format: text

text:
# Electromagnetic response of confined Dirac particles

## I Introduction

The present work is motivated by the study of the effects of interactions on the response of systems of confined relativistic particles. Here we consider a single massless Dirac particle confined by a linear potential. The Dirac Hamiltonian is solved exactly for a large number of eigenstates and the electromagnetic structure functions are calculated by coupling a charged leptonic probe (such as the electron) to the conserved vector current of the target, $`\overline{\psi }_q(x)\gamma _\mu \psi _q(x)`$. This model neglects some of the important physics such as the contribution of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs from the vacuum and the effects of radiative gluon corrections. It is nevertheless useful to study the role of interactions on valence quark structure functions. In a future paper we will use this model to investigate the role of interactions in determining spin-dependent observables.Pandharipande et al. (2003)

The model may be viewed as a heavy-light meson, such as $`\overline{t}u`$, or a baryon with a light quark bound to an infinitely massive diquark. In the heavy-light meson, the antiquark $`\overline{t}`$ and light quark $`u`$ have opposite color charge and confinement is due to the flux tube connecting them. In the limit of very large mass of the $`\overline{t}`$ the Dirac equation for the motion of the light quark is exact. We neglect the weak interaction.

Benhar, Pandharipande, and Sick Benhar et al. (2000) have shown that the transverse structure function of the proton $`W_1^p(\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)`$, measured in inclusive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments, exhibits scaling in the variable $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\nu |𝐪|`$ over a large range, 5 GeV $`|𝐪|`$ 100 GeV. Here $`\nu `$ and $`|𝐪|`$ are the energy and momentum transferred to the target in its rest frame. The model described in the present work also exhibits $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ scaling. The $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ variable is related to the dimensionless Nachtmann variable Nachtmann (1973) $`\xi =\stackrel{~}{y}/M`$, where $`M`$ is the target mass. The variable $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is appropriate to systems where the constituents of the target move relativistically.Paris and Pandharipande (2002) It and the Nachtmann $`\xi `$ are generalizations Benhar et al. (2000); Paris and Pandharipande (2001) of the Bjorken scaling variable $`x_B`$. Their relation is given by:

$$\xi =\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}}{M}=\frac{2x_B}{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4x_B^2M^2}{Q^2}}},$$
(1)
with $`Q^2=|𝐪|^2\nu ^2`$, giving $`\xi =x_B`$ in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$.

In Ref.Paris and Pandharipande (2001) we calculated the exact response of a single relativistic scalar “quark” confined by a linear potential. The response of this simple model exhibited a rich behavior and allowed the study of a diverse range of phenomena. We observed the $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ scaling of the response in the spacelike and timelike regions of momentum transfer, an approach to scaling qualitatively similar to the one found in recent inclusive experiments of DIS of electrons by proton Niculescu et al. (2000), and Bloom-Gilman duality Bloom and Gilman (1970). We also studied various approximations to the exact result. In particular the on-shell approximation (OSA), which assumes that constituents of a hadronic target are on the mass-shell before and after interaction with the probe, admits response only in the spacelike region of momentum transfer due to the inequality

$$\nu =\sqrt{|𝐤+𝐪|^2+m^2}\sqrt{|𝐤|^2+m^2}|𝐪|,$$
(2)
where $`𝐤`$ is the momentum of the struck constituent and $`m`$ is its mass. In contrast, the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA), often used in nuclear physics, treats the initial state constituents as bound particles, which are therefore not on their mass-shell, and Eq.(2) is not satisfied. Thus there is response in the timelike region in PWIA due to the bound nature of the constituents. Final state interactions (FSI), however, are neglected in PWIA and the state of the particle after it is struck by the probe is described as a plane wave.

In Ref.Paris and Pandharipande (2002) we investigated the role of FSI effects on the response. There we found that FSI broadens the PWIA response, shifting more strength into the timelike region of momentum transfer. This broadening of the response due to FSI persists as $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$. The exact response was shown to be calculable by convolution of the PWIA response with a “folding function.” This function describes the distribution in energy of a plane wave state in the linear confining well. It becomes independent of the three-momentum $`|𝐪|`$ transferred to the target in the limit of large $`|𝐪|`$ (i.e. the “scaling” limit). Thus the $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ scaling, and equivalently Nachtmann $`\xi `$ scaling or Bjorken scaling of the exact response is not a signal that FSI may be neglected. In fact, in the semi-relativistic model of Ref.Paris and Pandharipande (2002) it is crucial to take into account FSI in order to reproduce the response even in the scaling limit, $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$. This situation is distinct from the case of a confining potential with a non-relativistic kinetic energy. In such a model, the width of the response scales linearly with $`|𝐪|`$. This precludes the need to take FSI into account in the scaling limit. It is also interesting to note that there is no Bloom-Gilman duality in the non-relativistic model. Since the width of the response scales linearly with $`|𝐪|`$ the resonant structure of the response at low-$`|𝐪|`$ does not average around the more broad response at high-$`|𝐪|`$.

The semi-relativistic model leaves much to be desired. Among its shortcomings are an ill-defined current operator, neglect of the contribution of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs, and neglect of radiative gluon effects. In this work we address the most egregious of these shortcomings by working with the conserved electromagnetic current of the confined particles, $`\overline{\psi _q}(x)\gamma _\mu \psi _q(x)`$.

We proceed by solving the Dirac equation for an assumed potential

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`V(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\beta )=V(r)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\sigma }r.`$ (6)
This potential has been investigated by Page, Ginocchio, and Goldman Page et al. (2001) and shown to admit a spin symmetry which suppresses spin-orbit coupling in the hadron spectrum. This symmetry results in the degeneracy of states with the same orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ of the upper component of the Dirac wave function. The states with $`j=\mathrm{}\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are degenerate and they have Dirac quantum numbers $`\kappa =(\mathrm{}+1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, respectively. Recall that $`\kappa =\pm (j+\frac{1}{2})`$ where the upper (lower) sign is used when $`j=\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}`$. This potential is easy to work with since the lower components of the wave function are not coupled by the Dirac matrix of Eq.(5).

In the next section we will briefly detail the solution of the single particle Dirac equation for this potential. Section III gives the calculation of the electromagnetic structure functions. We discuss the interpretation of the contribution to the structure functions of the negative energy states. Section IV briefly compares the exact structure functions to those obtained in the PWIA. In the concluding Sec. V, we study the deviation from the Callan-Gross relation.

## II Diagonalization in the static bag model basis

We wish to solve the Dirac equation

$$H\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P=\left[𝜶𝐩+V\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P=E_{n\kappa }^P\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P$$
(7)
for a massless fermion in the potential given in Eq.(5). Here $`n,\kappa `$, and $`m`$ are the quantum numbers of a Dirac particle in a spherically symmetric potential. The Eq.(7) with potential given by Eqs.(5,6) has a discrete spectrum of bound positive energy $`P=+`$ states with wave functions that vanish as $`r\mathrm{}`$. However, due to the form of the Dirac matrix in Eq.(5) the wave functions of negative energy states are unbound.

We expand the eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P`$ in a complete basis of static bag model (herein “bag model”) states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$. (The explicit form of the bag model states $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$ is given in the Appendix A.) The expansion is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P=\underset{\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}}{}[A_{n\kappa \alpha }^+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^++A_{n\kappa \alpha }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha (\kappa )m}^{}].$$
(8)
Here we have explicitly written out the positive, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^+`$ and negative, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha (\kappa )m}^{}`$ energy terms in the expansion of the eigenstates of $`H`$. The bag model states, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$ are eigenstates of $`𝒦=\beta (𝝈𝐋+1)`$ with eigenvalue

$`𝒦\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P=\text{sgn}P\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P.`$ (9)
The potential mixes $`P=+`$ and $`P=`$ bag model states with opposite signs of $`\kappa `$.

In the bag model basis the Dirac equation is

$$\underset{P^{},P,\kappa ^{},\kappa ,\alpha ^{},\alpha }{}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha ^{}\kappa ^{}m}^P^{}|V|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P+(E_{n\kappa }^P\text{sgn}PE_{\alpha \kappa })\delta _{P^{},P}\delta _{\kappa ^{},\kappa }\delta _{\alpha ^{},\alpha }\right]A_{n\kappa \alpha }^P=0.$$
(10)
The non-zero terms appearing in potential matrix element have $`(P^{},\kappa ^{};P,\kappa )=(+,+;+,+),(+,+;,),(+,;+,),(,+;,+),(+,;,+)`$, and $`(,;,)`$ and states obtained from these by $`(P^{},\kappa ^{})(P,\kappa )`$.

The $`E_{\alpha \kappa }`$ are the eigenstates of the free Dirac Hamiltonian $`E_{\alpha \kappa }=p_{\alpha \kappa }`$ with momenta $`p_{\alpha \kappa }`$ fixed by the bag model boundary condition

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\alpha \kappa }^+(r)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa }^+(r)|_{r=R}=0$$
(11)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\gamma ^0`$ and $`r`$ is the bag radius. We consider only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa }^+`$ in Eq.(11) since the negative energy states yield the same momenta $`p_{\alpha \kappa }`$.

