text:
# References

Realistic cosmological model with dynamical cancellation of vacuum energy

A.D. Dolgov(a)(b)(c) and M. Kawasaki(c)

(a)INFN, sezione di Ferrara, Via Paradiso, 12 - 44100 Ferrara, Italy

(b)ITEP, Bol. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow 113259, Russia.

(c)Research Center for the Early Universe, Graduate School of Science,
University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

## Abstract

We propose a model with a compensating scalar field whose back reaction to the cosmological curvature cancels possible vacuum energy density down to the terms of the order of the time dependent critical energy density. Thus the model simultaneously solves the mystery of the compensation of vacuum energy with the accuracy of 120 orders of magnitude and explains existence of the observed dark energy. At an early stage the suggested cosmological model might experience exponential expansion without an additional inflaton field.

The problem of vacuum energy (or what is the same, cosmological constant) seems to be the most serious one in the contemporary fundamental physics. Any reasonable estimate of the magnitude of this energy gives a non-zero result which is 50-100 orders of magnitude larger than the value allowed by astronomy and just by our existence. The potential importance of this problem was indicated in the 30th by several people after formulation of quantum field theory but more serious attitude was stimulated much later by the papers . Several mechanisms have been since discussed to explain this mysterious and extremely precise cancellation but none has been yet satisfactory. A quite promising one is based on the idea  that there may exist a compensating field whose back reaction to the curvature of space-time induced by vacuum energy would cancel the latter and change the expansion regime from the de Sitter to the Friedmann one. A generic feature of scenarios based on this idea is that vacuum energy is never compensated down to zero but a non-compensated remnant of the order of $`m_{Pl}^2/t^2`$ where $`m_{Pl}`$ is the Planck mass and $`t`$ is the cosmological time. Such models predicted that there should exist in the universe a new form of matter with the energy density close to the critical one $`\rho _cm_{Pl}^2/t^2`$ with possibly quite unusual equation of state . In a sense it is a good old ”news” because it was found later that there indeed exists some dark energy in the universe which induces accelerated expansion  and contribute about 65-70% into total energy density . However, though several models with different concrete mechanisms of the compensation have been explored - but none of them could satisfactory describe realistic cosmology. In particular, the universe expansion regime was not related to the matter content of the universe. The list of the quoted above papers is probably non-complete and more references and discussions can be found in the reviews .

In this work we take a scalar field $`\varphi `$ as a compensating agent, though higher spin fields are also possible . For simplicity we confine our model with the action which depends only on the curvature scalar $`R`$, but in higher orders in curvature the action may depend upon the Ricci, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$, and Riemann (Riemann-Christoffel) $`R_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }`$ tensors. The general action containing only first derivatives of $`\varphi `$ and the curvature scalar $`R`$ can be written as

$`A={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{m_{Pl}^2}{16\pi }(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda })+F_1(R)+\frac{1}{2}F_2(R)D_\mu \varphi D^\nu \varphi +F_3(R)D_\mu \varphi D^\mu RU(\varphi ,R)\right]}`$ (1)
where the metric has the signature $`(+,,,)`$, $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative in this metric, $`g=det[g_{\mu \nu }]`$, $`F_j`$ are some functions of the curvature scalar; in particular, the Hilbert-Einstein action term (the first one in this expression) is separated away and the function $`F_1(R)`$ contains possible non-linear in curvature terms; the function $`U`$ is a generalization of the $`\varphi `$ potential which may also depend upon the curvature. The cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is expressed through the vacuum energy as $`\rho _{vac}=\mathrm{\Lambda }m_{Pl}^2/8\pi `$. Redefining the field by $`\varphi K(R)\varphi `$ one can always bring its kinetic term to the canonical form, $`D^\mu \varphi D^\mu \varphi /2`$ or annihilate the term proportional to $`D_\mu R`$.

In what follows we will not use the general form of the action but take a simplified version with $`F_3=0`$, $`U=U(\varphi )`$, $`F_2=(m_{Pl}^2/R)^2`$, and $`F_1=C_1R^2`$. With this choice of $`F_1`$ the terms proportional to $`C_1`$ does not enter the trace equation for constant $`R`$ (see below eq. (5)). In this form the action is similar to that considered in ref.  with the difference that in the quoted paper $`F_2=(m_{Pl}^2/R)^{2n}`$ with $`n>3/2`$. 111We thank Andrei Linde for informing us about this work.. According to the results of ref.  the vacuum energy could indeed be compensated by the field $`\varphi `$ but the compensation is very slow so that the expansion regime changes from the exponential to the almost exponential one, $`a(t)\mathrm{exp}(\beta t^\kappa )`$, with $`2/3\kappa <1`$. In this regime the energy density of the usual matter is quickly inflated away and we arrive to an empty universe not only without vacuum energy but also devoid of the usual matter. As we see in what follows, a smaller $`n`$ drastically changes the behavior of the solution

The equation of motion for the field $`\varphi `$, as follows from the action (1), with $`F_1=C_1R^2`$, $`F_2=(m_{Pl}^2/R)^2`$, and $`F_3=0`$, can be written as:

$`D_\mu \left[D^\mu \varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2\right]+U^{}(\varphi )=0`$ (2)
In the cosmological Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) background this equation takes the form:

$`\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{R}}{R}}\dot{\varphi }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{m_{Pl}^2}}\right)^2U^{}(\varphi )=0`$ (3)
The Einstein equations are modified as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{8\pi }}\left(R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R\right)C_1\left(4R_{\mu \nu }Rg_{\mu \nu }R^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2D_\mu \varphi D_\nu \varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2\left(D_\alpha \varphi \right)^2\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{4R_{\mu \nu }}{R}}\right)g_{\mu \nu }\left[U(\varphi )+\rho _{vac}\right]`$
$`2\left(g_{\mu \nu }D^2D_\mu D_\nu \right)\left[2C_1R\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(D_\alpha \varphi \right)^2}{R}}\right]=T_{\mu \nu },`$ (4)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the usual matter and $`(D_\alpha \varphi )^2D_\alpha \varphi D^\alpha \varphi `$.

