text:
# Issues on the cosmological constant

## 1 Introduction

Originally the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ was introduced as an undetermined constant in the left-hand-side of the Einstein equation,

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
so that this equation had a static cosmological solution, guided by the strong prejudice that our Universe is static . As is well known, however, the solution thus obtained is very unstable and is not realistic. As a natural consequence, it turned out that we live in a dynamically expanding universe as theoretically pointed out by Friedmann and observationally discovered by Hubble .

Nowadays it is more appropriate to put $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the right-hand-side of the Einstein equation as a part of the energy-momentum tensor. By nature the cosmological constant is equivalent to the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{v}`$ with the following relation.

$$\rho _\mathrm{v}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}=\frac{M_{Pl}^2}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_G^2\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(2)
where $`M_{Pl}`$ and $`M_GM_{Pl}/\sqrt{8\pi }=2.4\times 10^{18}`$GeV are the Planck mass and the reduced Planck scale, respectively.

In the field theoretical point of view, if we add the zero-point fluctuation of a quantum field up to a cutoff $`k_c`$, we find

$$\rho _v=_0^{k_c}\frac{d^3k}{\left(2\pi \right)^3}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2+m^2}\frac{k_c^4}{16\pi ^2}.$$
(3)
Taking the cutoff $`k_c`$ at the Planck scale beyond which classical gravity may not be used, we find $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=4M_G^4`$. Thus the natural scale of the vacuum energy is the Planck scale .

Observationally cosmic energy density today is at most of order of the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr0}}10^{120}M_G^4`$. Confronting such a huge discrepancy of 120 digits between the theoretically natural value and the observationally allowed upper bound, it was considered for a long time that there exist some mechanism to make $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ exactly vanish and its quest is the conventional cosmological constant problem to which we refer the Problem I.

Recent advance of observational cosmology, however, has revealed that our Universe is in a stage of accelerated expansion now . This means that there exists a tiny magnitude of cosmological constant and/or some unknown form of matter with negative pressure driving accelerated expansion which is generically termed as dark energy. To account for the origin of this small dark energy is the new cosmological constant problem referred to the Problem II.

In this talk I first summarize the currently favored observational values of the cosmological parameters and then move on to Problems I and II and approaches to their solutions. Finally I mention the expected future of our Universe.

## 2 Cosmological parameters

Current trend of observational cosmology is that the values of cosmological parameters are converging to that of the so-called concordance model. Although the forthcoming data of MAP satellite will certainly provide more precise informations on them, it is still remarkable that combinations of many different means of observational determination of cosmological parameters have already terminated most of the long-standing disputes on them.

### 2.1 Hubble parameter

The key project of the Hubble Space Telescope has determined the value of the Hubble parameter out to about 400Mpc with various secondary indicators based on the primary cephid distance which gives $`H_0=75\pm 10`$km/s/Mpc. The results of the secondary indicators are summarized as follows.

| Type Ia Supernovae | $`H_0=71\pm 2(\mathrm{stat})\pm 6(\mathrm{syst})`$km/s/Mpc |
| --- | --- |
| Tully-Fisher relation | $`H_0=71\pm 3(\mathrm{stat})\pm 7(\mathrm{syst})`$km/s/Mpc |
| Surface brightness fluctuations | $`H_0=70\pm 5(\mathrm{stat})\pm 6(\mathrm{syst})`$km/s/Mpc |
| Type II Supernovae | $`H_0=72\pm 9(\mathrm{stat})\pm 7(\mathrm{syst})`$km/s/Mpc |
| Fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies | $`H_0=82\pm 6(\mathrm{stat})\pm 9(\mathrm{syst})`$km/s/Mpc |

Combining these results Freedman et al. conclude that the final result of HST key project is $`H_0=72\pm 8`$km/s/Mpc .

Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect provides other means of determination of $`H_0`$, although it suffers from fairly large systematic errors. The current result is reported as $`H_0=60\pm 4_{18}^{+13}`$km/s/Mpc, which is consistent with the HST result .

### 2.2 Matter density

Nonrelativistic matter consists of baryon and cold dark matter whose identity is still unknown but two primary candidates are neutralinos and axions. Observation of light elements and standard big-bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN) gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}=(0.0190.025)h^2`$ with $`h=H_0/100`$km/s/Mpc .

There are a number of independent observational constraints on the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$. To name a few, the luminosity density and average mass-to-light ratio of galaxies gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}=0.19\pm 0.06`$ , while cluster baryon fraction from X-ray emissivity supplemented by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}`$ from SBBN yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}=0.35\pm 0.07`$ . On the other hand, shape parameter of the transfer function of CDM scenario of structure formation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}h`$ is fit by observation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.25`$ which means $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.35`$ for $`h0.7`$ . Although we cannot pin down the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$ yet, currently favored value is around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.3`$.

### 2.3 Spatial curvature

The angular power spectrum of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) provides a unique probe for the spatial geometry of the Universe. In particular, the location of the first Doppler peak reflects the angular scale subtending the sound horizon at decoupling which is sensitive to spatial curvature $`K`$. Although the data before WMAP suffer from fairly large errors around the first peak , they favor spatially flat universe . This is a good news because it is in accordance with standard inflation models. On the other hand, it raises a question: what makes up the rest of the Universe, $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.7`$? The answer is, of course, dark energy as we see below.

### 2.4 Vacuum energy density

Observations of the magnitude-redshift relation of high-redshift type Ia supernovae has probed the deceleration parameter $`q_0=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}})/2`$ in addition to $`H_0`$ and they have found that $`q_0`$ is negative or our Universe is in a stage of accelerated expansion , which means that significant amount of vacuum-like energy density exists today as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}}1.25\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}+0.5\pm 0.5.$$
(4)
### 2.5 The concordance model

Combining all the above observational data we arrive at a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}}1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.7`$. Then the plausible range of the cosmic age lies $`t_0=(0.91.0)H_0^1`$. The Hubble time corresponding to $`H_0=72\pm 8`$km/s/Mpc reads $`H_0^1=12.213.616.9`$Gyr, which in turn means $`t_0=1117`$Gyr with the most likely value around $`t_013`$Gyr.

Astrophysically, age of globular clusters gives $`t_0=1114`$Gyr while cosmological nuclear chronology yields $`t_0=1215`$Gyr. Ever since Hubble’s determination of the Hubble parameter , $`H_0500`$km/s/Mpc, we confronted with the cosmic age problem from time to time in the history of cosmology. The above set of cosmological parameters gives consistent cosmic age with astrophysical observations and indeed deserves the name of the concordance model.

Looking back more recent history of cosmology, only one and half decades ago, theorists typically expected that we live in the Einstein-de Sitter universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}}=0`$, $`K=0`$, and $`H_050`$km/s/Mpc. On the other hand, observational astronomers believed that we live in an open universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}}=0`$, and $`H_0=50`$ or 100km/s/Mpc depending on schools . Thus both parties can compromise if they admit nonvanishing vacuum energy density taking an intermediate value of the Hubble parameter. A good news with the concordance model is that it supports a theoretical prejudice that the Universe is spatially flat and so is consistent with the prediction of standard inflationary cosmology, whose another prediction, generation of almost scale-invariant adiabatic fluctuations, has also been supported by observations of CMB anisotropy. Thus we can describe evolution of the Universe in the framework of inflationary cosmology. Then the greatest mystery in cosmology is the questions, what is the origin of the vacuum energy? Why is it so small?

### 2.6 Note added: WMAP results

On February 12, 4AM (JST), the first-year result of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe was disclosed . As for the values of the cosmological parameters they basically confirmed those of the concordance model with significantly smaller error bars than before with $`h=0.71_{0.03}^{+0.04}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b0}}h^2=0.0224\pm 0.0009`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}h^2=0.135_{0.009}^{+0.008}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{v0}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot0}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{m0}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot0}}=1.02\pm 0.02`$. One should note, however, that the WMAP data alone could be fit by other sets of parameters whose values are quite different from those of the concordance model. The cosmic concordance is achieved as a result of combinations of various cosmological observations.

## 3 Proposed solutions to the Problem I

### 3.1 Symmetry

Whenever we encounter an unnaturally small quantity, we usually interpret it as realized by virtue of some symmetry reason. For example, in order to stabilize the Higgs’ mass in the standard particle physics model against quantum correction up to grand unification or Planck scales, we usually introduce supersymmetry (SUSY).

As is well known, global SUSY also predicts vanishing vacuum energy density at the supersymmetric ground state. The SUSY generator, $`Q_\alpha `$, satisfies the following anti-commutation relation.

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta ^{}\}=\left(\sigma _\mu \right)_{\alpha \beta }P^\mu ,$$
(5)
with $`P^\mu `$ being the four momentum. Since the supersymmetric ground state is annihilated by this operator, we inevitably find vanishing energy density there.

$$Q_\alpha |0=Q_\alpha ^{}|0=00\left|P^\mu \right|0=0.$$
(6)
Unfortunately, this does not help to solve the Problem I at all, because we know that supersymmetry is broken today. On the contrary, it causes a severe disaster since breaking supersymmetry inevitably induces a positive vacuum energy density with SUSY breaking scale, $`\rho _\mathrm{v}(1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^410^{29}\mathrm{gcm}^3`$ or larger.

This disaster is cured by making SUSY local, namely, introducing supergravity (SUGRA). In SUGRA we do not have a relation like (6) and the vacuum energy density can be either negative or positive. Usually it is negative due to a “$`3|W|^2`$” term in the scalar potential where $`W`$ is the superpotential. Then we may incorporate a positive contribution from SUSY breaking to fine-tune the resultant vacuum energy density vanishing. To this end, SUGRA does not solve the conceptual Problem I either.

Thus SUSY/SUGRA does not help after all and no other symmetry is known to realize vanishing vacuum energy density even after SUSY breaking.

### 3.2 Adjustment mechanism

This is an attempt to dynamically cancel the cosmological constant toward zero as the passage of time. In 1982 Dolgov proposed a model with a massless scalar field nonminimally coupled to the scalar curvature . He showed that in this model the effective cosmological constant decreases in the manner inversely proportional to the square of cosmic time toward zero no matter how large it may be at the outset. This evolution law is the same as that in scalar-tensor model of Fujii  proposed in the same year. The problem with Dolgov’s model is the effective gravitational constant also decreases toward zero at the same time, so it cannot serve as the solution in the real world.