We solve Eq.(10) in the bag model basis up to some maximum value of the momentum $`p_{\alpha _m\kappa }`$. We include enough states in the basis so that the longitudinal sum rule, $`S_L(|𝐪|)`$ (see Eq.(31) of the next section) is satisfied. The value of the radius $`R`$ is set by the requirement that radii of all included positive energy eigenstates of $`H`$ have rms radii $`R`$. $`R=15`$ fm is used to satisfy this condition. The negative energy eigenstates have a continuum of eigenvalues in the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$ and therefore are $`R`$-dependent when $`R`$ is finite.

The diagonalization of Eq.(10) is effected for each negative value of $`\kappa `$. The spin symmetry admitted by $`H`$ allows one to obtain the states with $`\kappa >0`$ from those with $`\kappa <0`$ since the states with $`\kappa +\kappa ^{}=1`$ are degenerate. For each value of $`\kappa `$, angular integrations in the matrix elements of the potential in Eq.(10) are evaluated explicitly. $`H`$ is then diagonalized in a truncated basis of radial states (spherical Bessel functions appearing in the bag model states – see Appendix A) with wave numbers $`\{p_{\alpha \kappa }\}_{\alpha =1}^{\alpha _m}`$. In this work we take $`\alpha _m=600`$. Thus for each $`\kappa `$ we have 600 positive energy and 600 negative energy states in the basis.

The eigenstates of Eq.(7) can be written

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\kappa m}^P`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{n\kappa }(r)𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{𝐫})\\ ig_{n\kappa }(r)𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}\pm 1}(\widehat{𝐫})\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
where the angular part of the wave function is the spin-angle function, $`𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}}`$, with orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ coupled to total angular momentum $`j`$ and projection $`m`$. The upper (lower) sign in the angular part of the lower component of the wave function is taken when $`\kappa `$ is negative (positive) with $`\kappa =\mathrm{}>0`$ and $`\kappa =(\mathrm{}+1)<0`$. We obtain, from the expansion Eq.(8) and the explicit forms of the bag model wave functions Eqs.(53) and (56) and their negative energy counterparts, the expressions for the radial wave functions (for $`\kappa <0`$)

$`f_{n\kappa }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{\alpha _m}{}}}\left(A_{n\kappa \alpha }^+N_{\alpha \kappa }j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)iA_{n(\kappa )\alpha }^{}N_{\alpha (\kappa )}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\alpha (\kappa )}m}{E_{\alpha (\kappa )}+m}}}j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha (\kappa )}r)\right)`$ (15)
$`g_{n\kappa }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{\alpha _m}{}}}\left(A_{n\kappa \alpha }^+N_{\alpha \kappa }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\alpha \kappa }m}{E_{\alpha \kappa }+m}}}j_{\mathrm{}+1}(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)iA_{n(\kappa )\alpha }^{}N_{\alpha (\kappa )}j_{\mathrm{}+1}(p_{\alpha (\kappa )}r)\right).`$ (16)
Analogous expressions hold for $`\kappa >0`$.

We note that the ground state has energy $`E_0=840`$ MeV and rms radius $`r^2^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.66`$ fm for string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }=1`$ GeV/fm. This string tension corresponds to a characteristic energy scale of $`\sigma ^{1/4}=440`$ MeV. On the basis of dimensional analysis we find that $`E_0\sigma ^{\frac{1}{4}}`$.

## III Electromagnetic structure functions

The inclusive cross section for a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ electromagnetic probe scattering from a hadronic target may be expressed to first order in the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _M\left(W_2+2W_1\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)\right)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\sigma _M{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{|𝐪|^2}}\left[W_L+W_T\left(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐪|^2}{Q^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta /2)\right)\right].`$ (18)
Here $`\sigma _M`$ is the Mott cross section

$$\sigma _M=\frac{\alpha _q^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta /2)}{4E^2\mathrm{sin}^4(\theta /2)},$$
(19)
with $`\theta `$ the probe’s scattering angle, $`E(E^{})`$ its initial (final) energy and $`\alpha _q=Q_q\alpha `$, $`Q_q`$ is the charge on the hadronic target’s constituent in units of the proton’s charge and $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. We have neglected the mass of the electromagnetic probe in the above. The inclusive longitudinal, $`W_L`$ and transverse, $`W_T`$ structure functions are related to the functions $`W_{1,2}`$ by

$`W_T`$ $`=`$ $`W_1`$ (20)
$`W_L`$ $`=`$ $`W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐪|^2}{Q^2}}W_2.`$ (21)
We have assumed that $`q^\mu =(\nu ,0,0,|𝐪|)`$ and defined $`Q^2=q^2=|𝐪|^2\nu ^2`$.

The inclusive structure functions are determined from the matrix elements of the hadronic current on the target eigenstates and their energy eigenvalues as

$`W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,I}{}}\left|I|\mathrm{\Lambda }_+e^{i𝐪𝐫}|0,m\right|^2\delta (E_IE_0\nu ),`$ (22)
$`W_T^+(|𝐪|,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,I}{}}\left|I|\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\alpha _+e^{i𝐪𝐫}|0,m\right|^2\delta (E_IE_0\nu )`$ (23)
where $`|0,m`$ is the ground state with spin projection $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$, $`\alpha _+=\gamma ^0\gamma _+`$, $`\gamma _+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma ^1+i\gamma ^2)`$, and the $`\frac{1}{2}_{m,I}`$ averages over initial spins and sums over final states, $`|I`$. We assume that the negative energy states are occupied and thus excluded from the sum over final states by Pauli exclusion. The $`+`$ superscript on the structure functions indicates this exclusion. The projection operators on positive and negative energy states are defined by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,E_IE_0}{}}|II|`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,E_I<E_0}{}}|II|,`$ (25)
respectively. The states $`|I`$ are orthonormal $`I|J=\delta _{IJ}`$. In the interest of subsequent discussion we also define $`W_{L,T}^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ in Eqs.(22) and (23) instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$.

The longitudinal and transverse structure functions $`W_{L,T}^+`$ are related to the response of the electromagnetic probe to the charge and spin fluctuations in the target, respectively. They are viewed as the response of the light, positive energy valence quark in a heavy-light meson, such as $`\overline{t}u`$, as it is excited into a positive energy final state within the potential well. The longitudinal function $`W_L^+`$ is associated with a spin-independent coupling of the probe to the target and thus the spin of the struck constituent is unchanged in contributions to it. The transverse function $`W_T^+`$ is associated with a spin-flip of the struck constituent and couples the upper and lower components of its wave function since

$`\gamma _+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{2}\sigma _+\\ \sqrt{2}\sigma _+& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (28)
where $`\sigma _+`$ is the raising operator on Pauli spinors.

We calculate the structure functions in a large basis of eigenstates of the Dirac Hamiltonian \[Eq.(7)\] including values of $`\kappa `$ in the range $`100\kappa <0`$ and $`0<\kappa 100`$ in the sum over $`I`$ in Eqs.(22, 23). We take $`400`$ positive (negative) energy radial states each for each value of $`\kappa `$ for the calculation of $`W^+(W^{})`$. We ensure that this basis supports all the states accessed by scattering up to $`|𝐪|=12.5`$ GeV to a level of $`0.3\%`$ as measured by the static structure functions, $`S_{L,T}(|𝐪|)`$ (as shown below).

In order to obtain the structure functions as smooth curves we fold them with a Breit-Wigner function letting

$$\delta (E_IE_0\nu )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{2\pi }\frac{1}{(E_IE_0\nu )^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\nu )/4},$$
(29)
with level width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$. We use the parameterization for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ given in Eq.(8) of Ref.Paris and Pandharipande (2001) with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=100`$ MeV. The effects of hadronization of the excited states are taken into account qualitatively by this prescription.

Figure (1) shows $`W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu )`$ for various values of $`|𝐪|`$ plotted as a function of the variable $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\nu |𝐪|`$. We note some features of the $`W_L^+`$. The curves at high $`|𝐪|2.5`$ GeV, much larger than the characteristic energy scale of $`\sigma ^{1/4}=440`$ MeV, exhibit scaling in the variable $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$. There is non-zero strength in the timelike region where $`\stackrel{~}{y}>0`$ corresponding to the fact that the confined constituent is bound in the target. The strength in the timelike region for $`|𝐪|=12.5`$ GeV is 7.3% and 11.5% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0`$ and 100 MeV, respectively. At $`|𝐪|2.5`$ GeV the curves exhibit resonances for $`\stackrel{~}{y}|𝐪|`$ and show Bloom-Gilman duality.Bloom and Gilman (1970); Paris and Pandharipande (2001) The quality of scaling is fair though scaling violations are significant in the timelike region having $`\stackrel{~}{y}>0`$ in the present $`|𝐪|`$ range. In order to understand these violations we will discuss sum rules.

The full strength of the ground state is distributed among the the positive and negative energy eigenstates by the current $`\gamma ^\mu e^{i𝐪𝐫}`$. Therefore both $`W_L^+`$ and $`W_L^{}`$ must be taken into account to support the full strength of the ground state. If we write

$$W_L(|𝐪|,\nu )=W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu )+W_L^{}(|𝐪|,\nu )$$
(30)
we obtain a function which satisfies the sum rule

$$S_L(|𝐪|)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu W_L(|𝐪|,\nu )=1,$$
(31)
where $`S_L(|𝐪|)`$ is the longitudinal static structure function. Here we have integrated over all values of energy transfer $`\nu `$ including the region $`\nu <0`$ and used completeness

$$\underset{I}{}|II|=1.$$
(32)
(In fact, in our numerical study, $`S_L(|𝐪|)`$ has the value of unity to $`0.3\%`$ or better for all considered $`|𝐪|`$.)