Taking trace over $`(\mu \nu )`$ in this equation we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{8\pi }}R+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2\left(D_\alpha \varphi \right)^24\left[U(\varphi )+\rho _{vac}\right]6D^2\left[2C_1R\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^2}{R}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left(D_\alpha \varphi \right)^2}{R}}\right]=T_\mu ^\mu `$ (5)
If the usual matter is absent, i.e. $`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$, then the equations (3) and (5) together with the relation

$`R=6\left(2H^2+\dot{H}\right)`$ (6)
form a complete system which allows the solution $`Hh/t`$ and $`R1/t^2`$. That is instead of or after some de Sitter exponential regime of expansion we arrive to the Friedmann one. To see this let us look at the equation of motion of $`\varphi `$ (3). This is the equation of Newtonian dynamics with the force proportional to $`R^2U^{}`$ and ”liquid” friction term $`(3H2\dot{R}/R)`$. The friction force would explode at $`R=0`$ if $`\dot{R}0`$ or, more generally, if $`\dot{R}`$ vanishes slower than $`R`$. This is the case if $`R`$ reaches zero in finite time. It implies that the field $`\varphi `$ would stick at the stable point of this equation at $`R^2U^{}=0`$ (or better to say $`\varphi `$ would asymptotically approach the stable point). So, in equilibrium either $`U^{}=0`$ or $`R=0`$. If one may neglect time derivative terms in eq. (5), then

$`R=32\pi \left[\rho _{vac}+U(\varphi )\right]/m_{Pl}^2`$ (7)
So at least when the motion is slow and with a proper initial value of $`\varphi `$ the system could evolve towards $`R=0`$ and hence to vanishing effective vacuum energy $`\rho _{vac}^{(eff)}=\rho _{vac}+U(\varphi _0)=0`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the value of $`\varphi `$ for which the condition of vanishing of $`\rho _{vac}^{(eff)}`$ is realized.

One can check that the approach to the equilibrium point asymptotically for $`tm_{Pl}1`$ and $`|\varphi \varphi _0||U^{}(\varphi _0)/U^{\prime \prime }(\varphi _0)|m_{Pl}`$ can be described by the following law:

$`\varphi \varphi _0a/(m_{Pl}t^2),Rr/t^2,\mathrm{and}Hh/t`$ (8)
and the constant coefficients satisfy the equations:

$`k(h){\displaystyle \frac{h(2h1)(6h1)}{(1+3h)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{Pl}^3}{U^{}(\varphi _0)}}\right)^2`$ (9)
The other coefficients are $`a=18(U^{}/m_{Pl}^3)h^2(2h1)^2/(1+3h)`$ and $`r=6h(2h1)`$. We excluded the evident solution $`a=r=h=0`$ which corresponds to $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ when the system stays in the equilibrium point.

The function $`k(h)`$ in the r.h.s. of eq. (9) is positive if $`0<h<1/6`$ or $`h>1/2`$. (We do not consider here the contraction regime when $`h<0`$.) So possible interesting solutions lie in one of these two regions, depending upon initial conditions. The maximum value of $`k(h)`$ in the interval $`0<h<1/6`$ is approximately 0.0243. So the solution in this interval exists if $`|U^{}(\varphi _0)|>0.52m_{Pl}^3`$.

There could be also another regime of approach to equilibrium which, at least asymptotically, agrees with equations of motion (3,5,6). In this regime the last term in the r.h.s. of eq. (5) proportional to $`D^2`$ becomes non-negligible and the solution takes the form $`\dot{\varphi }U^{}(\varphi _0)R^2t/m_{pl}^4`$. In this case both $`R`$ and $`\varphi \varphi _0`$ tend to zero faster than $`1/t^2`$: $`R1/t^{2+\sigma }`$ and $`\varphi \varphi _01/t^{2+2\sigma }`$ and the Hubble parameter decreases as $`1/t^{1+\sigma }`$ with $`\sigma `$ satisfying $`\sigma (\sigma +1)=m_{Pl}^6/(48\pi (U^{})^2)`$. If such regime were realized the universe would reach stationary state with a constant scale factor. We assume that such a pathological situation does not exist.

One can check that there are several branches of the solution. For example the determination of $`R`$ from eq. (5) through $`\dot{\varphi }`$ and $`(U+\rho _{vac})`$, in the case that the last term in the r.h.s. of (5) may be neglected, can be done by solution of cubic algebraic equation which has three possible roots. The choice of a certain root is dictated by initial conditions. We have found numerically that there exists a solution for which $`Htconst0.5`$ and $`R`$ tends to zero somewhat faster than $`1/t^2`$. So the system approaches the expansion regime typical for relativistic matter. A detailed numerical study of different solutions will be presented elsewhere.