As for the impossibility of finding a successful adjustment mechanism to the Problem I, there is a no-go theorem of Weinberg  which states that one cannot find an equilibrium solution of the field equations with vanishing cosmological constant without fine-tuning. As a simple example, consider a model with $`N`$ scalar degrees of freedom $`\varphi _i`$. Then an equilibrium or stationary configuration is determined from $`N`$ equations such as $`_{\varphi _i}V[\varphi ]=0`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ where $`V`$ represents the potential of the system under consideration. In order to realize vanishing vacuum energy at the equilibrium configuration, another equation should be satisfied there to ensure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, which requires a fine-tuning because we have already used $`N`$ degrees of freedom to specify the equilibrium configuration.

### 3.3 Quantum Cosmological Approach

This approach was quite fashionable more than a decade ago. It is based on the wave function of the universe. In Hartle-Hawking’s approach , the wave function with three geometry $`h_{ij}`$ and matter configuration $`\varphi `$ is expressed by an Euclidean path integral over all the compact manifolds $`C^{}`$ with boundary $`(h_{ij},\varphi )`$,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH}[h_{ij},\varphi ]=_C^{}[dg][d\varphi ]e^{I[g,\varphi ]}.$$
(7)
In this prescription, the expectation value of an operator $`Y`$ is given by a path integral over all the compact Euclidean manifolds $`C`$ as

$$Y_{HH}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH},Y\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH})}{(\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH},\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH})}=\frac{_C[dg][d\varphi ]Ye^{I[g,\varphi ]}}{_C[dg][d\varphi ]e^{I[g,\varphi ]}}.$$
(8)
If this path integral is dominated by the de Sitter instanton with the action

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x=\frac{3\pi }{G\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(9)
the wave function is peaked at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH}[h_{ij},\varphi ]=_C^{}[dg][d\varphi ]e^{I[g,\varphi ]}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi }{G\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right),$$
(10)
suggesting the vanishing cosmological constant .

Later on Coleman proposed to incorporate sum over topology with wormhole configurations connected to mother and baby universes. Then all the physical constants become a variable dependent on the state of baby universes $`\alpha `$ and the expectation value reads,

$$Y=\frac{[d\alpha ]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}}Y_\alpha Z\left(\left\{\alpha \right\}\right)}{[d\alpha ]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{2}}}Z\left(\left\{\alpha \right\}\right)},Z\left(\left\{\alpha \right\}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi }{G\mathrm{\Lambda }(\{\alpha \})}\right)\right].$$
(11)
Thus we find an even sharper peak at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ . This mechanism may also be used to fix other physical parameters. For example, strong CP problem may be solved without introducing axions .

In these Euclidean approaches there is no time dependence in the expressions of expectation values and they should rather be interpreted as an average expectation value throughout the possible cosmic history which would coincide with that in the most stable ground state .

There are a number of serious problems in these approaches. First, the Euclidean path integral is not well-defined, because, once gravity is included, the action is not positive definite even after Wick rotation. Second, no conserved and positive-definite probability current is known in this approach, which makes its interpretation difficult. Third, in the original calculation of wormhole and baby universe system, phase of sum over spheres was miscounted and the sharper peak observed in (11) diminishes in the correct calculation .

For these reasons, although this approach is attractive in that it is a quantum theory, this solution is not taken seriously now.

### 3.4 Higher dimensional models

Higher dimensional theories may open up a new perspective to the cosmological constant problem, because lower dimensional subspace may have flat geometry even if energy-momentum tensor is nonvanishing. Hence if we could succeed in removing the gravitational effect of vacuum energy on cosmic expansion of our three-brane, this could serve as a solution to the problem. For example, if we found a modified Friedmann equation of our three-brane like

$$H^2=f(\rho ,p)\left(\rho +p\right)+\mathrm{},$$
(12)
after an appropriate dimensional reduction, such an equation would allow for the Minkowski solution $`H=0`$ in the presence of arbitrary vacuum energy density with $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=p_\mathrm{v}`$ on the three-brane. While many ideas have been proposed these days I do not go in detail of them because there will be many brane world talks in this workshop and I hope this issue will be covered there. It seems, however, many of them require fine-tuning, some of which are as severe as the original one, to realize such an effective equation on the brane so they could hardly evade the no-go theorem.

I would like to briefly mention, however, an exception which makes use of infinite-volume extradimensions with large-distance modification of gravity on the brane proposed by Dvali, Gabadadze, and Shifman . They start with an $`4+N`$ dimensional action,

$$S=M_{}^{2+N}d^4xd^Ny\sqrt{G}R_{4+N}+d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(M_G^2R_4+_{\mathrm{SM}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\right),$$
(13)
where $`M_{}`$ is the fundamental Planck scale and $`M_G`$ is the four dimensional counterpart induced by quantum correction of matter in four dimension with the Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{SM}}`$. In this model the four dimensional graviton $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies a modified equation,

$$\left[1+\frac{F_N}{r_c^2\mathrm{}}\right]\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(14)
where $`F_N`$ is a constant and $`r_cM_G/M_{}^2`$ is the crossover distance beyond which gravity becomes weak. It should satisfy $`r_0H_0^110^{28}`$cm to ensure standard cosmology. Hence we should take $`M_{}10^3`$eV. Since the cosmological constant problem is a far-infrared (large-scale) problem, four dimensional curvature is insensitive to it in such a modified theory of gravity. Thus we may naturally have an almost flat four dimensional spacetime no matter how large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ may be. Although this model relies on a huge hierarchy $`M_{}/M_G10^{30}`$, it is stable under the assumption of unbroken supersymmetry in the bulk.

### 3.5 Anthropic principle

Since the cosmological constant problem is such a difficult problem to solve, it is natural that many people are tempted to resort its solution to the anthropic consideration in which one attempts to interpret natural phenomena based on our existence .

Consider a proposition: We, human being, cannot live in a universe with a large cosmological constant, positive or negative. We can easily convince ourselves that this proposition is correct at least qualitatively, and more quantitative proofs can be found in the literature . Now consider its contraposition: The cosmological constant in our Universe is small, because human being exists. Since a proposition and its contrapositive always have the same truth value, once we convince ourselves that the above proposition is correct, it can serve as a solution to the cosmological constant problem at least logically.

But this fact alone does not guarantee that the anthropic consideration is useful in theoretical physics. Let us consider a perhaps more illustrative question: Why does our Universe have three spatial dimensions? A possible answer based on the anthropic principle is that if the spatial dimension is not equal to three, an orbit of a planet is not closed, so that its climate would be too unstable to accommodate human life. Again this solution is logically correct answer to the original question, but it is clear that such an answer provides no insights for the compactification mechanism of extra dimensions which is one of the central issue in higher-dimensional theories. Thus in this sense this approach does not contribute to progress in theoretical physics.

I do not claim that we should not use the anthropic principle at all. On the contrary, I admit that this could be useful at some stage of investigation. As for the cosmological constant, we might use it once we have reached an ultimate theory which clarifies what physics controls it but does not predict of its value itself.

The anthropic principle resembles sake; if you use an appropriate amount at night, you can be happy, but if you drink it too much in the morning, you will lose your job. I think it is clear that the situation of investigation of cosmological constant problem is yet in the morning or in the premature stage and use of the anthropic principle now could be dangerous because we might well miss a chance to reach an essence of theoretical physics.

Nevertheless there is an exception. We may or even should resort the solution of what is called the coincidence problem or why-now problem, namely the question why vacuum energy is dominating only recently, to the anthropic principle, because “now” is defined by our very existence.

## 4 Proposed solutions to the Problem II

I now move on to various proposals to explain the origin of the tiny dark energy density observed. They are based on a common assumption that there exists some ground state with a vanishing vacuum energy density where the Problem I is solved. I would also like to note that two of the suggested solutions to the Problem I, namely the anthropic consideration  and Dvali et al’s higher dimensional model , may also naturally accommodate a tiny nonvanishing dark energy density.

### 4.1 Decaying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or quintessence

This is an attempt to identify the vacuum-like energy density with a dynamical, slowly-changing and possibly spatially inhomogeneous component with negative pressure . Typical example is a scalar field $`Q`$, now called quintessence, slowly rolling down its extremely flat potential . By virtue of its time dependence, the Problem II, or why the observed value of the dark energy today is unnaturally small compared with, say, the Planck scale, may be relaxed. In fact, by choosing an appropriate shape of the potential $`V[Q]`$ it has been advocated that one can find a natural solution to the coincidence problem in which the energy density of the quintessence field decreases during radiation domination tracking evolution of the total energy density and becomes dominant some time after the equality time. Such a tracker solution is possible with a potential like $`V[Q]=M^4(M_G/Q)^n`$ with $`n>0`$ or $`V\left[Q\right]=M^4\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(M_G\mathrm{/}Q\right)1\right],`$ both with a canonical kinetic term. By nature of the tracker solution, the scalar field is still evolving today in the time scale of cosmic expansion, which means that the equation of state satisfies

$$w_Q=\frac{p_Q}{\rho _Q}=\frac{\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{/}2V[Q]}{\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{/}2+V[Q]}0.75,$$

and that its mass is comparable to the Hubble parameter today, $`m_Q=\sqrt{V^{\prime \prime }[Q]}H_0=10^{33}`$eV.

As will be seen below the above characteristic of the equation of state is now confronting with observational tests. Furthermore from theoretical view point it is difficult to build a sensible particle physics model to realize such a small effective mass with a huge hierarchy $`m_Q/M_w=10^{44}=10^{26}M_w/M_G`$, where $`M_w`$ is the weak scale. Nevertheless such a small mass might be stably realized if protected by some symmetry. One example is the model proposed by Nomura, Watari, and Yanagida  in which the quintessence field is identified with a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson. This model, unfortunately, does not lead to a tracker behavior.