The total strength of the $`W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu )`$

$$S_L^+(|𝐪|)=_0^{\mathrm{}}W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu )<1$$
(33)
since we have neglected the contribution of the negative energy states. As $`|𝐪|`$ increases, the strength $`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ due to the positive energy states decreases. It can be shown (see Appendix B) that

$$\underset{|𝐪|\mathrm{}}{lim}S_L^+(|𝐪|)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(34)
At $`|𝐪|=12.5`$ GeV the $`S_L^+(|𝐪|)=0.52`$, independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The strength missing from $`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ is taken up by the negative energy states

$$S_L^{}(|𝐪|)=_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑\nu W_L^{}(|𝐪|,\nu )$$
(35)
to maintain the sum rule Eq.(31). The scaling violations in $`W_L^+`$ are due to the sharing of the strength of the ground state between the positive and negative energy eigenstates of the potential.

We expect similar scaling violations in the case of the transverse structure function $`W_T^+(|𝐪|,\nu )`$ which we have shown in Fig.(2). The strength in the timelike region for $`|𝐪|=12.5`$ GeV is 1.4% and 4.5% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0,100`$ MeV, respectively.

The transverse structure function $`W_T(|𝐪|,\nu )`$, defined analogously to Eq.(30), satisfies the sum rule

$`S_T(|𝐪|)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu W_T(|𝐪|,\nu )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}0,m|(1\sigma _z)|0,m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}=1,`$ (37)
where the first and second terms in Eq.(37) correspond to $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$, respectively. The different strengths in $`m=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ can be understood by analyzing the ground state wave function. The matrix operator $`\alpha _+`$ in Eq.(23) corresponds to a virtual photon with positive helicity and therefore can only scatter from components of the wave function which have Pauli-spin down. The ground state wave function is $`s`$-wave in the upper component and the photon can’t scatter from it when $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$. It only scatters from the spin down part of the $`p`$-wave lower component resulting in less strength for the $`m=+\frac{1}{2}`$ state than in the $`m=\frac{1}{2}`$ state.

In deriving the result Eq.(37) we used the facts that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2f_0^2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr^2g_0^2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (39)
where $`rf_0(r)`$ and $`rg_0(r)`$ are the upper and lower radial wave functions for the ground state. These follow directly from the Dirac equation for a massless constituent independent of the string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$ as illustrated in Appendix C. Additionally it can be shown that

$$E_0=2V_0,$$
(40)
where $`O_0d^3r\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}(𝐫)O\mathrm{\Psi }_0(𝐫)`$.

Up to this point we have calculated the structure functions $`W_{L,T}^+`$ for a confined Dirac valence particle. These functions concern the scattering of the valence particle in the ground state to a positive energy excited state. The contribution of the negative energy states in the sum over intermediate states $`I`$ in Eq.(22) has been ignored since these states are assumed to be filled.

We now consider the response of the vacuum in the presence of the infinitely massive color source. The response of the vacuum corresponds to scattering from a negative energy state into a positive energy state. Consider the contribution to the vacuum response when the particle is initially in a negative energy state $`I`$ and scatters into the unoccupied ground state:

$$W_L^{(0)}(|𝐪|,\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{m,I}{}|0,m|e^{i𝐪𝐫}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}|I|^2\delta (E_IE_0+\nu ).$$
(41)
Here the superscript $`(0)`$ indicates that we are scattering from a negative energy state into the ground state. We have taken the energy transfer $`\nu \nu `$ since a negative energy state is equivalent to a positive energy antiparticle. This contribution is shown Fig.(3) as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ for $`|𝐪|=10`$ GeV. We noted above that the negative energy states depend on the cavity radius, $`R`$, since they are not bound by the potential Eq.(5). However $`W_L^{(0)}`$ is only weakly dependent on the cavity radius since the matrix element receives contributions for $`r1`$ fm, the radial extent of the ground state. At these radii the negative energy states are not sensitive to the boundary condition. This was verified for $`R=10`$ and 15 fm. We interpret $`W_L^{(0)}`$ as the contribution to the vacuum response in the spacelike $`\stackrel{~}{y}<0`$ region. It is a consequence of the fact that interactions move some of the strength of the vacuum response from the timelike region into the spacelike region. We cannot reliably calculate the response in the timelike region since confinement acts at all distances in our model. Additional contributions to the vacuum response in the spacelike region correspond to scattering from a negative energy state into a positive energy state $`J`$ and are denoted $`W_L^{(J)}`$. These contributions are smaller than the $`W_L^{(0)}`$ since the first excited state has energy $`E_{J=1}=1100`$ MeV, $`260`$ MeV above the ground state.

## IV Plane wave impulse approximation

We may compare the exact structure functions calculated in the previous section with those obtained in PWIA. We consider only the longitudinal structure function in this section. In PWIA, one assumes that the state of the struck constituent may be described as a plane wave with energy

$$E_{𝐤+𝐪}=|𝐤+𝐪|+V_0,$$
(42)
for a massless constituent. The expectation value of the potential \[Eq.(5)\] in the ground state, $`V_0`$ is required to give the correct value for the energy weighted sum rule

$$S_L^{(1)+}(|𝐪|)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \nu W_L^+(|𝐪|,\nu ).$$
(43)
We may calculate this quantity analytically in the limit $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$ using the technique in Appendix B to obtain

$$\underset{|𝐪|\mathrm{}}{lim}S_L^{(1)+}(|𝐪|)=\frac{|𝐪|}{2}.$$
(44)
The PWIA neglects interactions of the struck constituent in the final state. The expression Eq.(22), for example, then simplifies to

$$W_{L,PWIA}^+(|𝐪|,\nu )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{s,m}{}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left|u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}|e^{i𝐪𝐫}|0,m\right|^2\delta (|𝐤+𝐪|+V_0E_0\nu ),$$
(45)
where $`|u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}`$ is the positive energy free-particle Dirac spinor with spin $`s`$. An analogous expression holds for the $`W_{T,PWIA}^+`$.

Evaluating the matrix elements in the above equation gives

$`W_{L,PWIA}^+(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{4\pi }\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_0^2(k)+\stackrel{~}{g}_0^2(k)2\stackrel{~}{f}_0(k)\stackrel{~}{g}_0(k)\frac{k_z}{k}\right]}`$ (46)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (k_z\stackrel{~}{y}+V_0E_0),`$
where we have neglected terms $`𝒪(\frac{1}{|𝐪|})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0(k)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0(k)`$ are the Fourier-Bessel transforms of the radial wave functions appearing in the Fourier transform of the ground state:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{0,m}(𝐤)=(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{f}_0(k)𝒴_{\frac{1}{2},m}^0(\widehat{𝐤})\\ \stackrel{~}{g}_0(k)𝒴_{\frac{1}{2},m}^1(\widehat{𝐤})\end{array}\right).$$
(47)
The $`𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the spin-angle functions. Figure 4 shows the PWIA approximation for the longitudinal structure function and the exact result.

The argument of the $`\delta `$ function depends only on the variable $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ and therefore the PWIA response also exhibits scaling behavior. It has scaling violations which are $`𝒪(\frac{1}{|𝐪|})`$ for $`|𝐪|`$ finite. The $`W_{L,PWIA}^+`$ satisfies the sum rules Eq.(34) and Eq.(43) but has a different shape than the exact curve. It has more response in the timelike region than the exact result with 14.7% of the total strength in the timelike region compared with 11.5% for the exact result. This is a consequence of the interference of the upper and lower components of the ground state wave function in the third term in square brackets of Eq.(46). Neglecting this term, the $`W_{L,PWIA}^+`$ would peak at $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\frac{E_0}{2}`$, nearly coincident with the peak of the exact curve. The interference term shifts strength into the timelike region. In a subsequent work we shall explore the consequences of such effects on spin-dependent observables such as the helicity structure function.Pandharipande et al. (2003) We note finally that the PWIA and exact curves in Fig.(4) have different widths. The larger width of the exact curve is due to FSI of the struck constituent with the potential, $`V`$. As in the case of the semirelativistic model Paris and Pandharipande (2001), FSI effects persist in the limit $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$. We note that Brodsky and collaborators have shown that FSI affect the interpretation of parton distribution functions Brodsky et al. (2002) and can contribute to large single spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive DIS processes Brodsky et al. (2003).

## V Conclusion

We have calculated exactly the eigenstates of a massless Dirac particle confined in a linear potential for excitation energies up to $`10`$ GeV. The unpolarized valence quark structure functions of the particle in the ground state scattering into a positive energy excited state were determined by coupling a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ electromagnetic probe to the conserved vector current of particles in the potential well. The structure functions exhibit $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ or Nachtmann scaling, a generalization of Bjorken scaling. The exact response takes account of interactions of the confined particle both before and after interaction with the electromagnetic probe and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ or Bjorken scaling is not a consequence of treating the constituent of the target as a free particle. In contrast to Refs.Pace et al. (1998); Jeschonnek and Van Orden (2002) who find that FSI have no effect on the structure functions, and therefore also conclude that Bjorken scaling applies to systems of interacting constituents, the present model does not reproduce the parton model results when FSI are taken into account.