The cosmological expansion regime is determined by the value of the constant $`h`$ according to $`a(t)t^h`$. The evolution of the energy density of the usual matter is governed by the covariant conservation of its energy-momentum tensor:

$`\dot{\rho }_m=3H(\rho _m+p_m)`$ (10)
where $`\rho _m`$ and $`p_m`$ are respectively energy and pressure densities of matter. So, as is well known, the energy density of relativistic matter decreases as $`\rho _{rel}1/a^4`$, while that of non-relativistic evolves as $`\rho _{nr}1/a^3`$. Thus, if initially the energy density of matter was sub-dominant with respect to the vacuum energy and $`h<1/6`$ the solution presented above should change its character because at a certain moment the usual matter would start to dominate. Probably the energy density of matter and not compensated remnant of vacuum energy would manifest tracking behavior as suggested in ref. . One more comment worth making here. For relativistic matter $`T_\mu ^\mu =0`$ and the solution found above should be valid in the presence of such matter. However even a small admixture of matter violating the condition of vanishing of $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, either by existence of massive particles, even with $`m<T`$, or by quantum trace anomaly could strongly change the behavior of the vacuum solution if $`\rho _m`$ drops slower than $`1/t^2`$, i.e. for $`h<2/3`$

If, at some stage, the universe was dominated by relativistic matter and vacuum energy was vanishingly small then, according to equations (3) and (1), $`\varphi `$ would be zero or a constant and the cosmology would be the usual Friedmann one. It is well known, however, that in the course of expansion and cooling down several phase transitions could take place in cosmological plasma. Typically in the course of phase transition vacuum energy changes and if it was zero initially it would become non-vanishing and, if $`\varphi `$ remained constant, the newly created $`\rho _{vac}`$ would ultimately dominate the total energy density, because $`\rho _{vac}`$ does not decrease in the course of expansion. However, when $`\rho _{vac}`$ becomes cosmologically essential, the compensation mechanism, described above, should be switched-on and the solution (8) would be approached. However, in this case the initial conditions would probably demand $`h>1/2`$. More detailed investigation is in progress.

If the discussed here mechanism indeed operates in the real universe, then assuming that at the present (and somewhat earlier) time the energy density of matter is (was) equal to its observed value, $`\rho _m=m_{Pl}^2/18\pi t^2`$ we find from eqs. (3,5,6) that it could be realized either for $`U^{}/m_{Pl}^30.0045`$ or $`U^{}/m_{Pl}^313.5`$. The simple solution (8) does not describe the observed universe acceleration but it may be because it is not precise and more accurate treatment would reveal the accelerated behavior.

The model presented here may be compatible with inflationary scenario without an additional inflaton field. If initially $`\rho _{vac}0`$ and the feed-back (or better to say ”kill-back”) effect of $`\varphi `$ is sufficiently slow (this can be achieved by initial conditions and the shape of $`U(\varphi )`$), there would be a period of super-luminous (inflationary) expansion. The matter might be created by the gravity itself. As was shown many years ago  particle production by the Planck scale gravitational field could be quite significant.

We do not intend to present a detailed discussion of cosmology, including big bang nucleosynthesis, large scale structure formation, etc in this short paper. It should be a subject of a much longer work. We only want to demonstrate here that in the considered scenario vacuum energy is automatically canceled out with the accuracy of the order of $`\rho _cm_{Pl}^2/t^2`$ and the usual matter could survive in the course of the cosmological evolution (it was a strong drawback of previously considered models). Moreover the non-compensated remnant of the vacuum energy could be an excellent candidate for the observed today dark energy.

Acknowledgment A.D. Dolgov is grateful to the Research Center for the Early Universe of the University of Tokyo for the hospitality during the time when this work was done.


format: text

text:
# 1 The DE 𝑆(𝑡) defined in () calculated for a Poisson process (squares), the California catalog used in () (diamonds), the GP model used in () and the ETAS model (circles) with parameters: branching ratio 𝑛=0.93,𝑏=1, Omori exponent 𝑝=1.3 for first-generation triggering and 𝛼=0.8.

preprint: APS preprint

Intercluster Correlation in Seismicity

Mega et al. Mega  proposed to use the “diffusion entropy” (DE) method to demonstrate that the distribution of time intervals between a large earthquake (the mainshock of a given seismic sequence) and the next one does not obey Poisson statistics. We have re-analyzed the same catalog of seismic events in California and performed synthetic tests which show that the DE is unable to detect correlations between clusters, thus negating the claimed possibility of detecting an intercluster correlation. We have generated synthetic earthquake catalogs with a Poisson distribution of mainshock times, with aftershocks triggered in direct lineage by each mainshock following Omori’s power-law decay of seismic rate $`n(t)1/(tt_i)^p`$ (with $`p=1`$, and where $`t_i`$ is the mainshock time) and with a power law distribution of aftershock cluster sizes with exponent $`b/\alpha =1.25`$ (justified from the interplay between the power-law distribution of energies with exponent $`b=1`$ (Gutenberg-Richter law) and the power-law increase of aftershock productivity with the mainshock energy of exponent $`\alpha =0.8`$ alpha ). Fig. 1 (crosses) shows that our synthetic DE without intercluster correlation is essentially undistinguishable from the real data. Thus, the conclusion of Mega et al. Mega  that the clusters of seismicity are correlated is not warranted by their analysis. However, the fact that intercluster correlation exists is known at least since Kagan and Jackson KJ  and can be observed straightforwardly, as shown in Fig. 2.