### 4.2 Kinetically driven quintessence

It was observed by Armendáriz-Picón, Damour, and Mukhanov that a scalar field can drive inflation even if it has no potential provided that it has an appropriate non-canonical kinetic term . This idea was first applied to explain the accelerated expansion observed today by Chiba, Okabe, and Yamaguchi under the name of kinetically driven quintessence . Now it is abbreviated as k-essence . The evolution of the equation of state, $`w`$, is highly nontrivial in this class of models and may be observationally tested. An example of the scalar Lagrangian giving rise to a desired recent cosmic acceleration is given by

$$L=\frac{1}{\phi ^2}\left(2\sqrt{1+X}2.01+0.03\left(10^5X\right)^3\left(10^6X\right)^4\right),X\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi \right)^2=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi }^2.$$
(15)
### 4.3 QCD trace anomaly

The QCD trace anomaly contributes to the vacuum energy density with the amount

$$F_{\mu \nu }^aF_a^{\mu \nu }=𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4\right)𝒪\left((100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4\right).$$
(16)
Suppose that this contribution is canceled by the intrinsic cosmological constant in Minkowski vacuum state which is a part of the usual assumption that the Problem I is solved in the ground state. Then Schützhold  calculates the same quantity in the Friedmann vacuum under this assumption and finds a weakly time-dependent dark energy density

$$\rho _\mathrm{v}=𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3H\right).$$
(17)
Although this proposal is attractive in that it is a result of serious calculation of quantum field theory in the curved spacetime, the resultant value might be too large, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3H_030\rho _{\mathrm{cr0}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}100`$MeV.

### 4.4 False vacuum energy

All the proposals to the problem II discussed so far predict time-dependent dark energy. But we should also consider the possibility that we live in a false vacuum state with a finite vacuum energy density. Most people believe that such a possibility is unnatural due to the smallness of the observed vacuum energy, $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=10^{120}M_G^4=(\mathrm{meV})^4`$. Several attempts do exist, however, to explain the existence of a false vacuum state with the desired magnitude of vacuum energy density naturally by introducing some discrete symmetry  or global symmetry  and then breaking it with some appropriate nonrenormalizable terms.

### 4.5 Non-perturbative explanation with degenerate vacua

Another possibility that predicts time-independent dark energy without introducing any tiny numbers is a theory with degenerate perturbative vacua. It starts with the observation that the cosmological constant Problem I is a perturbative problem, that is, why we observe vanishingly small vacuum energy even after perturbative quantum correction, (3), and we assume that this problem is solved by a yet unknown mechanism as assumed in all the other proposals above. If there exist two or more degenerate perturbative vacua, say, $`|+`$ and $`|`$ whose vacuum energy is vanishing under the assumption that the perturbative Problem I is solved there, and if quantum tunneling between perturbative vacua is possible, these states are no longer the real ground state. Including the effect of quantum tunneling, which we assume is described by an instanton with the Euclidean action $`S_0`$, the energy eigen states are given by superposition of perturbative vacua,

$$|S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|++|\right),|A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|+|\right),$$
(18)
where $`|S`$ is the real ground state with $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=m^4e^{S_0}`$ and the first excited state is $`|A`$ with $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=m^4e^{S_0}`$, with $`m`$ being the energy scale associated with the quantum transition. Thus each perturbative vacua is expressed by the superposition of energy eigenstates with exponentially small energy gap, and if we still live in one of the perturbative vacua we observe a finite magnitude of dark energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{v}=m^4e^{S_0}`$ with the probability of 50% in this case. In order to match the predicted value with the observed value, we should take $`S_0=120\mathrm{ln}10+4\mathrm{ln}(m/M_G)`$, and the longevity of the perturbative vacua requires $`mM_G`$ .

This solution is attractive in two aspects: one is that the Problems I and II are properly separated and the other is that, as mentioned above, it involves no small numbers and the smallness of the observed dark energy is the largeness of the instanton action. The former feature may particularly be important because in other proposals no explanations have been given why only the contribution of quintessence or k-essence fields to the vacuum energy density remains finite after solving the Problem I.

## 5 Observational constraints on dark energy

In order to examine which, if any, of the above proposals is the right one, it is important to observationally constrain the equation of state, $`w=p/\rho `$, of dark energy. An increasing number of observational analysis have been done these days.

For example, Corasaniti and Copeland used SNIa data and the location of the three peaks of CMB anisotropy and obtained an ambitious constraint $`1w0.93`$ .

Melchiorri, on the other hand, performed a joint analysis of CMB, SNIa, HST, and the large-scale structures and concluded $`w0.85`$ at $`1\sigma `$ and $`w0.72`$ at $`2\sigma `$ . His result is perfectly consistent with the cosmological constant $`w=1`$.

Percival et al. finds from 2dF data combined with CMB anisotropy $`w0.51`$ at $`2\sigma `$ and the probability distribution of $`w`$ is peaked around $`w=1`$, namely, they favor the cosmological constant .

From REFLEX sample of the redshift distribution of X-ray clusters combined with SNIa data, Schuecker et al. find $`w=0.95_{0.35}^{+0.30}`$ under the assumption of spatially flat Universe  and claims that the most natural interpretation of the data is the cosmological constant.

Thus we may conclude that the tracker solution of the quintessence scenario is already in a difficult situation and that currently available data seem to favor the cosmological constant. Note that CMB data used above are pre-WMAP ones. The new constraint obtained with WMAP is $`w<0.78`$ at $`2\sigma `$ .

## 6 The future of the Universe dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

If our Universe is dominated by time-independent vacuum energy density as suggested by numerous observations and if it is stable against phase transitions, we can draw some interesting conclusions about the future of our Universe .

The existence of a positive cosmological constant means that our Universe is in a stage of asymptotically de Sitter expansion. So there will be an event horizon at the distance $`5.1`$ Gpc and we cannot go to any galaxies with $`z>1.8`$ not only in practice but also in principle. We can observe a galaxy at $`z=5`$ only for 6.4 Gyr from now.

Future evolution of nearby large-scale structure in our Universe dominated by a cosmological constant has been studied by Nagamine and Loeb using an $`N`$-body simulation . They find:

* Evolution of large-scale structure continues for 28 Gyrs.
* Our local group will not be bound to the Virgo cluster.
* Our galaxy is likely to merge with Andromeda galaxy within the Hubble time.
* This will be the only galaxy within the horizon 100 Gyr later.

This means that extragalactic astronomy and cosmology must be solved within 100 Gyr. So we should hurry up!


format: text

text:
# The Persint visualization program for the ATLAS experiment

## I INTRODUCTION

Graphics programs in High Energy Physics experiments are necessary to visualize the detectors geometry and display physics events. They help in the commissionning phase of the experiment in debugging and understanding the systems. They must provide an interactive access to the event data and their reconstruction through online and offline algorithms. As such they play an important role in the search and discovery of new physics.

Persint (Perspectively interacting) is an interactive visualization program persint  which is developed primely for the ATLAS collaboration atlas . The display of objects and the interactivity between the user and objects or applications is realized through the use of the HIGZ package higz . Facilities dedicated to the spatial navigation and the definition of the visualization properties are provided, in order to interactively set the viewing and viewed points, so as obtain the desired perspective. In parallel, applications may be launched through the use of dedicated interfaces, such as the interactive reconstruction and display of physics events.

## II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM

### II.1 Scope of the program

Persint was originally developed as a tool for debugging and optimizing the ATLAS Muon pattern and track reconstruction algorithm Muonbox muonbox1 . It was early realized that traditional event displays based on simple projections were not fit to the task of visualizing events in the toroidal, inhomogeneous field of the muon spectrometer. Only a three-dimensional interactive tool with navigation capabilities is well suited for such a task.

The program is now routinely used for Event Display of hits and reconstruction objects of complex Monte Carlo events and in TestBeam applications, both online and offline. Persint is used for the visualization of detector geometries : as such it is interfaced to AMDB (the ATLAS Muon Database) and the AGDD-XML ATLAS Generic detector description.

Other applications include the visualization of the magnetic field, the Level-1 Muon Trigger Logic, the interactive generation of tracks, and the display of XML event hits.

### II.2 Features

The program offers the following features :

* 3-dimensional representation of objects in full volumes or wire frames
* computation of hidden faces
* highlight of volumes edges
* lighting intensity effects on volume facets
* detection of clashing volumes and highlight of intersections
* boolean volume operations (addition, subtraction, intersection)
* spatial navigation with real-time displacements
* focal length adjustable at will (from isometry to wide-angle)
* interfaces and access to applications
* save to postscript
* documentation

### II.3 Design

The core of the program is written in Fortran90. Dynamic data objects are extensively exploited in order to minimize the memory usage which can become important when a large numbers of volume are displayed, a situation typical to modern HEP experiments, both with respect to the detector description and the event data themselves.

Persint uses the following features of F90 :

* usage of Modules, with procedure interfaces
* Polymorphism
* Recursive functions
* Dynamic arrays
* Allocate, for local memory management
* Pointers
* String operations
* Array manipulations
* Free source forms

The graphics interface is HIGZ higz  and in general the program makes extensive use of the CERNLIB cernlib . It is built on 26000 lines on code and is part of the Saclay Muon software suite. As such it is interfaced directly to the geometrical database Amdbsimrec (13000 lines), the magnetic field database Bfielddtb (3500 lines) and the track reconstruction algorithm Muonbox (58000 lines) muonbox1 .

The code is highly modular, organized in patches. The XML section is such an example of a patch. It contains everything needed to parse, store transiently and generates volumes from standardized XML files.

The computation of volumes with hidden faces is based on the analytical computation of facets’ edges in space. This computation also provides the detection of clashes and the highlights of the volumes intersections, and supports boolean volume operations.

The program is designed to operate in standalone mode, keeping the possibility of integration in frameworks. It was for example successfully used in the context of the online software framework of the ATLAS testbeams.

### II.4 Releases and documentation

The program is released officially at CERN on AFS in a public directory 111/afs/cern.ch/atlas/offline/external/Persint/ since version 2.00 for three platforms : Linux, Sun-Solaris Unix and Compaq/Alpha Unix. This repository contains the source and executable files together with documentation and useful input databases, and for developers, the tools necessary to build, compile and load the code. The latest released version is 3.00.