Another example of the role interactions have in determining the structure function of confined Dirac particles can be seen if we consider the function

$$\delta (\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)=\frac{F_2(\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)2xF_1(\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)}{F_2(\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)+2xF_1(\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)}$$
(48)
where $`F_1=MW_1`$ and $`F_2=\nu W_2`$, $`M`$ is the mass of the target. At leading order in the quark-parton model one obtains $`\delta (\stackrel{~}{y},|𝐪|)=0`$ (the Callan-Gross relation Callan and Gross (1969)) for all $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ and $`|𝐪|`$. In Fig.(5) we have plotted, for $`|𝐪|=10`$ GeV, the MRST2002 Martin et al. (2002) fit (solid curve) to deep inelastic data using the next-to leading order prediction Cooper-Sarkar et al. (1988)

$$F_L(x,Q^2)=\frac{2.5}{5.9}\frac{4\pi }{\alpha _s(Q^2)}xg(2.5x,Q^2),$$
(49)
where $`0<x<0.4`$ and $`g(x,Q^2)`$ is the prediction for the gluon. It is compared to the present model calculation (dashed curve) which has been rescaled in order to obtain agreement with the first moment of the up valence quark distribution for the MRST pdf assuming that the response of the proton is due to a single up valence quark. The non-perturbative effects of interactions could be the origin of the difference in the two curves in Fig.(5).

In future work we will apply the present model to the study of spin-dependent effects such as the helicity and transversity distribution of the constituents of the target. We expect that these observables depend strongly upon the relativistic treatment of the constituent as a Dirac particle. The comparison of the present model with experimental data requires one to include radiative gluon effects to obtain the $`Q^2`$ evolution of the structure functions. This problem is currently under study.

## Appendix A Bag model basis states

The free Dirac Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is

$`\left[𝜶𝐩+\beta m\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$ $`=`$ $`\text{sgn}P\sqrt{(p_{\alpha \kappa })^2+m^2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\text{sgn}PE_{\alpha \kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P,`$
for a particle of mass $`m`$ (not to be confused with the total spin projection which appears as the subscript $`m`$ in the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^P`$). The complete set of states includes states of positive $`E_{\alpha \kappa }>0`$ energy states, ‘particles’ and negative $`E_{\alpha \kappa }<0`$ energy states, ‘antiparticles.’ The bag model states are solutions of Eq.(50) within a cavity of radius $`R`$. These particle states may be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^+(𝐫)=N_{\alpha \kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}}\\ i\sqrt{\frac{E_{\alpha \kappa }m}{E_{\alpha \kappa }+m}}j_{\mathrm{}+1}(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}+1}\end{array}\right),\kappa <0`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^+(𝐫)=N_{\alpha \kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)𝒴_{jm}^{\mathrm{}}\\ i\sqrt{\frac{E_{\alpha \kappa }m}{E_{\alpha \kappa }+m}}j_\mathrm{}1(p_{\alpha \kappa }r)𝒴_{jm}^\mathrm{}1\end{array}\right),\kappa >0.`$ (56)
Here the normalization $`N_{\alpha \kappa }`$ is fixed by the condition $`d^3r\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^+(𝐫)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}^+(𝐫)=1`$ to give

$$N_{\alpha \kappa }=\left\{R^3\left[\frac{2(E_{\alpha \kappa })^2}{(p_{\alpha \kappa })^2}+\frac{1}{(p_{\alpha \kappa })^2R}(m+2E_{\alpha \kappa }\kappa )\right]j_{\pm (\kappa +1)}^2(p_{\alpha \kappa }R)\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(57)
The upper (lower) sign corresponds to $`\kappa `$ positive (negative).

The antiparticle (negative energy) states are obtained from Eqs.(53) and (56) by interchanging upper and lower components and multiplying one of them by $`1`$. With this prescription the sign of $`\kappa `$ for the negative energy state is opposite to the sign of $`\kappa `$ of the positive energy state from which it was obtained.

As mentioned in the text, we determine the allowed $`p_{\kappa \alpha }`$ by subjecting the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha \kappa m}`$ to the bag model boundary condition at $`r=R`$

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }|_{r=R}=0,$$
(58)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\beta `$. Substitution of the wave functions in Eqs.(53) and (56) into this expression results in the following transcendental equations; for $`\kappa =(\mathrm{}+1)<0`$

$$j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha \kappa }R)=\sqrt{\frac{E_{\alpha \kappa }m}{E_{\alpha \kappa }+m}}j_{\mathrm{}+1}(p_{\alpha \kappa }R),$$
(59)
and for $`\kappa =\mathrm{}>0`$

$$j_{\mathrm{}}(p_{\alpha \kappa }R)=\sqrt{\frac{E_{\alpha \kappa }m}{E_{\alpha \kappa }+m}}j_\mathrm{}1(p_{\alpha \kappa }R).$$
(60)
The subscript $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ indexes the solutions of the transcendental equations. The number of nodes in the upper component radial function is $`(\alpha 1)`$.

## Appendix B $`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ in the limit $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$

The expression for the $`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ is given by

$`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu W_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}0,m|e^{i𝐪𝐫}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+e^{i𝐪𝐫}|0,m.`$ (62)
We may evaluate this expression analytically in the limit $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$ by recognizing that in this limit the intermediate states $`|I`$ in Eq.(62) may be taken to be free-particle solutions, $`|u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}`$ of the Dirac equation since their overlap with the ground state is dominated by small radii $`1`$ fm where the exact wave functions resemble free-particle wave functions. Thus we replace

$$e^{i𝐪𝐫}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+e^{i𝐪𝐫}e^{i𝐪𝐫}\underset{s}{}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}|u_{𝐤+𝐪},su_{𝐤+𝐪},s|e^{i𝐪𝐫},$$
(63)
valid in the limit $`|𝐪|\mathrm{}`$ and obtain upon substitution into Eq.(62)

$`S_L^+(|𝐪|)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,m}^{}(𝐤)\underset{s}{}u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{0,m}(𝐤)}.`$ (64)
The projection operator for free-particle solutions to the Dirac equation, expressed to $`𝒪\left(\frac{1}{|𝐪|}\right)`$, is

$$\underset{s}{}u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}u_{𝐤+𝐪,s}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\alpha _z+\frac{𝜶𝐤_{}}{|𝐪|}\right),$$
(65)
where $`𝐪=|𝐪|\widehat{𝐳}`$ and $`𝐤_{}=(k_x,k_y)`$. Substitution of Eq.(65) into Eq.(64) gives the result Eq.(34).

## Appendix C Ground state normalizations

The Dirac equation for the ground state gives

$`f_0^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`E_0g_0(r)`$ (66)
$`g_0^{}(r){\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}g_0(r)`$ $`=`$ $`(E_0\sqrt{\sigma }r)f_0(r).`$ (67)
for the upper and lower radial wave functions. Multiplying Eq.(66) by $`g_0(r)`$ and Eq.(67) by $`f_0(r)`$, summing and integrating gives

$$E_0_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2(f_0^2(r)g_0^2(r))=\sqrt{\sigma }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2f_0^2(r)r.$$
(68)
The r.h.s. of the above is the expectation value of the potential $`V(r)=\sqrt{\sigma }r(1+\beta )`$ in the ground state since it doesn’t couple to the lower components of the wave function. Substitute Eq.(40) into Eq.(68) to obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2(f_0^2(r)g_0^2(r))=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(69)
The normalization condition is:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^2(f_0^2(r)+g_0^2(r))=1.$$
(70)
Adding and subtracting these equations gives the result Eqs.(38), independent of the string tension, $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author wishes to thank the Schweizerische Nationalfonds for support and Omar Benhar, Joseph Carlson, Vijay Pandharipande, and Ingo Sick for many useful discussions. This work has been supported by U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Detector of Internally Reflected Cherenkov light (DIRC is a new type of Cherenkov ring imaging detector that has been operating successfully at the B A B AR experiment at SLAC  for over three years. The device uses synthetic fused silica bars (colloquially called quartz bars), which serve both as the Cherenkov radiator and as light guides transmitting the photons to an array of 11,000 photomultiplier tubes (PMT).

Figure 1 illustrates the principle of the DIRC. A fraction of the Cherenkov photons produced by tracks passing through the bars is trapped by total internal reflection and propagates down the bars with very little loss and with the Cherenkov angle preserved (up to reflection ambiguities). A mirror at the far end reflects those photons that were originally traveling away from the detection end of the bar. At the detector end of the bar, photons pass through a fused silica wedge that allows photons to begin to expand into the detector region, while reflecting those photons that would otherwise miss the PMTs back into the photon detectors. Photons then pass through a window that separates the box holding the bars from the detection region. Water is the optical coupling medium between the bars and the PMT detector. The distance between the bar box window and the PMT detector is about 1.1 m.