We have used the ETAS model to generate realistic synthetic catalogs. The ETAS model is a simple branching model of seismicity Ogata  which contains the Gutenberg-Richter, the Omori law, the productivity law, cascades of multiple triggering between earthquakes and a poissonian seismicity background. In the ETAS model, any earthquake may trigger other earthquakes, without arbitrary distinction between foreshocks, aftershocks and mainshocks. The ETAS model reproduces many properties of seismicity, including realistic foreshock sequences foreemp . It is widely used to model and predict the spatio-temporal distribution of seismicity (e.g., Ogata  and ref. 8 of Mega ). As shown in Figs. 1 and 2 (circles), the ETAS model recovers (i) Mega et al.’s observation of DE $`S(t)=A+\delta \mathrm{ln}t`$ with $`\delta =0.94`$, (ii) the power-law pdf of the time intervals $`\tau ^{[m]}`$ between two successive mainshocks (which arises because many mainshocks are also aftershocks of other mainshocks) and (iii) a correlation between $`\tau _i^{[m]}`$’s (which is absent in Mega et al.’s LR model). Thus, their LR model, which introduces correlation between clusters of seismicity, is insufficient to account for the correlation observed in the data.

We believe that these discrepancies with Mega et al.’s conclusions stem for their incorrect use of the pdf of intracluster interevent times $`t_{j+1}t_j`$. Omori’s law is the pdf of the times between a mainshock and its aftershocks and describes a non-stationary process such that the interevent times increase as time increases since the mainshock: for $`p=1`$ for instance, $`t_{j+1}t_jt_j`$. Therefore, the pdf of interevent times is not equivalent to Omori’s law and it looses most of the information on correlations between aftershocks. This work is supported by NSF-EAR02-30429 and by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC).

A. Helmstetter1 and D. Sornette1,2, 1 Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, UCLA 2 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1567 and LPMC, CNRS UMR 6622 and Université de Nice, 06108 Nice, France


text:
# The Unexpected Role of Final State Interactions in Deep Inelastic Scattering11footnote 1Invited talk at the International Conference: I. Ya. Pomeranchuk and Physics at the Turn of the Centuries, Moscow, January 2003. To be published in the proceedings.

## 1 Introduction

Deep Inelastic Scattering, $`e+Ne+X`$ (Fig. 1) is one of our most precise tools for investigating the substructure of hadrons and nuclei. Soon after the first observation of scaling at SLAC, it was shown  that the DIS structure functions can be interpreted as the probability density of constituents in the target. Thus, in terms of the Fock state wave functions $`\psi _n`$ of a target nucleon $`N`$, DIS would measure the parton density

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{q}/N}(x_B,Q^2)=\underset{n}{}^{k_i^2<Q^2}\left[\underset{i}{}dx_id^2k_i\right]|\psi _n(x_i,k_i)|^2\underset{j=q}{}\delta (x_Bx_j)$$
(1)
The wave functions are to be evaluated at equal Light-Cone (LC) time $`x^+=t+z/c`$, and depend on the momentum fractions $`x_i=k_i^+/p^+`$ and transverse momenta $`k_i`$ of the partons. The study of Ref. 1 predated QCD, and was based on a model of pseudoscalar meson - nucleon interactions. Later studies  of QCD established the factorization theorem according to which the DIS cross section is given by the gauge invariant parton distributions

$`f_{\mathrm{q}/N}(x_B,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}\mathrm{exp}(ix_Bp^+x^{}/2)}`$
$`\times `$ $`N(p)|\overline{\mathrm{q}}(x^{})\gamma ^+\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle _0^x^{}}𝑑w^{}A^+(w^{})\right]\mathrm{q}(0)|N(p)`$
All fields are evaluated at a relative LC time $`x^+1/\nu `$ and transverse separation $`x_{}1/Q`$, which vanish in the Bj limit (cf. Fig. 1).

It would appear that the parton distribution (1) gives the parton density (1) in LC gauge ($`A^+=0`$), since the path ordered exponential is unity and the matrix element reduces to an overlap between Fock wave functions . In this talk I shall discuss why the situation is not that simple in a gauge theory like QCD . Complications arise because the LC gauge propagator

$$d_{LC}^{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{i}{k^2+i\epsilon }\left[g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{n^\mu k^\nu +k^\mu n^\nu }{nk}\right]$$
(3)
has a pole at $`nk=k^+=0`$. Coulomb scattering of the struck quark on its way out of the target involves momentum transfers $`k^+1/\nu `$ which makes LC gauge singular in the Bj limit.

Physically, the path ordered exponential in (1) describes soft rescattering of the struck (current) quark in the target. The quark has an asymptotically large momentum $`p_\mathrm{q}^{}\nu `$ in the target rest frame and thus exits the target in an infinitesimal LC time $`x^+1/\nu `$. The emission or absorption of physical, transversely polarized gluons requires a Lorentz-dilated formation time and thus cannot occur inside the target. Scattering from the target Coulomb field is, however, instantaneous and occurs over the whole traversal length (several fermis for a nuclear target). This is the reason that only the $`A^+`$ component of the target field appears in the leading twist matrix element (1). It implies that the struck quark merely “samples” the target color field along its path, but does not influence it. Thus the matrix element is determined by the target wave function alone, as required by the QCD factorization theorem .