The documentation can be found in the Persint Manual located in the public repository or on the dedicated Persint Web Page 222http://cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/MUON/persint.html. This page provides updates on the releases.

## III PRESENTATION OF THE PROGRAM

### III.1 General layout

The program is designed around the command window and the HIGZ display window. A typical view obtained with the Display Window is shown in Figure 1. The command window is used essentially to load files and type commands interpreted by the code and documented in the Persint Manual. The display window however is organized in such a way to provide maximum interactivity to avoid typing commands as much as possible.

The display window is dedicated to the colour display of both the objects computed by the program for visualization and the graphical interfaces. The primary interface is the Navigator.

The Navigator supports the navigation facilities necessary to survey the entire detector space and gives access to the various graphics applications provided by Persint. Its layout is shown in Figure 2. It consists in an ensemble of push buttons and gauges which can be clicked, so as to modify the visualization properties or access lower level interfaces.

### III.2 Navigation

The spatial navigation, as well as the modification of the visualization properties, are realized through the use of gauges which define the amplitudes of the movements of the Viewing and Viewed Points and of the change in focal length of the observer eye, such as to obtain the desired perspective. Each action is validated with the “GO” Push Button.

Alternatively, the navigation can be performed through real time displacements of the observer point. Continuous displacements are obtained by dragging the cursor over the display itself, thus bypassing the use of the Navigator.

### III.3 Visualization properties

Persint offers the possibility to modify interactively the visualization focal length. In the Navigator, a sectioned gauge may be used to select the Normal View, equivalent to a focal length of 35 mm, the Isometric View, equivalent to an infinite focal length, or to increase or decrease the focal length at will.

Moreover, X, Y, Z, or $`\varphi `$ projections of the volumes on display may be obtained by clicking dedicated push buttons (see Figure 2). In the case of X, Y, and Z projections, the observing point position (e.g. X$`>0`$ or X$`<0`$) can be modified by clicking the “Displace Viewing Point” 2D gauge on the corresponding half. In the case of $`\varphi `$ projection, this same gauge can be used to define the value of $`\varphi `$. Examples of visualization of the same volumes with different perspectives are presented in Figure 3.

## IV EVENT DISPLAY

The interactive reconstruction and event display (EVD) application of Persint is dedicated to the reading of event hit files, the visualization of these hits, and the reconstruction of the event through coupling to the Muonbox program muonbox1 .

The three-dimensional view of complex events is used to understand complex events and debug the reconstruction algorithms. Figure 4 shows a display of a Monte Carlo event in the ATLAS Muon spectrometer in the context of a high background environment. Such events are generated with the Geant3-based DICE simulation dice . All hits and activated muon chambers are displayed. The reconstructed track is displayed in blue. Visual inspection confirms the efficiency of the reconstruction algorithm in terms of pattern recognition and fitting.

The projective views allows to further examine the events, though it is necessary to restrict the investigation to a limited region of the apparatus. Zooming on detectors is performed to very carefully check the event properties and reconstruction consistency, as illustrated in Figure 5.

In Figure 4 one notes the Interactive Reconstruction and Event Display Interface opened on top of the Navigator. This interface is equipped with an ensemble of push-buttons to set the visual properties of the displayed event and to activate the reconstruction. A separate embedded window is used to display the statistics of the event. The statistics consist essentially in the number of hits of the event, the number of hits taken into account in the candidate tracks, the reconstructed momentum, and if required from the datacards in case of physics channels analysis, the reconstructed invariant mass.

The interfacing between Persint and Muonbox makes it possible to act interactively on the event characteristics to understand which role they play. For instance, a hit tube or a strip can be removed interactively from the event. Then, when re-running the reconstruction algorithms, this removed tube will not be taken into account.

The Persint EVD was used in the design and optimization phase of the Muon Spectrometer, participating in the performance studies of the apparatus and reconstruction software muontdr . It then contributed in refining the performances of this software on complex Monte Carlo physics channels phystdr .

The program is used in the context of muon testbeams to display events on either online of offline mode h8\_2001 . Event displays are useful to testbeams in order to validate the commissioning of the entire chain of detectors and data acquisition. When data is recorded in a routine mode, the EVD participate in the online monitoring and the quality control of the dataflow. An example of testbeam event is shown in Figure 6. It consists in a staight muon track reconstructed in the Barrel stand of the H8 2002 Muon System tests h8\_2002 . Chambers misalignment is corrected using conditions alignment data.

## V GEOMETRY VISUALIZATION

Powerful graphics tool are necessary to develop and debug the geometrical descriptions of the complex HEP detectors. Not only 3D viewers and projective capabilities must be used, but also the possibility to automatically detect geometrical conflicts.

An essential feature of geometry visualization programs is to be able to delineate precisely the volume edges. This is of primary importance in order to clearly identify the volumes boundaries in space and their possible interferences. Such visual property offers a much better understanding and comprehension of the detector geometry to the end user.

Modern geometrical description in HEP makes extensive use of boolean volume operations, which greatly simplifies the task of describing complicated geometries. Visualization tools must therefore support such technology.

The Persint program is interfaced to the two detector description used for the ATLAS Muon Spectrometer : AGDD-XML and AMDB.

### V.1 Interface to AGDD-XML

The Atlas Generic Detector Description is based on standardized XML files. Such a description is used to describe the Muon Spectrometer geometry agdd . This description is implemented in the reconstruction algorithm.

The Persint program benefits from an XML parser to interpret the corresponding geometrical description. The working of the interface to AGDD is based on the representation of a fully clickable tree-like structure allowing selection of the desired volumes for display. An operating example is given in Figure 7, showing both the XML structure and the corresponding volumes, in this case one of the ATLAS Endcap toroid.

The interface offers the representation of the volume tree in its full depth. The user can deploy or hide sub-structures by clicking Volume Tree Pointers appearing as arrows.

Conveniently, geometries can be visualized in parallel as they are being developped. After a possible modification, clicking on a a dedicated push button of the Navigator (see Figure 2) results in the reloading of the database.

### V.2 Interface to AMDB

The ATLAS Muon Database is an object-oriented database for simulation and reconstruction 333see http://cern.ch/muondoc/software/Database/. It is extensively used in the detectors and physics performance studies conducted since the origin of ATLAS muontdr ; phystdr . In particular, it is used synchroneously by the DICE Geant3 simulation of the experiment dice  and the muon reconstruction program Muonbox muonbox1 .

This database is heavily used to study the ongoing changes to the spectrometer layout crack . Such changes are caused by the need to take into account integration and access constraints. Also, the possible staging of ATLAS will lead to multiple geometrical configuration, to be optimized by simulation. In this context of evolving geometries, Persint provides a tool to carefully scrutinize and validate the geometrical databases. One of the important capabilities of Persint is to detect and highlight intersecting or clashing volumes. An illustration is given in Figure 8, where a conflict between a muon chamber and the feet of the detector is observed.

## VI BOOLEAN OPERATIONS

Persint offers the rare feature of being able to compute fully and display volumes resulting from Boolean operations.

Being given two initial Supervolumes (a Supervolume is an ensemble of volumes), the program is able to perform the three basic operations (addition, subtraction, intersection) to generate a new Supervolume. This facility is independent of the complexity of the initial objects. An example is shown in Figure 9, which illustrates how the program can generate the voussoirs of the Barrel Toroid.

Using this feature of Persint, it is possible to generate complex-shaped volumes from very basic objects. The program provides, through the Command Mode, a set of instructions allowing to generate basic volumes and to perform Boolean operations.

## VII OTHER APPLICATIONS

The Persint program is interfaced to a variety of application. They are all accessed through the Navigator (see Figure 2).

The Level 1 Interface is the application allowing the interactive access to the Level-1 Muon Trigger configuration datafiles and the visual representation of the variety of objects involved in the trigger decision chain. This interface is extensively described in L1persint .

The Magnetic Field Interface provides a fully interactive 3D visualization of the Magnetic Field and the magnet elements. This application is coupled to the Bfielddtb set of subroutines that read the field database and compute the field at any given point 444see http://cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/MUON/magfield/. The field is visualized by means of arrows located at a series of lattice points. An example is shown in Figure 10. The direction and length of the arrow correspond to the direction and magnitude of the B-field. The lattice, either 2D or 3D, is customized by the user in terms of mesh and spatial limits, allowing to build the vector field either in very localized regions or over large distances.

The Muon Tracks Interface is used to generate and compute tracks of muons throughout the entire detector system. It is coupled to Muonbox, to the detector description and the magnetic field database, in order to compute the track’s trajectory, taking into account the deflections in the field, the multiple scattering, and the energy loss in matter.

## VIII PERFORMANCES

Performances are difficult to estimate, as the visualization programs have too face many possible situations in terms of user demand, and number of volumes to display.

A test is performed here as follows : the display and navigation capability is estimated on a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4. It requires 0.65 s to compute and display the 2300 voulumes with 15000 facets of the Muon precision chambers system. The real-time displacements are fluid ($`>`$ 10 views per second) for a number of volumes $`<`$ 400.

An event scan on testbeam data provides another performance measurement. In the exercise consisting in the display of events in loop with 6 chambers and typically 20 hits, it needs 0.02 s/event for bare EVD. This an order of magnitude less than the time needed to reconstruct the event : 0.20 s/event.

## IX CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS

The present design of the program has strong advantages. The user can download a single executable binary files. No special dynamic library loading, no fancy APIs need to be installed. The program is efficient even if operated remotely, e.g. on remote clusters from a X-terminal.

On the other side, the program has shortcomings. It uses a limited graphics interface (256 colors in the current version of HIGZ, possibly extended to 1024). It does not profit from the high performance capabilities of graphics cards when operated locally on PCs (Z-buffer).

In the developments under consideration, a migration to OpenGL is envisaged. However some of the features of the present design would be lost. For example, such technology based on Z-buffer doesn’t allow to delineate the volume edges. This property is crucial for HEP detectors.

It is considered to integrate parts of Persint in the ROOT data analysis framework. The graphics capabilities of ROOT would be enhanced by using the calculus of hidden faces and intersecting volumes. In parallel, the integration of Persint in the ATHENA Atlas software framework for reconstruction and analysis can be studied.