Figure 2 shows a single bar box with 12 bars. There are 12 such boxes in the B A B AR detector. Each bar, schematically shown in Figure 3, measures 4.9 m in length and is made of four short segments glued together with Epotek 301-2 optical epoxy . Each short segment has the following design specifications: length 1225 mm, width 35.0 mm, and thickness 17.2 mm. The 1225$`\times `$35.0 mm surface of the bar is called the “face”, the 1225$`\times `$17.2 mm surface is the “side”, and the 35.0$`\times `$17.2 mm surface is the “end”. To preserve the image resolution properties, the original specification was that any bar face-to-side angle be within $`\pm `$ 0.25 mrad of 90 (see section 6 for the final compromise). The bars must have sharp edges without too many chips to limit photon losses (specifications required less than 6 mm2 of damaged surface per bar). To check that the mechanical specifications are within our tolerances, we built a digital microscope system with image reconstruction software.

Since the trapped Cherenkov photons must typically bounce several hundred times before they exit the bar, the internal reflection coefficient must be close to one – less than 0.999 is unacceptable. Losses as small as 10-4 per bounce must be measured during the quality assurance process. Since such small losses are difficult to measure in a single bounce, we developed a method to measure the reflection coefficient by combining $``$50 bounces in a single measurement. The high surface reflectivity must be maintained for the expected ten-year lifetime of the experiment. Therefore, we studied the possible influence of contamination of the fused silica surfaces on the reflectivity coefficient.

The bulk transmission of the fused silica must also be very good. Attenuation lengths must be $``$ 100 meters. This high transmission must be maintained after exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation. This is because the B A B AR detector operates at a high luminosity $`e^+e^{}`$ machine that has a considerable gamma ray background. The optical glues must be similarly radiation hard. The luminosity of PEP II is currently $``$5$`10^{33}`$ cm-2sec-1 and should exceed 1034 cm-2sec-1 in one to two years.

## 2 Basic Properties of Fused Silica

### 2.1 Types of Fused Silica

The crystalline form of Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) is called quartz and is the second most abundant mineral on earth. Quartz crystals are birefringent and are not suitable for use in the DIRC. An amorphous form of SiO2, which we will call natural fused silica, may be formed by crushing and melting natural quartz in a hydrogen flame. Optical grades of this material possess many of the properties required by the DIRC, such as long transmission length and good polishability. However, it suffers from the high level of impurities typically found in the natural quartz used to produce it, which can lead to significant sensitivity to ionizing radiation. A third material, which we will call synthetic fused silica, has been commercially produced for the past few decades. It is formed artificially by burning silicon tetra-chloride (SiCl4), or other feedstock in an oxygen atmosphere. This material can be made very pure and is widely used in the fiber optics industry. All of these forms of SiO2 are colloquially called quartz, but, strictly speaking, this term only applies to the crystalline form.

Both natural fused silica and synthetic fused silica may be obtained from a number of manufacturers. We have tested a number of brands of natural fused silica, including Vitreosil-F , and a number of brands of synthetic fused silica, including Suprasil , Spectrosil 2000 and Spectrosil B .

### 2.2 Refractive Index

To account for various effects in the DIRC, it is necessary to know the refractive index of the optical components of the DIRC. Figure 4 shows the refractive index for fused silica , water  and Epotek 301-2 , the optical glue used for joining the bars and other optical components. Figure 5 shows the calculated Fresnel reflection coefficients at an incidence angle of 0 for the boundaries of fused silica/water and fused silica/Epotek 301-2. Due to a good match of the fused silica and glue refraction indices, the reflection coefficient is small (less than 0.5%) and almost independent of wavelength above 300 nm .

### 2.3 Optical Bandwidth of DIRC

Figure 6 shows the optical bandwidth of the DIRC detector for a typical Cherenkov photon emitted by a particle at 90 polar angle in B A B AR . Contributions to the bandwidth include: bar and water transmission, mirror reflectivity, internal reflection coefficient (assuming 365 bounces), glue (Epotek 301-2) transmission and PMT quantum efficiency (ETL 9125FLB17 PMT ) and window transmission. One can see that the bandwidth is cut at $``$300 nm, mainly due to the Epotek 301-2 glue transmission properties. This is actually advantageous for the DIRC because it reduces the chromatic error contributions to the overall Cherenkov angle and timing resolution. In addition, it makes the DIRC sensitive mainly in the visible and near-visible UV wavelength regions adding many practical advantages from a construction point of view.

### 2.4 Optical Homogeneity of the Synthetic Fused Silica Material

One unexpected feature of the synthetic fused silica used in the DIRC is that it possesses an observable periodic optical non-homogeneity in its volume . This effect was initially discovered while shining a laser beam at non-zero angles relative to the bar axis and observing that some light was scattered into a diffraction-like pattern, called “lobes” (see Figure 7). This effect is observed in both types of synthetic fused silica considered for use in the DIRC: Heraeus Suprasil and QPC Spectrosil.

This “lobe effect” must be taken very seriously because it can cause photon losses or image distortion of the Cherenkov light. A few additional features of the lobe effect are:

* The lobes are produced over a range of incident angles typically greater than 45 degrees (or less than 135) relative to the bar axis.
* Bars that produce lobes for incident angles less than 90 degrees relative to the bar axis do not produce lobes for angles greater than 90 degrees, and vice-versa.
* Some bars produced no lobes at all.

The lobe pattern is suggestive of diffraction from a periodic structure in the fused silica . Furthermore, a clear periodic pattern could also be directly observed using ordinary white light (Figure 8) with an optical digital microscope configured as shown in Figure 9. The same “directionality” was observed as for lobe production - i.e. if the pattern was observed for $`\theta >0`$ it was not for $`\theta <0`$. Also, the pattern persisted after removing 2 mm of material from each surface of the bar, thereby establishing that the pattern is in the volume of the fused silica material.

Although the lobe effect was initially observed in Heraeus Suprasil fused silica, it is also present, although at lower intensity and at larger angles relative to the bar axis, in QPC Spectrosil. Figure 10 shows the output of a photodiode as it is scanned across the lobe patterns of the two types of fused silica measuring the relative intensity. Evidently, the intensity of the lobes from QPC Spectrosil fused silica material ($`310^4`$) is much smaller than from Heraeus Suprasil ($`310^2`$).

Figure 11 shows a model of the structure of the optical inhomogeneity, where it is assumed that there are curved “layers” of varying index of refraction within the fused silica ingots from which the bars are produced. If a laser beam is traveling tangent to these layers, then it would, in effect, see a “diffraction grating” formed by the alternating layers of high and low refraction index, thereby producing lobes. If however, the beam is traveling perpendicular to the layers, no lobes would be produced. This explains the “directionality” described above. Furthermore, we would expect that the opening angle of the lobes would be given by $`\alpha =\lambda /\mu `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of light and $`\mu `$ is the spacing of the layers. Also, the phase change produced by the inhomogeneity would be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =4\pi \mathrm{a}\sqrt{R\mu }/\lambda `$, where $`a`$ is the amplitude of the inhomogeneity ($`a=\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$) and R is the radius of curvature of the layers, which we assume are circular. The fraction of the power in the lobes ($`\mathrm{f}`$) is proportional to the square of the phase change, $`\mathrm{f}1/\lambda ^2`$.

Measuring the lobes with two different light wavelengths can test the model. Figure 12 shows the results of the scans with a HeCd laser (442 nm) and a HeNe laser (633 nm). Table 1 shows the ratio of opening angles and lobe powers predicted by the model to those observed. The good agreement between the model and the measurements gives us confidence that the basic features of the model are correct. Converting the measured power in the lobes to an inhomogeneity amplitude, a, we find a = 6$`10^6`$ for Heraeus Suprasil and 1$`10^6`$ for QPC Spectrosil. More detailed measurements can also determine the shape of the layers in the fused silica.

This model is also consistent with the direct observation of structure shown in Figure 8. This observation could be explained as a modulation of the refraction angle of light rays as they enter the fused silica.

Because of its bright lobes and the angular range over which they are produced, Heraeus Suprasil was rejected for use in the DIRC. QPC Spectrosil fused silica was deemed acceptable both because of its lower lobe power and also since the lobes in the QPC fused silica are only produced at angles close to perpendicular to the bar axis, which are not relevant for the photons detected in the DIRC. In practice, many QPC Spectrosil ingots have no discernible lobes at all. Based on these observations of optical inhomogeneity, QPC Spectrosil 2000 was chosen as the material for the DIRC bars.

It is interesting to note that, at our level of sensitivity, no such lobes have been observed in any of our samples of natural fused silica, nor in the synthetic fused silica windows used for the CRID TPC detectors and liquid radiators . For all of these materials, the SiO2 material is deposited onto a stationary template to form a “boule”. What makes the DIRC’s synthetic material special is that it is produced in a long ingot form, where the SiO2 material is deposited layer-by-layer while the ingot is rotating. The details of this process are proprietary, and so not directly accessible to us, but it seems plausible that inhomogeneity amplitudes of a few times $`10^6`$ could easily be produced by it. We should also point out that in most applications of synthetic fused silica, such as windows or optical fibers, the light is expected to travel only at angles close to parallel with the “bar axis”. The DIRC may be one of the few applications where light must propagate at large angles with respect to this axis, and thus be sensitive to the “lobe effect”.

## 3 Transmission and Internal Reflection Coefficient of Fused Silica Bars

For the measurement of the transmission and the coefficient of total internal reflection $``$ of the DIRC bars we use two methods. A manual method is able to measure the absolute value of $``$ while an automated setup, used primarily for the quality assurance measurements during DIRC bar production, determines the transmission as well as the relative $``$ difference between a reference bar and the tested bar.

