M`$-fold sums in (66) and (67) one term, when all $`\eta _i=0`$, which corresponds to the absence of inelastic interactions between the nucleons of the colliding nuclei (we denote this fact by $`^{}`$).

The probability $`P(n_F)`$ to detect $`n_F`$ particles in the forward rapidity window, which enters denominators of (66) and (67), is

$$P(n_F)=C\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}^{}\left(\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)\right)\rho _{\mu _0r}(n_F)$$
(68)
where from normalization condition we have

$$C=\frac{1}{1w^M(0)}=\frac{1}{1e^{M\eta }}$$
(69)
Clear that this factor $`C`$ is canceling in the numerator and in the denominator of (66) and (67), but if we calculate the mean number of strings $`\overline{N}`$, we find

$$\overline{N}=C\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}^{}\left(\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)\right)N=C\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}^{}\left(\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)\right)\left(\underset{i}{}\eta _i\right)=\frac{M\eta }{1e^{M\eta }}$$
(70)
and for the $`n_F`$ at small $`\eta 1`$ we have

$$n_F=\underset{n_F}{}n_FP(n_F)=C\mu _{0F}\underset{\{\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _M\}}{}^{}\left(\underset{i}{}w(\eta _i)\right)r=\mu _{0F}\frac{M\eta }{1e^{M\eta }}=\mu _{0F}\overline{N}$$
(71)
Because for any $`\omega >0`$ we have $`_{\eta _i}\eta _i^\omega w(\eta _i)=\eta +O(\eta ^2)`$ at $`\eta 0`$, as the main contribution comes from the term $`\eta _i=1`$.

There are two possibilities when $`\eta 0`$:

1. $`M=const`$ and then $`M\eta 0`$ and $`\overline{N}1`$ (see (70))
2. $`\overline{N}=const`$ and then $`M\eta =const`$ ((see (70)) and $`M\mathrm{}`$

We’ll investigate both these possibilities.

The first one means that in the limit we have $`N=\overline{N}=1`$ (because the configurations with $`N=0`$, are not considered as events). Clear that in this situation we’ll have nor $`p_t`$$`n`$ nor $`n`$$`n`$ correlation, as we’ll have no fluctuations in the number of strings (see discussion in the end of the section 4 of ). Detail calculations are presented below.

In the second case with $`\overline{N}=const`$ we’ll have the fluctuations in the number of strings $`N`$, but in the limit $`\eta 0`$ we’ll have $`M\mathrm{}`$, the strings will be far separated in transverse plane and the strings fusion will plays no role. So in this case we’ll have the same results as in the no fusion case, considered in : large $`n`$$`n`$ correlation with a correlation coefficient equal to $`b=\mu _0/(\mu _0+1)`$ and no $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlation. (See calculations below.)

Detail calculations. Let us evaluate the $`M`$-fold sums in (66) and (67) at $`\eta 0`$ keeping all terms of order $`(M\eta )^k`$, $`(M\eta )^k\eta `$ with any $`k`$ and omitting all terms of order $`(M\eta )^k\eta ^2`$ and higher.

The terms of order $`(M\eta )^k`$ originates from the summands in (66) and (67) with $`\eta _{i_1}=\mathrm{}=\eta _{i_k}=1`$ and other $`\eta _i=0`$. The terms of order $`(M\eta )^k\eta `$ originates from the summands in (66) and (67) with $`\eta _{i_1}=2`$, $`\eta _{i_2}=\mathrm{}=\eta _{i_k}=1`$ and other $`\eta _i=0`$. Keeping this into mind we find for $`P(n_F)`$:

$$P(n_F)=C(G_0+\frac{\eta }{2}G_1)$$
(72)
and for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _{0B}\frac{N_0+\frac{\eta }{2}N_1}{G_0+\frac{\eta }{2}G_1}$$
(73)
For $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations we have:

$$p_{tB}^2_{n_F}=p^2\frac{P_0+\frac{\eta }{2}P_1}{G_0+\frac{\eta }{2}G_1}=p^2\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2}\frac{P_1G_1}{G_0}\right)$$
(74)
Here

$$G_0=P_0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C_M^k\eta ^k\rho _{\mu _0k}(n_F)$$
(75)
$$N_0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}kC_M^k\eta ^k\rho _{\mu _0k}(n_F)$$

$$G_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}kC_M^k\eta ^k\rho _{\mu _0(k+\gamma )}(n_F)$$

$$N_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}(k+\gamma )kC_M^k\eta ^k\rho _{\mu _0(k+\gamma )}(n_F)$$

$$P_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{k+1}{k+\gamma }kC_M^k\eta ^k\rho _{\mu _0(k+\gamma )}(n_F)$$

where $`\mu _0\mu _{0F}`$ and $`\gamma =\sqrt{2}1`$.

Note that at $`M1`$ and $`M\eta =const`$ we have for $`P(n_F)`$:

$$P(n_F)=Ce^{M\eta }\frac{\mu _0^{n_F}}{n_F!}(\overline{G}_0+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\overline{G}_1)$$
(76)
and for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _{0B}\frac{\overline{N}_0+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\overline{N}_1}{\overline{G}_0+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\overline{G}_1}$$
(77)
For $`pt`$$`n`$ correlations we have:

$$p_{tB}^2_{n_F}=p^2\frac{\overline{P}_0+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\overline{P}_1}{\overline{G}_0+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\overline{G}_1}=p^2\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2}e^{\mu _0\gamma }\frac{\overline{P}_1\overline{G}_1}{\overline{G}_0}\right)$$
(78)
Here

$$\overline{G}_0=\overline{P}_0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k^{n_F}\frac{d^k}{k!}$$
(79)
$$\overline{N}_0=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k^{n_F+1}\frac{d^k}{k!}$$

$$\overline{G}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(k+\gamma )^{n_F}\frac{d^k}{(k1)!}$$

$$\overline{N}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(k+\gamma )^{n_F+1}\frac{d^k}{(k1)!}$$

$$\overline{P}_1=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(k+\gamma )^{n_F1}(k+1)\frac{d^k}{(k1)!}$$

where $`d=M\eta e^{\mu _0}`$.