The utilization of Persint will continue as an event and geometry display for the ATLAS experiment. It will be used as online EVD in the H8-2003 Muon Testbeam, and in the H8-2004 ATLAS Combined Testbeam. It will have an important role to play in the commissioning of ATLAS, participating in the debug of the detector (cosmics run, calibration runs,…). Finally it is a candidate for the ATLAS Online EVD for monitoring of data-taking.


text:
# MKPH-T-03-6 Do we understand the 𝜂𝑁 interaction from the near threshold 𝜂 photoproduction on the deuteron?

## I Introduction

The role of final state interaction (FSI) in incoherent photoproduction of $`\eta `$-mesons on the deuteron was investigated in our previous work . First we have considered in  the first-order approximation (FOA) where complete hadronic rescattering is included in the two-body subsystems ($`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$) only, and in the subsequent work  the three-body aspects of the reaction were studied. Summarizing the results we would like to conclude that the importance of final state interaction arises from two sources which are interrelated. Firstly, the impulse approximation (IA), where the FSI is ignored, predicts a very strong suppression of the cross section close to the threshold. The reason for this is a strong mismatch between the large nucleon momentum needed for $`\eta `$ meson production (more than 200 MeV/c) and the average available momentum in the deuteron of about 45 MeV/c. The FSI provides an efficient mechanism to compensate this momentum mismatch by the collision between the final particles. As a consequence, already the leading terms in the multiple scattering series associated with pairwise $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ scattering produce a very large enhancement of the $`\eta `$ production rate close to the threshold. This conclusion has later been confirmed by Sibirtsev et al. .

The second reason is a relatively strong $`\eta N`$ interaction at low-energy. Because of its amplification via the $`NN`$ interaction an appreciable attraction in the $`\eta NN`$ system is generated, which in turn leads to a virtual pole in the $`S`$-wave part of the three-body scattering amplitude . In the case of the spin-singlet $`\eta NN`$ state $`(J^\pi ,T)=(0^{},1)`$, which dominates the reaction close to the threshold, the pole lies on the three-body unphysical sheet not far from zero kinetic energy . We would like to emphasize that the existence of a virtual state near zero energy is the reason, why the FOA cannot provide an accurate description of the reaction dynamics at low energy. This statement is corroborated by the fact, that the multiple scattering series converges slowly near the pole so that the FOA does not constitute a reliable approximation to the whole series. In particular, the FOA is unable to account for anomalies in the energy dependence of the total cross section, since singularities of the three-body scattering amplitude cannot be generated in a perturbative approach (see, e.g., the general arguments given in ). Indeed, as was shown in , only the full three-body treatment can explain, at least qualitatively, the anomalously strong rise of the experimental $`\gamma d\eta X`$ cross section just above threshold.

However, our work in  was only considered as a first step for taking into account the most important dynamical properties of the $`\eta NN`$ system, because of several simplifications for the two-body forces. This concerns primarily the $`NN`$-sector, especially the deuteron wave function, which in  was taken as a pure $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state, generated by the Yamaguchi potential . Clearly, such a treatment is too simple for $`\eta `$ photoproduction where large momentum transfers come into play.

Thus the first motivation for the present paper is to overcome this shortcoming by using a realistic $`NN`$-potential. In Sect. II, we give the details of the two-body interactions and present the results for the total and differential cross sections. For the comparison with the inclusive data of  also the coherent reaction $`\gamma d\eta d`$ is calculated. As will be shown, our predictions slightly underestimate the data in almost the whole energy region from threshold up to $`E_\gamma =750`$ MeV. We will discuss possible reasons for this disagreement. The second motivation of the paper is to compare our results with the work of Sibirtsev et al. . In Sect. III we point out principal disagreements between the results of  and ours, which cannot be explained by the differences of the model ingredients. Finally, in Sect. IV we analyze the possibility of extracting the strength of the $`\eta N`$ interaction in incoherent $`\eta `$ photoproduction on the deuteron.

## II Two-body input and discussion of the results

The transition matrix element of the reaction $`\gamma d\eta np`$ has been evaluated with inclusion of the hadronic interactions between the final particles whereas the initial electromagnetic interaction is treated perturbatively in lowest order. The general formalism of our approach is described in detail in . Here we present mainly the most important two-body ingredients of the calculation.

As a basic input we need the $`\eta N`$ and $`NN`$ scattering amplitudes which were restricted to $`S`$-states only in view of the near threshold region. For the $`\eta N`$ interaction we use a conventional isobar ansatz as described in detail in , where the $`\eta N`$ channel is coupled with $`\pi N`$ and $`\pi \pi N`$ channels through the excitation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance. The separable $`\eta N`$ scattering matrix has the usual isobar form

$$t_{\eta N}(q,q^{};W)=\frac{g_\eta (q)g_\eta (q^{})}{WM_0\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta (W)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi (W)+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }(W)},$$
(1)
as a function of the invariant energy $`W`$. The $`S_{11}(1535)`$ self energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pi `$ are determined by the vertex functions $`g_\alpha (q)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (W)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^2dq}{2\omega _\alpha }\frac{[g_\alpha (q)]^2}{WE_N(q)\omega _\alpha (q)+iϵ},\alpha \{\pi ,\eta \},$$
(2)
with $`E_N`$ and $`\omega _\alpha `$, ($`\alpha \{\pi ,\eta \}`$) denoting the on-shell energies of nucleon and meson, respectively. The two-pion channel is included in a simplified manner by adding the $`S_{11}\pi \pi N`$ decay width, parametrized by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \pi }(W)=\gamma _{\pi \pi }\frac{WM_N2m_\pi }{m_\pi },\text{with}\gamma _{\pi \pi }=4.3\text{MeV}.$$
(3)
The vertex functions are taken in a Hulthén form

$$g_\alpha (q)=g_\alpha \left[1+\frac{q^2}{\beta _\alpha ^2}\right]^1,$$
(4)
containing the strength of the coupling $`g_\alpha `$ and the range of the Hulthén form factor $`\beta _\alpha `$. The parameters (see Table I) were adjusted to fit the $`\eta N`$ scattering length

$$a_{\eta N}=(0.5+i0.32)\text{fm},$$
(5)
and at the same time to provide a reasonably good description of the reactions $`\pi N\pi N`$ and $`\pi N\eta N`$ (for more details see ). We consider this value as an approximate average of the scattering lengths provided by modern $`\eta N`$ scattering analyses (see, e.g., the compilation in Table I of ). In Sect. IV, where we study the dependence of the results on the $`\eta N`$ interaction strength, two other sets of $`\eta N`$ parameters are used. The first one, giving $`a_{\eta N}=(0.25+i0.16)`$ fm is taken from . The second set is adjusted such, that the scattering length $`a_{\eta N}=(0.75+i0.27)`$ fm of the analysis  is reproduced. The corresponding parameters are listed in Table I.

We would like to emphasize that the latter value is obtained simply by varying the parameters of our separable ansatz (1) without using the original model of . One of the consequences of this strategy is that the Born term introduced in  is absorbed in our approach by the resonance amplitude, which leads to an overestimation of the $`S_{11}`$ contribution. In this case we achieve a satisfactory description of the $`\pi N\eta N`$ experimental cross section, and the resulting $`\eta N`$ amplitude agrees rather well with the ones of . However, unlike the first two sets, we cannot reproduce the $`S_{11}`$ wave of the $`\pi N\pi N`$ analysis , also below the $`\eta N`$ threshold, unless a relatively large contribution of the $`S_{11}(1650)`$ resonance is included.

The electromagnetic vertex of the amplitude $`t_{\gamma p}`$ for the elementary process $`\gamma p\eta p`$ was fixed by fitting the corresponding data of . Below the $`\eta N`$ threshold, we have required that the pion production amplitude $`\gamma pS_{11}(1535)\pi N`$, taken from , is reasonably well described as presented in . For the neutron amplitude we have used the relation

$$t_{\gamma n}=0.82t_{\gamma p},$$
(6)
which is consistent with the experimental value $`\sigma _{\gamma n}`$ = 0.67 $`\sigma _{\gamma p}`$ extracted from $`\eta `$ photoproduction on very light nuclei .

With respect to the $`NN`$-interaction, only the most important $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state is taken into account, since, as was shown in , the contribution of the triplet state is insignificant, primarily due to the isovector nature of the electromagnetic excitation $`\gamma NS_{11}`$. For the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state we have used the separable representation BEST3  for the Bonn potential. The deuteron bound state wave function was calculated using the corresponding BEST4 version for the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3D_1`$ states.

The three-body integral equations were solved only for the lowest $`S`$-wave three-body configuration where the orbital angular momentum $`l=0`$ in the two-body subsystems is coupled with angular momentum $`l=0`$ of the third particle with respect to the pair. The remaining partial waves were treated perturbatively up to the first order in the $`S`$-wave $`t`$-matrices of $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ scattering. This approximation is well justified by the strong $`S`$-wave dominance in the $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ low energy interactions. As was shown in , it is the lowest $`S`$-wave three-body state, that is very sensitive to the higher-order scattering contributions, whereas the higher partial waves are well approximated by the first order terms. As already indicated above, perturbative calculation, where only pairwise $`NN`$ and $`\eta N`$ FSI’s are taken into account in all partial waves is referred to as first-order approximation (FOA).

The significance of FSI is demonstrated in Fig. 1 for the total cross section and in Fig. 2 for the $`\eta `$ angular distribution. In order to appreciate the importance of a realistic treatment of the $`NN`$ sector, the results should be compared with those presented in Figs. 8 and 9 of , obtained by means of the Yamaguchi potential and using a pure $`S`$-wave deuteron. As expected, for a realistic $`NN`$-interaction the FSI effect becomes smaller. The obvious reason is the $`NN`$-repulsive core which weakens the attraction in the final $`\eta NN`$ system at small relative distances. At the same time the “three-body” effect remains important. For instance, at $`E_\gamma =635`$ MeV the three-body treatment enhances the first-order result by about a factor two. Also the steep rise right above threshold is a characteristic feature of the three-body approach which is not born out in FOA.