### 3.1 Measurement Technique

The internal reflection coefficient is measured absolutely with a “calorimetric” method . As shown in Figure 13, this method measures five light intensities ($`I_0,I_1,I_2,I_3`$ and $`I_4`$) and uses the number of light bounces, the bar dimensions and the bulk attenuation as inputs.

The fraction of the light transmitted as it propagates down the bar one time ($`1/x`$), may be written as a combination of reflection losses and bulk attenuation:

$$x^1=^N\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{L}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{bN}{L}\right)^2}\right),$$
(1)
where N is the number of bounces, L is the length of the fused silica bar, b is the width of the fused silica bar, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the bulk attenuation length.

We can then relate the five measured intensities as:

$$(((\mathrm{I}_0\mathrm{I}_1)\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{I}_2)\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{I}_3)\frac{1}{x}=\mathrm{I}_4.$$
(2)
This can be simplified to:

$$\mathrm{I}_0=\mathrm{I}_1+\mathrm{I}_2x+\mathrm{I}_3x^2+\mathrm{I}_4x^3.$$
(3)
The solution, $`x`$ of this equation can then be used to calculate the $``$. To do so, we need to know the attenuation length, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is not easy to measure at long wavelengths. In our calculations, we use the value§§§This value is obtained by combining manual measurements done on a 5 meter long bar with the measurements on 1.2 meter bars using the automated method described below. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=500\pm 167`$m measured at 442 nm, and scale it to other wavelengths by $`1/\lambda ^4`$, assuming Rayleigh scattering. This dependence gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2100`$ m at 633 nm, which would be impossible to measure with good accuracy using a 1.2 m long bar.

A further improvement in accuracy is found by adding another term in equation 3, which can be calculated from the measured intensities by integrating the infinite sum of higher order contributions:

$$\mathrm{I}_0=\mathrm{I}_1+\mathrm{I}_2x+\mathrm{I}_3x^2+\mathrm{I}_4x^3+\mathrm{I}_{5+}.$$
(4)
where the correction term reduces to:

$$\mathrm{I}_{5+}=\frac{\mathrm{I}_3^3}{\mathrm{I}_2(\mathrm{I}_2\mathrm{I}_3)}.$$
(5)
This correction increases the coefficient typically by $``$ 0.0003.

Another small improvement in the accuracy is a correction for photodiode response due to the finite size of the laser beam. As the beam size for each intensity $`\mathrm{I}_i`$ changes, the correction is different for each $`\mathrm{I}_i`$ component. These corrections vary from 1.006 ($`\mathrm{I}_0`$) to 1.03 ($`\mathrm{I}_4`$).

All intensities are measured by hand with a single photodiode (Hamamatsu Co.  silicon photodiode S1337-101BQ). The photodiode is equipped with a UV diffuser to improve the uniformity of its response. However, it is still necessary to move the diode by hand in order to find a consistent maximum value. We call this procedure “peaking”. We use a second photodiode to monitor the laser intensity. The two photodiodes were synchronized during the readout. The laser used is a HeCd laser, Liconix  200 series, model 4214NB. It operates at two wavelengths, is equipped with multimode optics, and provides a vertically polarized beam with a wavelength of 442 or 325 nm.

The calorimetric method described above is too time-consuming to be used for quality assurance measurements of many bars, or for measurements of multiple points of a single bar. For these types of measurements, we developed an automated setup, shown in Figure 14 , which makes use of the vertical polarization of the Liconix 4214NB HeCd laser beam. The bar can be scanned through the laser beam using an actuator controlled by a Macintosh computer running LabView. The transmission is measured along the axis of the bar. The reflection coefficient is measured using typically 53 bounces within the bar (see Figure 15).

A $`\lambda `$/2 retardation plate converts the vertical polarization into horizontal polarization so that, when the laser enters the bar at the Brewster angle (see Figure 14), the intensity of the reflected beam image is close to zero. This simplifies the overall problem by allowing the measurement of only two intensities ($`\mathrm{I}_0,\mathrm{I}_2`$) rather than the five required in the absolute measurement. Another advantage of the automatic method is that it allows a scan of about 75 grid-points across a large surface area in less than one hour.

The computer-controlled setup measures the relative internal reflection coefficient, which can be normalized by comparison with a reference bar whose absolute reflection coefficient has been measured manually by the calorimetric method described above.

Prior to the reflection coefficient measurements reported in this section all bar surfaces were thoroughly cleaned using alumina powder. This was done by gently rubbing the bar surfaces with 0.3$`\mu `$m alumina powder, which was mixed with clean water in a 1:10 ratio, ensuring that surface chemical contamination was minimized. Cleaning was essential for optimum results. The reflection coefficient of a randomly picked bar was measured before and after being cleaned with the alumina powder method. The value of the reflection coefficient increased by 0.0005 after the cleaning. During DIRC production we found that the bar manufacturer, Boeing Co. , usually delivered the bars to SLAC with very clean surfaces. Therefore a simpler cleaning method, where the bars were swiped with acetone and alcohol, was sufficient to restore the optimum reflection coefficient. Throughout the construction phase we monitored the bar cleanliness using the relative measurements of the reflection coefficient  normalized to selected reference bars. The average relative internal reflection coefficient of the bars used in the DIRC construction is 0.9997$`\pm `$0.0001, the average transmission is 99.9$`\pm `$0.1%/meter at 442 nm, and 98.9$`\pm `$0.2% at 325 nm. Figure 16 shows an example of measurement results at 442 nm .

### 3.2 Wavelength Dependence of the Reflection Coefficient

To measure the dependence of $``$ on the wavelength, we used five laser wavelengths which are provided by four different lasers (266 nm Nanolase solid state YAG laser , 325 nm and 442 nm Liconix HeCd 4210N , 543 nm Uniphase 1135 green, and 633 nm Uniphase red ). The intensity of the lasers is different, influencing the relative accuracy for each measurement (for example, the Hamamatsu photodiode currents are 500-600$`\mu `$A at 442 nm, 20-25mA at 325 nm, 10-15$`\mu `$A at 266 nm, 20-25$`\mu `$A at 543 nm, and 500-550$`\mu `$A at 633 nm). Similarly, laser stability varies, with the 266 nm Nanolase being least stable.

Figure 17 shows the result, plotted as (1-Reflection coefficient) vs. wavelength. The plotted errors are based on the $`rms`$ of ten repetitive trials for each intensity component $`\mathrm{I}_i`$. There are many sources of systematic error that are difficult to evaluate. They depend on many factors, such as surface quality variation, surface contamination (especially in the far UV region), the method of the photodiode “peaking”, dust, background light in the room, the lobe effect due to the refraction index variation, etc. To evaluate at least some of these systematic errors, the measurements are repeated many times, while varying the measurement conditions, such as laser entrance point into the bar, the laser path within the bar, the number of bounces N (by a few), avoiding bright spots observed when hitting either chips or the bar supporting buttons, etc. After a lot of practice, one can obtain quite repeatable results with an estimated systematic (repeatability) error of about 0.0003 to each measurement. Figure 17 also shows three curves based on scalar reflection theory , assuming the fused silica surface finish of 5, 10, and 15 Å. The internal reflection coefficient is consistent with a surface finish between 5 and 8 Å ($`rms`$) in the wavelength region between 450 and 650 nm. The direct measurement by the bar manufacturer Boeing Co.  found that the surface finish was better than 5 Å for all bars, consistent with our measurement of $``$. However, the measured reflection coefficient falls significantly below 350 nm, more than predicted by scalar theory. This discrepancy is not well understood, although a considerable amount of time has been spent checking the experimental results at 266 and 325 nm. A possible explanation for the discrepancy in the UV region could be chemical contamination, or near surface humidity. Figure 17 also shows a polynomial fit to data. This fit is used to evaluate the DIRC efficiency and mean wavelength response, which is shown in Figure 6 .

### 3.3 Bar Surface Contamination Tests

Extensive contamination tests are performed to see if the internal reflection coefficient can be degraded by materials used for the construction of the DIRC bar boxes, gluing, during general handling procedures, or the DIRC gas system . In these tests sample bars are exposed for extended periods of time to potential contaminants at room and elevated temperatures with and without added humidity. The bar reflection coefficient is either measured continuously throughout the tests or at regular intervals if the bar is not accessible during the test. None of the materials, summarized in Table 2, causes any significant decrease of the internal reflection coefficient with a measurement precision of about 0.0003.

## 4 Radiation Hardness of Fused Silica and Optical Glues

It is expected that the DIRC will be exposed to 0.5-1 krad/year during normal operation in its 10 year lifetime. Since additional radiation exposure can occur during machine tuning, it seems reasonable to require that both the fused silica and the optical glue be resistant up to at least 10-15 krad.

### 4.1 Study of Radiation Damage of Fused Silica

The initial DIRC prototype tests  used Vitreosil-F , which is a natural fused silica material, produced from naturally occurring crystalline quartz. Although the optical performance of this material is excellent, radiation damage tests show that it lost $``$80% of transmission per meter at 325 nm after a radiation dose of only $``$7 krad  (see Figure 18). Two other natural fused silica materials (JGS3-IR  and T-08 ) demonstrate similarly rapid deterioration. With the Vitreosil-F sample, tests were done to determine whether the radiation damage could be “cured” with photo-bleachingPhoto bleaching is the use of a high intensity UV laser or lamp to restore the lost transmission due to the radiation damage ., and/or a heat treatment. Figure 18 shows that a UV laser causes recovery of some of the transmission, but only in a region close to the beam . A strong UV lamp is able to cure the transmission loss over a larger region. However, several days are required for this process. Since such a “curing procedure” would be highly impractical to implement in B A B AR, we use the more radiation-resistant, but also more expensive, synthetic materials.