Coulomb rescattering affects the DIS cross section within the coherence (or “Ioffe”) length $`L_I`$ of the hard scattering. In the target rest frame the coherence length of the virtual photon is $`1/Q`$ times the Lorentz factor $`\nu /Q`$,

$$L_I=\frac{1}{Q}\frac{\nu }{Q}=\frac{1}{2m_Nx_B}$$
(4)
The Fourier transform in (1) shows that the parton distribution is indeed sensitive to Coulomb rescattering only over a distance $`x^{}1/m_Nx_B`$.

Rescattering in the final state has important physical effects since it gives rise to kinematically on-shell intermediate states and hence to complex phases and interference between the rescattering amplitudes. Quantum mechanical interference is crucial for understanding the diffraction, shadowing and polarization effects which are prominently observed in DIS. The nucleon Fock amplitudes $`\psi _n`$ in (1) have no dynamical phases since their intermediate states are off-shell.

It is thus intuitively plausible that rescattering is an essential part of DIS physics which cannot be turned off by a gauge choice. In the following I shall give a more detailed description of DIS dynamics based on our experience from a perturbative model .

## 2 Two views of DIS from the target rest frame

According to (4) the coherence length is long at at low $`x_B`$. This is also the region where shadowing and diffraction phenomena set in. In the following I shall therefore have low $`x_B`$ in mind – but the general conclusions are valid at any $`x_B`$.

There are two essentially different frames for viewing DIS dynamics, often referred to as the “Infinite Momentum Frame” and “Target Rest Frame” (see  for a discussion). Actually both views may be had in the target rest frame (LC physics is invariant under longitudinal boosts). The crucial difference is whether the photon moves in the negative or positive $`z`$-direction. The description in terms of target LC wave functions defined at equal LC time $`x^+`$ is quite different in the two cases.

### 2.1 DIS frame

I shall refer to the target rest frame where the photon moves along the negative $`z`$-axis as the DIS frame: $`q=(\nu ,\mathrm{𝟎}_{},\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2})`$. The view in the DIS frame is equivalent to that in the Infinite Momentum and Breit frames. We have then

$$q^{}2\nu ,q^+=Q^2/q^{}m_Nx_B<0\text{ and }q_{}=0$$
(5)
Since the photon moves essentially with the velocity of light, it traverses the target in vanishing LC time, $`x^+=t+z1/\nu `$, even though both $`t`$ and $`z`$ are of $`𝒪`$(fm). This is why the DIS frame gives a snapshot of the proton wave function at a given $`x^+`$.

In LC time ordered perturbation theory (LCPTH) all 4-momenta are treated as on-shell, and the “plus” components are positive222The virtual photon is here regarded as an external particle with negative squared mass $`q^2=Q^2`$ and thus, exceptionally, $`q^+<0`$ in (5).. The conservation of “plus” momentum then forbids the transition $`\gamma ^{}(q)\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ for $`q^+<0`$. Thus we have only the LC time ordering $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}`$: the photon scatters on a target quark, revealing target structure. Space-time coherence in the DIS frame is governed by

$`x^+`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\nu }}0\text{Target wf is probed at equal LC time}`$ (6)
An $`x^+`$-ordered picture of the scattering is shown in Fig. 2a. The rescattering of the struck quark on the gluon field of the target influences the DIS cross section insofar as it occurs within the Ioffe coherence length (4). Even though the rescattering occurs over a finite distance in time and space the LC time is infinitesimal, $`x^+1/\nu `$ as given in (6). Hence one may regard the rescattering effects as part of an “augmented” LC wave function. Such a wave function contains physics specific to the DIS probe, and is thus distinct from the usual wave function of an isolated hadron.

### 2.2 Dipole frame

I shall refer to the target rest frame where the photon moves along the positive $`z`$-axis as the Dipole frame: $`q=(\nu ,\mathrm{𝟎}_{},+\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2})`$. This frame is related to the DIS frame by a $`180^{}`$ rotation around a transverse axis. Such a rotation is a dynamical transformation for a theory quantized at $`x^+=0`$. Hence there is no simple relation between the DIS and dipole frames in the case of non-perturbative target structure (the two frames can obviously be connected for a perturbative target model). The kinematics is inverted wrt. that of (5) and (6),

$`q^+2\nu `$ $`x^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\nu }}0`$
$`q^{}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2\nu }}`$ $`x^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Nx_B}}`$ (7)
Hence in the dipole frame the scattering occurs over a finite LC time $`x^+L_I`$. Since $`q^+`$ is positive there can be a $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ transition before the interaction in the target. The $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ forms a color dipole whose target cross section is determined by its transverse size. In the aligned jet model – which corresponds to the parton model and thus to lowest order in QCD – the quark takes nearly all the longitudinal momentum, $`p_\mathrm{q}^+q^+2\nu `$, while $`p_{\overline{\mathrm{q}}}^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/m_Nx_B`$. The transverse separation of the quark pair is then $`r_{}(\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}})1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}1`$ fm. Such a transversally large q$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ dipole has a non-perturbative cross section, which is the parameter in the dipole frame that corresponds to the parton distribution of the DIS frame.

The q$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pair multiple scatters in the target as shown in Fig. 2b. At low $`x_B`$ also the antiquark momentum is large and one expects pomeron exchange, i.e., diffractive DIS, as well as shadowing of the target . The dipole frame is natural for modelling these features of the data, where phases and interference effects play a key role .