In order to compare our results with the inclusive measurement  we calculated in addition to the break-up channel the coherent cross section $`\gamma d\eta d`$. In analogy with the incoherent process, the calculation was performed within the quasiparticle formalism of the three-body problem, as described in . In this case we neglect the small contribution of the deuteron $`D`$-state, which contributes only 1$`\%`$ in the IA cross section. Since the coherent cross section is proportional to the modulus of the isoscalar part $`g_{(s)}`$ of the $`\gamma NS_{11}`$ transition amplitude, we have fixed it according to the relation $`\alpha =|g_{(s)}|/|g_{\gamma pS_{11}}|=0.25`$ as found in . This value is also close to $`\alpha =0.22`$ of . The corresponding total cross section and one angular distribution are plotted in Fig. 3. As one notices, the effect of FSI is also very pronounced. It is not, however, as large as obtained in , where we have used a more attractive $`\eta N`$ interaction with $`a_{\eta N}=(0.75+i0.27)`$ fm.

Adding the coherent contribution we obtain the inclusive cross section shown in Figs. 1 and 2 by solid curves. We notice that although the three-body calculation leads to a sizable improvement of the theoretical prediction just above threshold, a quantitative agreement with the experimental results has not been reached yet, the theory being too low. Moreover, above $`E_\gamma =650`$ MeV the inclusion of higher-order terms in the lowest partial wave acts in the opposite direction by decreasing the cross section of the FOA. In this region the three-body model exhibits an even larger deviation from the data than the FOA.

The slight disagreement with the experimental results points apparently to the fact, that the mechanism of the $`\eta `$ photoproduction is more complicated and some of its important details are not properly accounted for by our calculation. In this connection, we would like to make a few comments concerning possible ways of improving the theoretical treatment. The first relates to the off-shell behavior of the $`\eta N`$ scattering matrix, which may be much more complex as given by the vertices $`g_\eta (q)`$ in (4). In particular, it was already noted in  that the simple Hulthén form factors may strongly overestimate the short-range $`\eta NN`$ interaction, since the resulting separable $`\eta N`$ potential is probably too attractive near the origin. This is hardly important for low-energy $`\eta d`$ scattering but it is relevant for $`\eta `$ photoproduction which in general is quite sensitive to the $`\eta N`$ wave function at small distances. Clearly, a more realistic description of this short-range behavior would require a much more thorough treatment of the $`\eta N`$ interaction, where the resonance excitation is considered microscopically with respect to the internal dynamics of hadrons.

Another comment is related to the explicit coupling to $`\pi NN`$ states. It was neglected in the present calculation (except for virtual $`\pi N`$ decays in the $`S_{11}`$ propagator), since a correct inclusion of a pion would require substantial refinements of our three-body treatment, in particular the insertion of a variety of resonances which are excited in $`\pi N`$-collisions. If the $`\pi NN`$ states are properly taken into account, then among other factors the $`\eta `$ photoproduction can proceed according to the two-step scheme $`\gamma N\pi N\eta N`$, where a pion, being produced by the photon, is subsequently rescattered into an $`\eta `$ by the other nucleon. According to the results of , the contribution of the intermediate pion depends strongly on the role of large momentum transfers in the reaction mechanism. For example, whereas $`\pi NN`$ states provide only a small fraction of the $`\eta d`$ scattering cross section , they contribute rather sizeably to coherent $`\eta `$ photoproduction on the deuteron . It was shown in , where only the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance was included into the $`\gamma N\pi N`$ amplitude, that the $`\gamma d\eta np`$ cross section is insignificantly affected if the pion rescattering mechanism is considered. However, it may well be that inclusion of other resonances into the pion photoproduction amplitude can improve the agreement between our calculation and the data .

Finally, it must be noted that the relation (6), fixing the neutron amplitude, is only the simplest variant matching the required relation between the elementary cross sections. Namely, as was pointed out in , it does not account for a possible relative phase between $`t_{\gamma p}`$ and $`t_{\gamma n}`$. This phase is predicted, e.g., if the corresponding electromagnetic vertices are extracted by fitting different isotopic channels of pion photoproduction . Most likely, this fact is insignificant in the region of large photon energies, where the amplitudes $`t_{\gamma p}`$ and $`t_{\gamma n}`$ are added incoherently because of large relative momenta between the particles. At the same time, near threshold the interference between $`t_{\gamma p}`$ and $`t_{\gamma n}`$ increases due to a reduction of the available phase space, which requires a more sophisticated treatment of the isotopic structure of the elementary photoproduction operator.

## III Comparison with other work

Now we turn to the comparison of our results to those obtained by Sibirtsev et al. in a series of papers  where the FSI effects were studied within the first-order approximation. First of all, they confirmed our previous conclusion  with respect to the fundamental role of the final state interaction in the near threshold region. But moreover, they have claimed that already the incoherent reaction in FOA for the final state without inclusion of the coherent channel provides a good description of the experimental cross section for $`\gamma d\eta X`$  with a reasonable value for the $`\eta N`$ scattering length. This result is at variance with our own conclusion about the necessity of a three-body treatment of the final $`\eta NN`$ state, and the nonnegligible contribution of the coherent reaction. These contradicting conclusions seem to be especially surprising in view of the fact that the models used in  and in  differ only in nonessential details, such as, e.g., relativistic vs. nonrelativistic parametrizations of the $`\eta `$ production amplitude. Therefore, we would like to point out the principal discrepancies between our results and those of  which we were unable to trace back to model differences of the two calculations.

To this end, we show in Fig. 4 our first-order calculation of the total cross section, which reproduces our previous results obtained in . Small deviations are due to different parametrization of the elementary production operator and the $`\eta N`$ scattering amplitude. In the left panel of Fig. 5 we compare our impulse approximation (IA) with the corresponding results of Fig. 1 in  and those presented in . The right panel shows the ratio of the IA of  to our IA. One readily notices that our calculation is in reasonable agreement with that of  and the difference of our result to the one of  indicates the model dependence to be expected from different parametrization of the elementary photoproduction amplitude and the deuteron wave function. But both IAs are far below the prediction of . For example, at the energy $`E_\gamma =635`$ MeV the latter cross section is by about a factor 3.6 larger than ours (see right panel in Fig. 5). This disagreement is especially surprising since the IA is quite insensitive to the model ingredients. Namely, if one uses a realistic deuteron wave function in conjunction with an elementary production operator fitted to the single nucleon data, than the $`\gamma d\eta np`$ cross section is fixed almost unambiguously. A little freedom associated with the choice of the invariant energy $`W_{\gamma N}`$ of the active $`\gamma N`$ subsystem does not play a role at all, since in the present calculation and in  this energy is taken according to the same prescription (compare the formulas (33) of  and (2) of ). In other words, a model dependence cannot explain such a strong difference between the IA results.

Turning now to the role of FSI we also find quite different effects. Namely in  the FSI effect decreases rapidly above the threshold and vanishes completely at $`E_\gamma `$ = 680 MeV, so that above this point the total cross section is determined exclusively by the IA, whereas according to our findings the FSI contribution does not exactly vanish at all energies examined here. In more detail, the enhancement of the cross section due to the $`NN`$ interaction is reduced asymptotically to about 1.5 $`\%`$ at $`E_\gamma =780`$ MeV (see Fig. 4). For the $`\eta N`$ interaction we obtain an enhancement of about 20$`\%`$ at $`E_\gamma =635`$ MeV. This effect is visibly smaller than the 45 $`\%`$ given in Fig. 6 of  for the same energy . This disagreement cannot be traced back to the strength of the $`\eta N`$ interaction because the $`\eta N`$ scattering length $`a_{\eta N}=(0.42+i0.34)`$ fm used in  is even slightly smaller than our value given in (5). With increasing energy the influence of the $`\eta N`$ FSI changes sign and results, according to our calculation, in a slight reduction of about 4 $`\%`$ of the cross section in the resonance peak (see right panel of Fig. 4). The latter effect must originate from a relatively strong absorption of $`\eta `$-mesons through the rescattering into pions, which is expected to be most pronounced in the resonance region. The same smearing of the resonance peak due to the strong inelasticity of the $`\eta N`$ interaction is observed also in heavier nuclei  where it manifests itself naturally much stronger. This energy dependence of the $`\eta N`$ FSI is not supported by the results presented in  where rescattering effects do not play any role above $`E_\gamma =680`$ MeV. We would like to note that this discrepancy must be explained before any conclusion about the understanding of $`\eta `$ photoproduction on the deuteron is drawn.

## IV The role of the $`\eta N`$ interaction

In this last section we address the question to what extent the $`\eta N`$ interaction can be “extracted” from incoherent $`\eta `$ photoproduction on the deuteron. The idea to obtain the information on the $`\eta N`$ low-energy scattering parameters from this reaction was explored in . In particular, it was found that the cross section is quite sensitive to the $`\eta N`$ interaction strength, making it possible to study $`\eta N`$ scattering by analyzing the observed single particle spectra or angular distributions.

In our opinion, such a method very likely will meet serious difficulties, and we support our scepticism by several numerical results presented below. Firstly, and this is the crucial point for the following conclusions, we do not observe any strong sensitivity of the cross section to the $`\eta N`$ interaction strength as is claimed in . The effect on the $`\eta `$ angular distribution of varying the $`\eta N`$ parameters is demonstrated in the left panel of Fig. 6. The calculations are performed within the three-body approach as outlined above. In each case the e.m. vertex was adjusted to reproduce the elementary experimental cross section. Comparing the present result with Fig. 4 of  one sees that in our case the dependence on the $`\eta N`$ scattering length is much less pronounced. Thus, we have to conclude that the experimental discrimination between different $`\eta N`$ models would require extremely precise measurements.