We conduct two types of radiation damage studies on the natural and synthetic fused silica samples: (a) using short samples (10-20 cm), where the transmission is typically measured with a monochromator, and (b) using long samples ($``$1 m), where the transmission is measured with a HeCd laser (Liconix 4214NB). In the first type of tests, the transmission can be measured over a wide range of wavelengths, but with limited precision. The second type of test gives more precise measurements, but at only two discrete wavelengths (325 and 442 nm).

#### 4.1.1 Radiation Source

We use the Co60 source facility available at SLAC to irradiate the bars . Its activity is about 14.1 Curie. A short sample (30 cm) can be placed very close to the source and be irradiated with a dose up to $``$50-60 krad per day. The Co60 source produces two major photon emission lines, 1.173 and 1.333 MeV. There are some Compton electrons coming from the well concrete walls; they contribute about 10% to the total dose. The radiation dose was estimated using TLD dosimeters. The measurement is calibrated using (a) a theoretical estimate based on the geometry and known source activity corrected for its lifetime, (b) an ion chamber measurement, and (c) an opti-chromic dosimeter measurement. The measurements agree to within $``$10 %.

#### 4.1.2 Monochromator Transmission Studies of Natural Fused Silica

The transmission of the fused silica samples is measured as a function of wavelength in a monochromator, before and after exposure to the radiation source. A correction is made for the Fresnel reflections at the entrance and exit surfaces. Since the polish of these surfaces, performed at SLAC, is of moderate quality, some additional light (typically 2%) is lost due to scattering. However, the scattered light should be roughly the same before and after irradiation, so this does not effect the accuracy of the radiation damage measurements. Figure 19 shows the results of the monochromator studies of radiation damage for the three types of natural fused silica that were studied. These measurements have systematic errors at a level of 2-3%. For all three types, the transmission is seriously degraded after a dose of only 20 krad. The DIRC with the 5-meter long bars would not function at all given such transmission losses.

In addition to transmission loss, visual changes and radio-luminescence were also observed as consequences of radiation damage. Table 3 summarizes these observations. The radio-luminescence observed in the T-08 sample caused monochromator singles rates to increase by a factor of $``$37 after a dose of $``$10 krad, and by a factor of $``$8500 after a dose of $``$334 krad. Such radio-luminescence is a known property of quartz and fused silica . Neither Vitreosil-F nor JGS3-IR samples showed any noticeable radio-luminescence after the irradiation. However, these measurements are not sensitive to radio-luminescence with a very short time constant, since the first measurements are usually done at least 30-60 minutes after the sample is removed from the radiation well.

#### 4.1.3 Monochromator Transmission Studies of Synthetic Fused Silica

It is clear that natural fused silica is not a good candidate for the B A B AR experiment, and therefore, we have studied the properties of synthetic fused silica material. We have tested four short synthetic fused silica samples. Spectrosil B  (2 cm dia. x 20 cm long sample), JGS1-UV  (2 cm x 2 cm x 10 cm sample), Suprasil Standard  (2 cm dia. x 20 cm long sample), Spectrosil 2000  (2 cm x 2 cm x 20.7 cm long sample). Figure 20 shows the results of these studies.

Figure 20(a) shows that Spectrosil B is radiation hard above 280 nm. In the far UV region below 240 nm, we observe some radiation sensitivity. However it is still within acceptable levels for the B A B AR experiment. This sample showed strong radio-luminescence after radiation exposure, as one can see in Figure 21(a). The photonic activity was estimated with the monochromator’s PMT, and was about 100 times more than normal after $``$12 krad, and was decaying at a rate of about 10% after 2-3 minutes. The time interval between the end of the irradiation and the beginning of the transmission measurement was typically 30-40 minutes.

JGS1-UV synthetic material (Figure 20(b)) is very radiation resistant. In fact, it is among the best samples we have tested. This sample did not show any radio-luminescence after radiation exposure.

Suprasil Standard synthetic (Figure 20(c)) material shows the largest radiation damage for all synthetic materials we tested. The material is radiation hard for small doses up to 10-20 krad. However, when the dose is increased to $``$280 krad, we see a substantial transmission loss below $``$340 nm. Furthermore, Figure 21(b) shows that this particular material produced radio-luminescence after radiation exposure.

Figure 20(d) shows the transmission of the Spectrosil 2000 sample for several irradiation doses. This particular synthetic material shows good resistance to radiation. The material lost 2-3 %/meter of transmission above 260 nm after a dose of $``$17 krad. In the far UV region below 240 nm, we observe larger losses. However, it is well within the requirements of the B A B AR experiment. This sample did not show any radio-luminescence after radiation exposure. Table 3 summarizes all radiation damage tests for all of the types of fused silica that we tested.

#### 4.1.4 Study of Radiation Damage of Long Synthetic Fused Silica Samples

In order to verify the results obtained in the monochromator with short samples (20 cm) of synthetic fused silica, similar measurements were done with long ($``$ 100 cm) samples. These measurements use the laser scanning system described in section 3 . This setup is capable of measuring the average transmission with a systematic error of about 0.2%.

We have tested two synthetic fused silica materials: (a) a Suprasil Standard rod, 100 cm long and 26 mm in diameter, and (b) a Spectrosil 2000 rod, 137 cm long and 55 mm diameter .

The long fused silica samples are irradiated using a Co60 source ($``$1400 Curie) at LBNL. The bar is placed perpendicular to the geometric axis of the source. At a distance of 1 meter from the source, one can achieve a dose of $``$38 kR per day. The radiation dose was measured with a Victoreen dosimeter measuring the exposure in Roentgen units (R)In Roentgen units (R), 1 R = 2.58 $`10^4`$ Coul kg-1. The TLD dosimeter measures the absorbed dose in Rad units. The conversion between rad and R depends on the material. In tissue, it is 1 rad = 1.139 R .. Therefore, in the following, the radiation doses will be given in terms of exposure dose, using Roentgen units.

Figure 22(a) shows the transmission measurements for Spectrosil 2000. The material loses $``$0.5%/m of transmission at 325 nm after 15 kR. Increasing the dose further does not result in additional transmission loss. No effect is observed at 442 nm for all radiation doses. Figure 22(b) shows the transmission measurements for Suprasil Standard. No significant transmission loss is observed at 325 nm or 442 nm. This result is consistent with the radiation damage observed in the small samples, but does not extend into the UV.

Based on the radiation test results, we have found that the QPC Spectrosil 2000 fused silica material satisfies requirements for the radiation hardness needed to operate successfully for 10 years at B A B AR.

It is interesting to note that the same samples of fused silica described in this section were used in subsequent test performed during R&D for the E158 experiment at SLAC. The Spectrosil 2000 material used in DIRC was found to be radiation hard to photon doses of several Mrad and neutron doses of more than 30 krad .

### 4.2 Study of Radiation Damage in Optical Glues

It is also necessary to test the radiation hardness of the optical glues, which could fail either due to radiation or background induced light in the bar. We have tested five glue candidates: (a) Epotek 301-2 optical epoxy, which is the glue actually used for gluing of all DIRC fused silica bars, (b) SES-403 RTV, (c) SES-406 RTV, (d) KE-108 RTV , and (e) Rhodorsil-141 RTV . All optical glue samples are tested using the SLAC Co60 source facility.

The following procedure is used: a glue sample is placed between two small fused silica plates, each 4mm thick. This particular fused silica is radiation resistant up to at least 70 krad. It cuts the transparency at around 170 nm, so that it does not influence the glue studies in this note. The glue samples are placed in the monochromator to check the initial transmission, then irradiated with a dose of about 60-70 krad, and then rechecked for transmission.

Figure 23 shows the experimental setup used for the glue transmission studies. Figure 24(a) shows all the results for all the glues that were tested. Figure 24(b) shows the detailed results for Epotek 301-2 epoxy, which is an optical epoxy with a UV cut-off edge at $``$280 nm. One can see a slight transmission loss of about 1%, between 300 and 350 nm, after a dose of $``$70 krad. The thickness of the Epotek sample,$``$25$`\mu `$m, is the same thickness typically used for gluing bars together.

Based on these tests, Epotek 301-2 epoxy satisfies requirements to operate successfully for 10 years at B A B AR, and was chosen to glue the DIRC bars together.

In addition, glue samples were exposed to a strong photon flux. No discoloration nor any loss of transmission is observed.

## 5 Reflection from the Fused Silica Bar Supporting Shims and Mirrors

The mirror  at the end of each bar is an important part of the DIRC enabling the capture of the Cherenkov light going forward into B A B AR (the DIRC PMT readout is on the backward end of the detector). As a check of the manufacturer’s data, we have measured the reflectivity of these mirrors using a laser and photodiode setup similar to that described in section 3. Figure 25 shows the DIRC mirror reflectivity as a function of wavelength. The manufacturer s data are consistent with our data, which are taken at laser wavelengths of 266, 325, and 442 nm.