If it were possible to “turn off” rescattering in the DIS frame by choosing LC gauge $`A^+=0`$, the pomeron and interference effects of the dipole frame would have to be built into the target wave function itself (which, as I noted above, has no dynamical phases). Thus there would be a preformed pomeron in the target, and shadowing would imply that quarks with low $`x_B`$ would be suppressed in nuclei (relative to nucleons).

I shall next discuss why rescattering effects cannot be avoided even in the DIS frame. This makes the physics of the DIS and dipole frames much more similar. In particular, diffraction and shadowing arise from the interference of rescattering amplitudes in both frames.

## 3 Interactions between spectators

We normally regard the target as “frozen” during the DIS process. I first recall why this is legitimate in Feynman gauge, and then discuss why there are relevant spectator interactions in LC gauge.

### 3.1 Spectator interactions in Feynman gauge

The generic, $`x^+`$-ordered Feynman diagram shown in Fig. 3a involves a gluon exchange between two target spectator lines (in the aligned jet kinematics only the struck quark carries asymptotically large momentum, $`p_1^{}2\nu `$ in the target rest frame). Three intermediate states, marked by dashed lines, can kinematically be on-shell and thus contribute to the discontinuity of this forward diagram. Since $`p_1^{}`$ is much bigger than all target momenta the three discontinuities occur at essentially the same value of $`p_1^{}`$. Hence they form a higher order pole, i.e., their contributions cancel to leading order in the Bj limit. The same argument applies to any diagram involving spectator-spectator exchanges between the virtual photon vertices.

Exchanges between a spectator and the struck quark (Fig. 3b) are, on the other hand, expected to contribute at leading twist and to build the path-ordered exponential in (1). Elastic scattering of the struck quark implies $`k^+1/\nu `$, which is of the same order as $`p_1^+`$. There are then two distinct large momenta in Fig. 3b, $`p_1^{}`$ and $`(p_1+k_2)^{}`$, and the three discontinuities do not cancel.

The above argument holds in Feynman gauge, where all contributions to the discontinuity arise from on-shell configurations.

### 3.2 Spectator interactions in LC gauge

The singularity of the LC gauge propagator (3) at $`k^+=0`$ blurs the distinction between spectator-spectator and spectator-struck quark interactions (Figs. 3a and 3b, respectively). Since the $`k^+=0`$ poles are gauge artifacts the sum of their residues must add up to zero. However, this cancellation requires that diagrams of type 3a and 3b are added.

The path ordered exponential in (1) reduces to unity in $`A^+=0`$ gauge. In perturbation theory this occurs through a cancellation333Depending on the prescription used at $`k^+=0`$ this cancellation can occur separately for each Feynman diagram, or only in their combined contribution to the DIS cross section, as explained in Ref. . between the $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ (Feynman) and $`(n^\mu k^\nu +k^\mu n^\nu )/k^+`$ (LC gauge artifact) parts of the propagator (3), for interactions of the struck quark such as in Fig. 3b.

Once the $`k^+=0`$ poles of the LC gauge propagator are “used up” in diagrams like Fig. 3b to cancel the Feynman gauge contribution, the corresponding spurious poles in diagrams like Fig. 3a give a non-vanishing contribution to the leading twist DIS cross section. In fact, their sum must equal the contribution from the path ordered exponential in Feynman gauge. Thus gauge independence is achieved, and the simplification of the exponential (alias rescattering of the struck quark) is accompanied by a complication in the spectator system.

## 4 A perturbative model

Most of the features discussed above were verified in an perturbative model calculation  (cf. Fig. 4). The one-, two- and three-gluon exchange amplitudes were evaluated in the Bj limit for $`x_B0`$ in both Feynman and LC gauge, using various prescriptions for the $`k^+=0`$ poles, and in covariant as well as $`x^+`$-ordered perturbation theory. In this way the gauge dependence of the individual diagrams could be seen to be compatible with the gauge independence of the physical cross section. In particular, the fact that the $`k^+=0`$ poles are absent in the complete sum of diagrams was verified.

In impact parameter space the $`n`$-gluon exchange amplitudes were (for $`n=1,2,3`$) found to have the form $`A_nV(\gamma ^{})W^n`$, where $`V`$ is the virtual photon wave function and $`W`$ a rescattering factor of the q$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pair. This corresponds to the structure expected in the dipole frame at small $`x_B`$, where the quark pair is created by the photon and then rescatters in the target. The perturbative calculation can of course be equivalently done in the DIS frame.

Summing the gluon exchanges to all orders gives

$$|\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n|=\left|\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[g^2W(\stackrel{}{r}_{},\stackrel{}{R}_{})/2\right]}{g^2W(\stackrel{}{r}_{},\stackrel{}{R}_{})/2}A_1(p_2^{},\stackrel{}{r}_{},\stackrel{}{R}_{})\right|$$
(8)
where

$$W(\stackrel{}{r}_{},\stackrel{}{R}_{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{|\stackrel{}{R}_{}+\stackrel{}{r}_{}|}{R_{}}\right)$$
(9)
with $`\stackrel{}{r}_{}`$ the transverse size of the produced quark pair, $`\stackrel{}{R}_{}`$ the distance between the pair and the target (see Fig. 4b), and $`g`$ the gauge coupling. Hence the higher order corrections reduce the magnitude of the Born amplitude $`A_1`$, and thus also of the DIS cross section. This “shadowing” effect arises from destructive interference between the rescattering amplitudes $`A_n`$.