Furthermore, such a weak sensitivity makes the extraction of the $`\eta N`$ scattering parameters very model dependent. The reason has to do with the off-shell behavior of the $`\gamma N\eta N`$ amplitude. This is especially critical for the region below the free $`\eta N`$ threshold which comes into play, when contributions beyond the IA are considered. For example, the results presented above are obtained within the so-called “spectator on-shell” choice for the invariant energy $`W_{\gamma N}`$ of the $`\gamma N`$ system, which is natural for the nonrelativistic three-body theory. In this case, as one integrates over the spectator nucleon momentum in the deuteron, $`W_{\gamma N}`$ covers the range $`[\mathrm{},WM_N]`$ where $`W`$ is the invariant energy of the $`\eta NN`$ system. Although the uncertainty of the $`\gamma N\eta N`$ subthreshold behavior is not very crucial for the incoherent reaction, it makes the method of precise determination of $`\eta N`$ parameters much more ambiguous, than was presented in . This difficulty is quite general when one tries to determine the contribution of an individual diagram to the whole amplitude.

In this connection we would like to recall the Migdal-Watson theory  which makes it possible to study the two-body interaction without regard to the particular way of embedding this interaction into the reaction amplitude. According to this theory the low-energy parameters of two-body scattering can in principle be identified by fitting the energy spectrum of the third particle close to the maximum energy value. In order to illustrate the practical applicability of this method to the $`\eta N`$ interaction, we show in the right panel of Fig. 6 the proton spectrum at a fixed angle $`\theta _p=18^o`$. The curves were obtained within the three-body approach using the same three different parametrizations of the $`\eta N`$ sector as in the left panel. Only the upper end of the spectrum, corresponding to low relative $`\eta n`$ energies, is shown, since only this part is relevant. According to the Migdal-Watson theory the behavior of the proton energy distribution in this region reflects the energy dependence of the elementary $`\eta n`$ cross section, disregarding the terms which depend weakly on the $`\eta n`$ relative energy. To eliminate the effect of the kinematical boundary, the spectrum is divided by $`(T_p^0T_p)^{1/2}`$ where $`T_p^0`$ is the maximum proton energy. As one notes, also in this case the experimental discrimination between the $`\eta N`$ models seems to meet the same difficulties. Namely, the form of the spectrum is not strongly affected by the $`\eta N`$ interaction. The reason is that the form of the $`\eta N`$ elastic scattering cross section, shown in the insert in the right panel, does not sizeably vary with the value of $`a_{\eta N}`$.

## V Conclusion

The role of final state interaction in incoherent $`\eta `$ photoproduction on a deuteron has been investigated using a three-body model for treating the interaction in the final $`\eta NN`$ system. In contrast to our previous work  the present results were obtained by using a realistic $`NN`$ interaction based on the separable representation of the Bonn potential. As a summary, we would like to draw the following conclusions:

(i) As may be expected, a realistic treatment of the $`NN`$ sector reduces the FSI effect compared to the use of a simple Yamaguchi potential. At the same time, the influence of higher-order rescattering in the final state remains essential and must be taken into account close to the threshold.

(ii) Our three-body calculation underestimate the data  slightly in the energy region up to $`E_\gamma =`$ 780 MeV. One open point, which remains to be investigated in this connection, is the short-range part of the $`\eta NN`$ wave function. The latter can be quite sensitive, e.g., to the contribution of the $`\pi NN`$ configuration which was omitted here.

(iii) There exists a principal discrepancy between our results and the ones of Sibirtsev et al. . Most disturbing is the fact that already the simple impulse approximation of  where the model ambiguities should be small, exhibits a strong disagreement with other authors . In this connection we would like to emphasize, that the statement, that the reaction $`\gamma d\eta np`$ is well understood within existing theoretical approaches is premature, even if a seemingly good description of the data in  is achieved. Further theoretical work is certainly needed.

(iv) We do not find a strong sensitivity of the $`\gamma d\eta np`$ cross section to the $`\eta N`$ interaction strength as was claimed in . Our calculation shows that even if the off-shell uncertainty of the $`\gamma N\eta N`$ amplitude is disregarded, quite a weak dependence of the results on the $`\eta N`$ interaction parameters renders a precise determination of the $`\eta N`$ interaction practically impossible.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 443).


text:
# Rigorous Analysis of Singularities and Absence of Analytic Continuation at First Order Phase Transition Points in Lattice Spin Models 1footnote 11footnote 1Supported by the Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research.

## I Introduction

The first theory of condensation originated with the celebrated equation of state of van der Waals vdW :

$$\left(p+\frac{a}{v^2}\right)\left(vb\right)=RT.$$
(1)
When complemented with the Maxwell Construction (or “equal area rule”), (1) leads to isotherms describing general characteristics of the liquid-vapor equilibrium, including the existence of a critical temperature. The isotherms obtained with the van der Waals-Maxwell Theory have a very simple analytic structure: they are analytic in a pure phase and have analytic continuations along the liquid and gas branches, through the transition points. These analytic continuations, which were originally interpreted as describing the pressure of metastable states, are provided by the original isotherm given in (1).

The theoretical question of knowing whether the results predicted by the van der Waals Theory can be derived from first principles of Statistical Mechanics remained a longstanding problem during a large part of the twentieth century. The theories of Mayer Mayer  and Yang-Lee YL  were decisive contributions to the theory of phase transitions, but didn’t give an answer concerning the delicate question of the analytic continuation at transition points. With regard to this latter property, two scenarios were discussed in the fifties and sixties.

The first one was essentially based on the mean field (or Bragg-Williams) approximation TempKat . In this approach, the interaction is replaced by an infinite range and infinitely weak potential. The central characteristic of the effective model obtained after this approximation is that the spatial positions of the particles don’t play any role. As a consequence, an exact computation of the partition function leads to the same behaviour as in the van der Waals-Maxwell Theory: at low temperature, thermodynamic potentials are analytic in a pure phase, and have analytic continuation at transition points. Katsura Kat  conjectured that this scenario holds also for short range models, like the Ising model (see also the discussion below).

The second argument, totally different in spirit, originated with the so called “droplet mechanism” of the condensation phenomenon, proposed by Andreev Andreev , Fisher Fisher  and Langer Langer . This mechanism, as opposed to the mean field approximation, predicts that the finiteness of the range of interaction plays a crucial role in the analytic properties of the thermodynamic potentials. Namely, when the range of interaction is finite, droplets of any size are stable at the condensation point, and although the probability of occurence of large droplets is very small, they yield a contribution of the order $`k!^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$ to the $`k`$-th derivative of the pressure. Kunz and Souillard were led to the same conclusions after having studied a similar model, related to percolation KunzSou .

Subsequent papers on the subject, in which no definite answer was given, include NewmSchulm , EntBaxt , PrivmSchulm . More recent studies can also be found in Gunter , Penrose , Meunier .

## II Rigorous Results

The first rigorous result was the study of Isakov Isakov1  on the Ising model, which confirmed the droplet predictions:

Isakov (1984): *In dimension $`d2`$, at low enough temperature, the pressure of the Ising model in a magnetic field $`\lambda `$, $`p=p(\lambda )`$, is infinitely differentiable at $`\lambda =0^\pm `$, but has no analytic continuation from $`\{\lambda <0\}`$ to $`\{\lambda >0\}`$ accross $`\lambda =0`$, or vice versa.*

This result is obtained by showing that the derivatives of the pressure at $`\lambda =0`$ behave like

$$p^{(k)}(0^\pm )C^kk!^{\frac{d}{d1}}.$$
(2)
In a second paper Isakov2 , Isakov tried to extend this result to general two phase lattice models. He had, however, to introduce hypothesis that are not easy to verify in concrete models. We now present our results.

### Two Phase Models.

Consider a lattice model with finite state space at each site of $`^d`$, $`d2`$. Let $`H_0`$ be a hamiltonian with finite range periodic interaction, having two periodic ground states $`\psi _1,\psi _2`$, so that the Peierls Condition is satisfied PeierlsCond . Let $`V`$ be a periodic potential with finite range interaction, so that the perturbed hamiltonian

$$H_\lambda =H_0+\lambda V$$
(3)
splits the degeneracy of $`H_0`$. That is, $`H_\lambda `$ has a single ground state $`\psi _2`$ when $`\lambda <0`$ and a single ground state $`\psi _1`$ when $`\lambda >0`$. Denote by $`p=p(\lambda )`$ the pressure of the model (at inverse temperature $`\beta `$). Let $`\delta >0`$. The general theory of Pirogov-Sinai PirogovSinai  guarantees that if $`\beta `$ is large enough, then there exists $`\lambda ^{}(\beta )(\delta ,+\delta )`$ such that the pressure has a first order phase transition at $`\lambda ^{}(\beta )`$. Our first result nous1  is the following:

###### Theorem 1

There exists $`\beta _0>0`$ such that for all $`\beta \beta _0`$, the pressure is analytic in $`\lambda `$ on $`(\delta ,\lambda ^{}(\beta ))`$ and $`(\lambda ^{}(\beta ),+\delta )`$, but has no analytic continuation from $`(\delta ,\lambda ^{}(\beta ))`$ to $`(\lambda ^{}(\beta ),+\delta )`$ across $`\lambda ^{}(\beta )`$ or vice-versa.

### Kac Potentials and the van der Waals Limit.

Consider an Ising ferromagnet, with a spin $`\sigma _i\{+1,1\}`$ at each site of $`^d`$, $`d2`$. Let $`\phi :^d^+`$, supported by the cube $`[1,+1]^d`$, such that

$$\phi (x)dx=1.$$
(4)
Let $`0<\gamma <1`$ be a small scaling parameter, and consider the Kac potential $`J_\gamma (x)=\gamma ^d\phi (\gamma x)`$, together with the hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}J_\gamma (ij)\sigma _i\sigma _j.$$
(5)
Let $`f_\gamma =f_\gamma (m)`$ denote the free energy of this model, with fixed magnetization $`m[1,+1]`$. The Theorem of Lebowitz-Penrose LebPenrose  gives a closed form to the free energy in the van der Waals limit $`\gamma 0`$ (called sometimes the Kac or mean field limit), and justifies the Maxwell construction. Let $`f_0(m)=lim_{\gamma 0}f_\gamma (m)`$. Then (see Figure 1)

$$f_0(m)=\mathrm{convex}\mathrm{envelope}\mathrm{of}\left\{\frac{1}{2}m^2\frac{1}{\beta }I(m)\right\},$$
(6)
where $`I(m)`$ equals

$$I(m)=\frac{1m}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1m}{2}\frac{1+m}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+m}{2}.$$
(7)
When $`\beta >1`$, $`f_0(m)`$ has a plateau $`[m^{}(\beta ),+m^{}(\beta )]`$, where $`m^{}(\beta )`$ is the positive solution of the mean field equation $`m=\mathrm{tanh}(\beta m)`$. As a consequence of the Lebowitz-Penrose Theorem, all the analytic properties of the free energy are known explicitly after the van der Waals limit: $`f_0`$ is analytic on the branches $`(1,m^{}(\beta ))`$ and $`(+m^{}(\beta ),+1)`$, and has analytic continuation along the paths $`mm^{}(\beta )`$, $`m+m^{}(\beta )`$. The analytic continuation, which is unique, is given by the mean field free energy $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\frac{1}{\beta }I(m)`$. After the van der Waals limit, the scenario is thus the same as in the van der Waals-Maxwell Theory.