Another important requirement of the DIRC is that the bars must held fixed within the bar box. This is done with a number of “buttons” that support the bars and “shims” that keep the bars separated from each other. The materials used for these supports should ideally have high reflectivity. Furthermore, since there can be relative motion between the bars and the bar box, the button material should not scratch the surface of the fused silica.

The reflectivity of a number of different potential shim materials is measured using a setup similar to that described in section 3. Table 4 shows the results of these measurements and indicates that, for example, Nylon creates substantial reflection losses. This is true for all of the soft plastic materials tested such as Teflon or Rubber. The harder plastic materials, such as Kapton or Mylar, perform better. Metals, such as Aluminum, perform even better. Table 4 indicates that the reflectivity of any material depends on the pressure with which the material is pressed against the fused silica bar. To quantify this better, we constructed a shim press, which is calibrated to express the force per area in psi units. Figure 26(a) shows the reflection losses with Aluminum shim foils as a function of the load. One can see that the loss is less than 1% for typical practical loads. For comparison, Figure 26(b) shows that the uncoated Kapton or Mylar shims would be a poor choice.

There is an interesting physical explanation of these tests: a portion of the internally reflecting wave extends beyond the fused silica boundary and probes the medium on other side. As a result, the wave may not be totally internally reflected. This effect gets larger as the laser wavelength decreases and is also sensitive to the proximity to the critical angle. This effect is used for commercial pollution studies, usually in the infrared wavelength region. In our case, as the force on the shim gets larger, this effect increases, resulting in the reflection coefficient decrease. Based on these tests, we chose Aluminum as the material for shims between the bars.

To select the material for the supporting buttons separating the bars and aluminum bar box we performed tests in which buttons were rubbed several thousand times across the bar surface. Since the area in which the support buttons are in contact with the bar surface is very small, the single bounce reflectivity of the material is less important than avoiding scratching the bars. Therefore, Nylon is chosen as button material because it does not damage the surface of the bar.

## 6 Fused Silica Bar Mechanical Properties

The mechanical bar properties, such as the orthogonality between bar surfaces and edge damage or chips can clearly influence the quality of the Cherenkov angle image or the number of photons detected. The primary goals of our setup are to validate the manufacturer’s  bar measurement procedures, and to provide independent measurements of a subset of bars to verify stability in the quality assurance (QA) process. To perform these QA checks at SLAC, we use a digital microscope  and several image-treating analysis programs based on NIH Image software .

The first method is based on manual operation, where an operator follows an edge of the bar visually on the microscope screen, clicking on several points along the edge to digitize its coordinates. Such points are then used in a fit to find a straight line. Using two straight lines one could then define the orthogonality of two surfaces of the bar.

The second, algorithmic, approach uses software to analyze a digital picture of the bar taken with the microscope. Each picture consists of an array of 640 by 480 pixels, each of which has 8 bits of gray-scale information. The microscope magnification is such that each pixel represents an area of about 5 microns by 5 microns. For each picture, the bar edges are found by stepping through each row and column of the pixel matrix and looking for the transition between black and white with a simple threshold algorithm looking at the gray scale information. This method is used to measure the fused silica bar angles by making an image that includes two edges. A typical bar edge consists of several hundred points that are used to define the edges. A special line-fitting algorithm is needed to reject those points lying on “chips”. We achieve resolution on the edge position of about 1 micron.

The manufacturer uses a micrometer-based fixture to measure bar angles, and this method was occasionally calibrated with an auto-collimator (this method yields a precision of approximately 50 $`\mu `$rad). Comparing differences in side-to-end and face-to-end angle measurements using our method and the Boeing method yielded a fitted error of less than 0.15 mrad, which gave us confidence that the two methods are consistent and can be used to reject bars that are out of tolerance. The face-to-side angle measurement comparison gives adequate, but somewhat worse agreement of about 0.23 mrad. We accept bars to be used in the DIRC using the following statistical procedure: using all four face-to-side angles on both sides of the bar, we calculate the $`rms`$ of the eight values. The production tolerance is 0.4 mrad for the $`rms`$ of eight values, with a goal of 0.25 mrad in each angle. Figure 27 shows an example of the good agreement between $`rms`$ measurements by Boeing Co. and SLAC, which gave us confidence in the manufacturer s data.

Finally, the digital treatment of the entire image allows a quantitative analysis to be performed on the quality of the edges. Figure 28 shows an example of a good and bad bar edge as seen by the microscope and the corresponding software. Once bar production began, all of the bars easily passed the requirement that the total area of edge chips be less than 6 mm2.

## 7 Conclusions

The results presented in this paper demonstrate the importance of the extensive R&D and QA conducted during DIRC development and construction. It is apparent that without this program, the DIRC would not have performed as well as required.

Perhaps the most fundamental results are related to the choice of material:

* Natural fused silica materials, when exposed to a radiation dose as low as 5-10 krad, suffer from serious radiation damage, resulting in substantial transmission losses in the blue and UV. All synthetic fused silica samples, however, were found to be sufficiently radiation hard for B A B AR.
* Some synthetic fused silica materials, made in the form of ingots, show periodic optical inhomogeneities. This effect can be sufficiently large to make the DIRC inoperable.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H. Krüger for important contributions during his 1996 summer stay at SLAC. We also thank R. Reif, M. McCulloch, and M. Schneider for their excellent technical help.


text:
# Monte Carlo simulations of the Ising and the Sznajd model on growing Barabási - Albert networks

## Abstract

The Ising model shows on growing Barabási - Albert networks the same ferromagnetic behavior as on static Barabási - Albert networks. Sznajd models on growing Barabási - Albert networks show an hysteresis like behavior. Nearly a full consensus builds up and the winning opinion depends on history. On slow growing Barabási - Albert networks a full consensus builds up. At five opinions in the Sznajd model with limited persuasion on growing Barabási - Albert networks, all odd opinions win and all even opinions loose supporters.

Keywords: Monte Carlo simulations, Sociophysics, Ising model, Sznajd model, limited persuasion, growing Barabási - Albert networks

## 1 The Ising model

First, we initiate a Barabási - Albert network  with $`m`$ nodes. Each node is connected to every other node with exactly one connection. At every time step we put one new node to the network. This new node builds up randomly $`m`$ connections to already existing nodes. The probability for a existing node to be chosen as a neighbor is proportional to the number of its neighbors. After putting a new node on the network, we go through the whole network and use the Ising model on every node. We say that we make one Ising rpts (run per time step).

The explanation of the classical Ising model and how to simulate its Glauber kinetics can be found in .

The simulations show the same ferromagnetic behavior as given in  for static Barabási - Albert networks. Even when we make more than one Ising rpts the results do not change.

## 2 The Sznajd model

We initiate the network as the Ising model. At every time step we put one new node to the network. After that we randomly chose one node and a few (none, one, or three, depending on the model used) of its neighbors. If all these randomly chosen nodes have the same opinion (spin), they convince all their neighbors . We are using the opinions $`+1`$ and $`1`$.

Initially, every node has with probability $`0p100`$ the opinion $`+1`$ and with probability $`1p`$ the opinion $`1`$.

For the number of randomly chosen nodes we have a few possibilities:

* two randomly chosen neighbors,
* four randomly chosen neighbors or
* one randomly chosen node

convince all their neighbors.

In Figure 1 we can see that the two- and four-nodes-convincing models come to the same results. In these models nearly a consensus builds up. The one-node-convincing model does not show the same behavior as the other models. We can see too that in the two- or four-nodes-convincing model no sharp opinion change takes place. We have a area of coexistence of both opinions. Like in magnetic hysteresis, the final magnetization is close to $`1`$ or $`+1`$, depending on history (initial configuration); averages over 100 samples give an average value far away from consensus ($`+1`$ or $`1`$).

The results shown in Figure 1 are nearly equal for every value of $`m`$.

If we make more Sznajd runs per time step we will see, that a consensus builds up. This result is shown in Figure 2 for the two nodes convincing model. The results are equal to the ones of the four nodes convincing model. We can see too that the area of coexistence becomes smaller for more Sznajd runs per time step.

## 3 The Sznajd model with limited persuasion

Now I simulated a system with the five opinions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Therefore I used the Sznajd model with limited persuasion  on growing Barabási - Albert networks. A new node has with probability $`0p_i100`$ the opinion $`i`$. The initial probabilities

* $`p_1=34`$,
* $`p_2=29`$,
* $`p_3=14`$,
* $`p_4=13`$ and
* $`p_5=10`$

have been used.

The procedure is mainly the same as for the classical Sznajd model but node $`i`$ can convince node $`j`$ only if

$$\left|\text{opinion}\left(i\right)\text{opinion}\left(i\right)\right|=1.$$

For the simulations the two-nodes-convincing model has been used.

The main results can be seen in Figure 3. All even opinions loose supporters while all odd opinions win supporters. Opinion $`1`$ wins the most supporters and has on a $`25000`$ nodes network nearly $`60`$%, depending on the value of $`m`$ at one Sznajd run per time step. Opinion 2 loosest the most supporters.

If we make more than one Sznajd run per time step the difference becomes even stronger. At small values of $`m`$ opinion 2 is nearly not existing.

I thank D. Stauffer for his support and help during my work at these models.