The rescattering gives the amplitudes complex phases. While the Born ($`A_1`$) amplitude is real, the two-gluon exchange amplitude $`A_2`$ is purely imaginary in the $`x_B0`$ limit, as mandated by analyticity and crossing. Hence the intermediate state between the gluon exchanges in Fig. 4b is on-shell. This allows to write the full amplitude as a product of two single gluon exchange subamplitudes (Fig. 5). The subamplitudes are on-shell and hence gauge invariant: The feature of on-shell intermediate states, and hence rescattering, is present in Feynman as well as in LC gauge.

The $`A_2`$ amplitude is also the lowest order contribution to diffractive DIS, characterized by color singlet exchange. This leading twist part of the total DIS cross section thus explicitly arises from rescattering of the struck quark in the target.

## 5 Single spin asymmetry

The realization that rescattering gives rise to complex phases in DIS amplitudes led to interesting developments for the transverse spin asymmetry in DIS . The data  indicated a sizeable target spin asymmetry, in apparent conflict with a theorem  that such effects are higher twist. The asymmetry for a transversely polarized target is given by the imaginary part of the interference between target helicity flip and non-flip, $`SSAIm(T_\lambda T_\lambda ^{})`$, and is thus sensitive to phase differences. The gluon rescattering contribution in the model Feynman diagram of Fig. 6b provides such a phase, resulting in an $`SSA`$ at leading twist .

The rescattering phases are contained in the path ordered exponential of the parton distribution (1). The presence of the exponential violates the assumptions that were made  in deriving the theorem, and indeed allows a leading twist asymmetry . This effect is unrelated to the transverse spin carried by the struck quark, making a measurement of the latter more challenging.

## 6 Discussion

Our discussion has centered on why the effects of the path ordered integral

$$\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_0^x^{}𝑑w^{}A^+(w^{})\right]$$
(10)
in the expression (1) of the parton distribution cannot be eliminated. The exponential reduces to unity in light cone gauge ($`A^+=0`$), but this merely shifts its effects to the spectator system. The exponential arises from the rescattering of the struck quark in the target. This makes the scattering amplitudes complex, giving rise to diffraction and shadowing phenomena in DIS. Such physical effects cannot be eliminated by a gauge choice.

Some misunderstandings occur due to imprecise use of the term “final state interactions”. In the present context we should differentiate between interactions at three time scales (in the target rest frame):

1. The hadronization time of the struck quark. Due to Lorentz dilation this is proportional to the quark energy: $`t=x^0\nu `$. The total DIS cross section is independent of interactions occurring at the hadronization time scale.
2. The Ioffe time $`t_I=\nu /Q^2=1/(2m_Nx_B)`$, which is finite in the Bj limit. Interactions occurring within the Ioffe time affect the DIS cross section. The struck quark rescattering which gives rise to the path ordered exponential occurs at this time scale. Note that the corresponding LC time $`x^+=t+z1/\nu `$ is infinitesimal in the DIS frame, due to a cancellation between the time $`t`$ and the distance $`z`$ when the photon moves in the negative $`z`$-direction.
3. The exact LC time $`x^+`$ of the virtual photon interaction. This is relevant for QCD quantized at a given $`x^+`$, and in $`x^+`$-ordered perturbation theory. Interactions occurring before the photon interaction build the light cone wave function of the target. Struck quark rescattering occuring after this time gives rise to dynamic phases which are specific to DIS, and are not present in the wave function of an isolated hadron.

The struck quark rescattering that occurs at the Ioffe time is within the time (or $`x^+`$) resolution of the virtual photon. It is therefore possible to regard those interactions as part of an “augmented” target wave function, specific to the hard inclusive probe. Since the interactions occur at infinitesimal $`x^+1/\nu `$ and the exchanged gluons likewise carry $`k^+1/\nu `$, the augmented wave function apparently differs from the standard one through “zero modes”. Such modes  are possible for theories quantized on a light-like surface, which allows causal (light-like) connections.

It is sobering to realize that many questions are still open concerning such a basic QCD process as deep inelastic scattering, more than 30 years after it first was discovered.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of this meeting for their kind invitation. The work I have presented is based on work done with Stan Brodsky, Nils Marchal, Stéphane Peigné and Francesco Sannino. I am grateful to them and many others for helpful discussions.


text:
# Intermittency of glassy relaxation and the emergence of a non-equilibrium spontaneous measure in the aging regime

## Abstract

We consider heat exchange processes between non-equilibrium aging systems (in their activated regime) and the thermal bath in contact. We discuss a scenario where two different heat exchange processes concur in the overall heat dissipation: a stimulated fast process determined by the temperature of the bath and a spontaneous intermittent process determined by the fact that the system has been prepared in a non-equilibrium state. The latter is described by a probability distribution function (PDF) that has an exponential tail of width given by a parameter $`\lambda `$, and satisfies a fluctuation theorem (FT) governed by that parameter. The value of $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the so-called effective temperature, thereby providing a practical way to experimentally measure it by analyzing the PDF of intermittent events.