Consider the specific choice $`\phi (x)=2^d1(x)`$, where $`1()`$ is the indicator of the cube: $`1(x)=1`$ if $`x[1,+1]^d`$, $`0`$ otherwise. For a fixed $`0<\gamma <1`$, $`J_\gamma `$ is finite range and Theorem 1 can be used, but only for temperatures $`\beta \beta _0(\gamma )`$, with $`lim_{\gamma 0}\beta _0(\gamma )=+\mathrm{}`$. Our result nous2  is given hereafter. It holds at low temperature, uniformly in the range of interaction.

###### Theorem 2

There exists $`\beta _0`$, independent of $`\gamma `$, such that for all $`\beta \beta _0`$ and all $`0<\gamma <1`$, the free energy $`f_\gamma `$ is analytic on $`(1,m^{}(\beta ,\gamma ))`$ and $`(+m^{}(\beta ,\gamma ),+1)`$, but has no analytic continuation along the real paths $`mm^{}(\beta ,\gamma )`$, $`m+m^{}(\beta ,\gamma )`$.

This result shows that, as opposed to the mean field behaviour, finite range interactions, even of very long range, imply absence of analytic continuation at transition points. A crucial ingredient for the proof of Theorem 2 is the use of a coarse-graining technique proposed by Bovier and Zahradník BovZarh ; it allows to obtain a range of temperature that is uniform in $`\gamma `$.

We study the pressure $`p_\gamma =p_\gamma (\lambda )`$, in which the constraint on the magnetization is replaced by a magnetic field $`\lambda `$. The pressure and free energy are related by a Legendre transform:

$$f_\gamma (m)=\underset{\lambda }{sup}\left(hmp_\gamma (\lambda )\right).$$
(8)
By the Theorem of Yang-Lee, $`p_\gamma `$ is analytic in $`\lambda `$ on $`\{\lambda <0\}`$ and $`\{\lambda >0\}`$. Our main result is a precise characterization of the properties of $`p_\gamma `$ along the path $`\lambda 0`$ (using symmetry, we need only consider fields $`\lambda >0`$).

###### Theorem 3

There exists $`\beta _0`$, independent of $`\gamma `$, such that for all $`\beta \beta _0`$ and all $`\gamma >0`$, all the limits $`p_\gamma ^{(k)}(0^+)=lim_{\lambda 0}p_\gamma ^{(k)}(\lambda )`$ exist, but pressure has no analytic continuation from $`\{\lambda >0\}`$ to $`\{\lambda <0\}`$ accross $`\lambda =0`$. More precisely, there exists integers $`k_1(\gamma )`$, $`k_2(\gamma )`$, $`k_1(\gamma )<k_2(\gamma )`$, with $`lim_{\gamma 0}k_i(\gamma )=+\mathrm{}`$, such that

$`|p_\gamma ^{(k)}(0^+)|`$ $`C_1^kk!`$ $`\text{when }kk_1(\gamma ),`$ (9)
$`|p_\gamma ^{(k)}(0^+)|`$ $`C_2^kk!^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$ $`\text{when }kk_2(\gamma ).`$ (10)
The constant $`C_1`$ is independent of $`\gamma `$ and $`k`$, $`C_2=C_2(\gamma ,\beta )>0`$, and $`k_1(\gamma )=\gamma ^d`$.

That is, the large order derivatives reveal the non-analytic feature of the singularity, although a signature of the mean field (analytic) behaviour can be detected in the low order derivatives. We have illustrated this crossover on Figure 2.

## III Method

The pressure has a singularity only in the thermodynamic limit. However, we study the system in large finite volumes, and obtain bounds on the derivatives that are uniform in the volume. At the end we prove that it is possible to interchange the operations of taking the derivative and the thermodynamic limit.

The method used to obtain lower bounds on the derivatives of the pressure at finite volume is inspired by the technique of Isakov. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a finite cube in $`^d`$ with a fixed boundary condition, and $`Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ be the corresponding partition function. One enumerates all possible contours 222Contours are connected components of incorrect points (see PeierlsCond ). inside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, in such a way that $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)V(\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)`$ when $`ij`$ ($`V(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ denotes the volume of the interior of the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$). One then defines the restricted partition functions $`Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. By definition, $`Z_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the partition function computed for a system containing no contours, and $`Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the partition function computed for a system containing no contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ with $`j>i`$. Obviously,

$$Z(\mathrm{\Lambda })=Z_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{Z_{i1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}.$$
(11)
For the proof of Theorem 1, there is only the ground state configuration contributing to $`Z_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. For the proof of Theorem 2, $`Z_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the partition function of a restricted phase, describing small local fluctuations of the ground state. Let

$$u_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)=\mathrm{log}\frac{Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{Z_{i1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}.$$
(12)
Notice that we have the fundamental relation

$$Z_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })=Z_{i1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })+Z_{i1}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(13)
where the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ appears in each configuration contributing to $`Z_{i1}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. A precise analysis of the phase diagram shows that $`\lambda u_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)(\lambda )`$ is analytic in a disc $`𝒰_i`$ centered at $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}(\beta )`$ (resp. $`\lambda =0`$ for the Kac ferromagnet), with a radius of order $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)^{\frac{1}{d}}`$. In the domain $`𝒰_i`$, $`u_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ can be represented as follows:

$$u_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)=\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{Z_{i1}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}{Z_{i1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}\right)\mathrm{log}(1+e^{g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)}).$$
(14)
The dependence of $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ on the volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is weak. Moreover, $`g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)`$ can be decomposed into a surface term and a volume term, like in the droplet model. Then, by choosing a path of integration $`𝒞𝒰_i`$,

$$u_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })^{(k)}(\lambda ^{})=\frac{k!}{2\pi i}_𝒞\frac{u_i(\mathrm{\Lambda })(\lambda )}{(\lambda \lambda ^{})^{k+1}}d\lambda .$$
(15)
The observation of Isakov is that $`u_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)e^{g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i)}`$ on $`𝒰_i`$, and that for a given large enough $`k`$, one can estimate precisely the Cauchy integral (15), for all large enough contours, by a stationary phase method, choosing suitably the path of integration $`𝒞`$. In this way one gets a contribution to the $`k`$-th derivative of the pressure of order $`A^kk!^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$. For the other contours, only an upper bound can be obtained on the integral, of the same order $`B^kk!^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$. The crucial point is therefore to have large enough neighbourhoods $`𝒰_i`$, in order to show that $`A>B`$.

## IV Discussion

In the framework of Kac potentials, the role played by the range of interaction in the analyticity properties of the pressure can be clarified by the following discussion. When $`\lambda 0`$, our analysis allows to decompose the pressure in two distinct parts:

$$p_\gamma =r_\gamma +q_\gamma .$$
(16)
On one hand, $`r_\gamma `$ is constructed with the partition function $`Z_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ of (11), and describes a homogeneous phase with positive magnetization, containing no droplets of the $``$ phase. When $`\gamma 0`$, $`r_\gamma `$ converges to the pressure of the mean field model. On the other hand, $`q_\gamma `$ contains the contributions from the droplets of the $``$ phase, which are all stable at $`\lambda =0`$, and $`q_\gamma =O(e^{\beta \gamma ^d})`$. Namely, the main contribution to $`q_\gamma `$ comes from the smallest droplets, which live on a coarse-grained lattice whose cells have side length $`\gamma ^1`$. Then, the pressure $`r_\gamma `$ behaves analytically at $`\lambda =0`$, i.e. $`r_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}(0^\pm )k!`$ for all $`k`$, but $`q_\gamma `$ is responsible for the absence of analytic continuation at $`\lambda =0`$, since $`q_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{(k)}(0^\pm )k!^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$ for large enough $`k`$. The combination of these two behaviours leads to a crossover in the derivatives, as was shown in Theorem 3.

Our results also have an important consequence regarding the theory of condensation initiated by Mayer Mayer . In this theory, the pressure of a non-ideal gas is described, near $`z=0`$ ($`z`$ is the fugacity), by a convergent Taylor expansion, given by the Mayer series:

$$\beta p(z)=\underset{l1}{}b_lz^l.$$
(17)
(The $`b_l`$ are the cluster coefficients.) That is, the pressure is analytic in the gas phase. Then, the condensation point is defined to be the first singularity encountered when (17) is continued analytically along the positive real line $`z>0`$. It was suggested by some authors TempKat  that this method could actually lead to a wrong determination of the condensation point: the analytic continuation of the Mayer series might not “see” the real transition point $`z_c^{}`$, situated somewhere between $`0`$ and $`z_M^{}`$: $`0<z_c^{}<z_M^{}`$. This is indeed the case in the mean field approximation: the system does not “see” the condensation point, since there are no droplets of the liquid phase inside the gaseous phase. We saw that if one suppresses the condensation mechanism by retaining, in (16), only the term $`r_\gamma `$, then there is an analytic continuation of the pressure. Our analysis shows that the phenomenon of condensation itself is responsible, through the singular term $`q_\gamma `$, for the singularity. Therefore, the latter method of determining the condensation point gives the correct result, at least for a large class of lattice gas models.

To conclude, we mention that the problem of knowing whether the pressure can be continued analytically around the singularity, in the complex plane, remains open. It is not clear, in this case, whether the droplet models can be used as a guiding mechanism, even to give a heuristic description 333See the discussion in Penrose , p.274, before Theorem 1..