For the control of calculations we have used also the following explicit formulas at $`n_F=0,1,2`$:

$$\overline{G}_0(0)=\overline{P}_0(0)=e^d1$$
(80)
$$\overline{N}_0(0)=\overline{G}_1(0)=\overline{G}_0(1)=\overline{P}_0(1)=de^d$$

$$\overline{N}_1(0)=\overline{G}_1(1)=(d+\sqrt{2})de^d$$

$$\overline{P}_1(0)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{k+1}{k+\gamma }\frac{d^k}{(k1)!}$$

$$\overline{N}_0(1)=\overline{G}_0(2)=\overline{P}_0(2)=(d+1)de^d$$

$$\overline{N}_1(1)=\overline{G}_1(2)=(d^2+d(1+2\sqrt{2})+2)de^d$$

$$\overline{P}_1(1)=(d+2)de^d$$

$$\overline{N}_0(2)=(d^2+3d+1)de^d$$

$$\overline{N}_1(2)=(d^3+d^23(1+\sqrt{2})+d(7+3\sqrt{2})+2\sqrt{2})de^d$$

$$\overline{P}_1(2)=(d^2+d(3+\sqrt{2})+2\sqrt{2})de^d$$

The results of the calculations using the asymptotic formulas (7375) in the first case ($`M=const`$, $`\eta 0`$, $`M\eta 0`$ and $`\overline{N}1`$) are shown in the Figs. 6-7 (lines) together with results of direct MC numerical calculations using formulas (66) and (67)(points). As we have expected in this case both $`n`$$`n`$ and $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients go to zero when $`\overline{N}1`$, i.e. at $`\eta <1/M`$. Remember that we have $`M`$-independence for the correlation coefficients at large $`\eta `$. Now we see that in this limit it disappears at $`\eta 1/M`$. This is also the reason for nonlinear dependence of the correlation coefficients on $`\eta `$ in this region which one can see in Figs. 6-7 for $`\mu _0=4`$.

We see also that using asymptotic formulas (7375) we can calculate $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients in wider region of small $`\eta `$, than $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients, because we have the contributions of order $`(M\eta )^k`$ and $`(M\eta )^k\eta `$ for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations and only first non-trivial contribution of order $`(M\eta )^k\eta `$ for $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlations. Note the very good agreement between results of the calculations on the asymptotic formulas (7375) (lines in the Figs. 6-7) and the results of direct MC numerical calculations on formulas (66) and (67) (points in the Figs. 6-7).

In the second case when $`\eta 0`$ we keep $`\overline{N}=const`$ and then due to (70) $`M\eta =const`$ so $`M\mathrm{}`$. We can use formulas (7779) with $`d=const`$, then in the limit $`\eta 0`$ we find for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations:

$$n_B_{n_F}=\mu _{0B}\frac{\overline{N}_0}{\overline{G}_0}=\mu _{0B}\frac{_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}k\rho _{M\eta }(k)\rho _{\mu _0k}(n_F)}{_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\rho _{M\eta }(k)\rho _{\mu _0k}(n_F)}$$
(81)
Here we multiply both the numerator and the denominator by $`e^{M\eta }\mu _0^{n_F}/n_F!`$.

Recall that $`\rho _a(x)`$ is the Poisson distribution with $`\overline{x}=a`$, then we see that formula (81) coincides with the formula for $`n`$$`n`$ correlations obtained in the paper  in the case without string fusion (see formula (23) in ). So we’ll have the same result for the $`n`$$`n`$ correlation coefficient $`b=\mu _0/(\mu _0+1)`$ as in the no fusion case (see Figs. 6-7).

For $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlation coefficients in this limit we find from (78) and (79) with $`d=const`$:

$$p_{tB}^2_{n_F}=p^2(1+O(\eta ))$$
(82)
So we have no $`p_t`$$`n`$ correlation as in the case without string fusion .

## Appendix B  On the difference between $`n_B`$ and $`n_B_{n_F=n_F}`$.

It’s possible instead of (26) and (27) to use the following definitions for the correlation coefficients:

$$\overline{b}\frac{dn_B_{n_F}/n_B_{n_F}}{dn_F/n_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(83)
and

$$\overline{\beta }\frac{dp_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}/p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}}{dn_F/n_F}|_{n_F=n_F}$$
(84)
where

$$n_B_{n_F}=n_B_{n_F=n_F}$$
(85)
and

$$p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}=p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F=n_F}$$
(86)
Clear that

$$n_B=\underset{n_F}{}\overline{P}(n_F)n_B_{n_F}n_B_{n_F=n_F}\underset{n_F}{}P(n_F)=n_B_{n_F=n_F}n_B_{n_F}$$
(87)
and the same for $`p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F}p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2_{n_F=n_F}p_{\mathrm{t}B}^2`$.

In our Gauss approximation these two types of quantities coincide with each other.