After decades of research many aspects of the glass state still defy our comprehension. Mode-coupling theory (MCT) provides a consistent framework  to describe relaxational processes experimentally observed in a given temperature range. However, the structural arrest predicted by the ideal version of MCT is not observed, thereby activated processes have been advocated to drive the relaxation toward the equilibrium state. A physical description of these activated processes remains obscure as no clear experimental identification has been established. It has been long suspected  that activated processes in glasses are not driven by free-energy differences between nucleating phases (e.g. liquid versus solid) but rather by an entropic mechanism involving decay among a large number of physically indistinguishable coexisting phases. This coexistence is a rather new concept in statistical physics, however it is one of the central elements in spin-glass theory , known to provide a good qualitative description of many aspects experimentally observed in disordered magnets and structural glasses. From the experimental point of view the identification of such activated processes appears challenging as no specific physical property can be targeted. The presently accepted view is that activated processes are experimentally accessible through direct observation of cooperative motion of small (nanometer sized) regions of particles, also called cooperatively rearranging regions (CRRs). Indirect evidences of activation events have been already reported in confocal scanning microscopy  and light scattering  (using time resolved correlation analysis) of colloidal systems. In addition, dielectric noise sensitive measurements in glass formers have detected intermittent voltage signals with long tails in the corresponding probability distribution functions (PDFs) . The purpose of this paper is to show that activated processes in structural glasses are related to intermittency effects theoretically described in terms of a spontaneous heat exchange process that generates a non-equilibrium measure and an associated fluctuation theorem (FT). Intermittency measurements provide a way to identify these spontaneous processes as well as quantify FDT violations.

Let us consider a glass former quenched from a high temperature (where the system is initially equilibrated) to a lower value $`T<T_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$ ($`T_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$ being the MCT temperature) where slow relaxation and activated dynamics sets in. During the aging process heat $`Q`$ is constantly exchanged between the system and the bath. According to our view, this exchange occurs in two different ways that we will refer as stimulated and spontaneous. The stimulated way corresponds to a continuous back and forth heat exchange between the sample and the bath, the net average heat exchange being zero on timescales much smaller than the age of the system $`t_w`$. Were one to measure the statistical distribution $`P^{\mathrm{st}}(Q)`$ of the heat released by this process from system to bath along $`N_t`$ time intervals of regular duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, a Gaussian distribution centered around zero would be observed. We call this process stimulated because it is strictly dependent on the presence of the thermal bath meaning that the variance of $`P^{\mathrm{st}}(Q)`$ is dependent on $`T`$ but independent of $`t_w`$. The spontaneous way of relaxation is different as it occurs in a much longer timescale compared to the stimulated way. It occurs by an intermittent heat release from the system to the surroundings (and from there to the thermal bath), yet the net average of heat supplied by this mechanism is not zero. For were one to measure the statistical distribution $`P^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)`$ of the intermittent heat released from system to the bath by this process an exponential tail, characteristic of first order Markov processes, would be observed. This release of heat we call spontaneous because it is determined by the fact that the system has been prepared in a non-equilibrium state rather than by the value of the temperature $`T`$ of the bath. Therefore, in contrast to the previous case, the width of the exponential tail would be $`T`$ independent but $`t_w`$ dependent and gradually change as the final equilibrium state is approached. During an aging process both heat exchange mechanisms appear intertwined in a complex pattern, yet it would be possible to discern them by measuring the distribution $`P(Q)`$ of heat exchanged and disentangling the Gaussian and exponential components. Unfortunately, the measurement of heat transfer between the system and the bath appears very difficult so one has to look for indirect ways of detecting the existence of these two processes. We aim to validate the previous scenario by doing numerical simulations on a given class of models of glass forming liquids and propose some predictions to be challenged in experiments.

To discern the stimulated and the spontaneous components from the global statistical distribution of transferred heat $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$, the following protocol has been implemented (other choices lead to similar results, yet the the present one has revealed the most efficient). Let us consider systems with stochastic dynamics. Initially the system is equilibrated at a temperature $`T_iT_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$. Then the temperature is instantaneously changed to $`T<T_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$ (this defines the initial time $`t=0`$) and configurations evolved. In addition to the runtime configuration it is convenient to keep track of the “valley” to which a given configuration belongs. A constructive approach to identify valleys has been proposed by Stillinger and Weber who have considered a topographic view of the potential energy landscape where valleys are called inherent structures (IS) . The system is aged for a time $`t_w`$ and the corresponding IS recorded. Dynamics continues until a new IS is found, thereby defining the first jump. The exchanged heat $`Q`$ corresponding to that jump is recorded. For stochastic systems no work is exerted upon the system so $`Q=\mathrm{\Delta }E=E(𝒞^{})E(𝒞)`$ where $`𝒞`$ is the runtime configuration at $`t_w`$ and $`𝒞^{}`$ the runtime configuration just after the first jump occurs. If $`Q>0`$ heat is transferred from the bath toward the system and vice versa. The quenching experiment is repeated many times, each quench a value of $`Q`$ is obtained, and the probability distribution function (PDF) $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$ measured. Qualitative identical results are obtained if the runtime configuration is used to control when the first jump occurs. The main advantage of keeping track of the IS is that it provides a useful way to filter out collective spin (or particles) rearrangements. Related procedures have been used to analyze trapping time distributions . Here we will concentrate our attention in the exchange heat distribution, trying to establish a link between the intermittency observed and the existence of a FT describing the spontaneous process.

We have considered the random-orthogonal spin-glass model (ROM)  which deserves interest as it is a good microscopic realization of the random-energy model, a phenomenological model of inherent simplicity commonly used in the study of disordered systems . Three different reasons motivate our choice: 1) The ROM is of the mean-field type (as interactions are long ranged) and shows dynamical properties in agreement with the predictions of the ideal version of MCT. It has been shown  to have a MCT transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$ below which the relaxation time diverges exponentially fast with $`N`$; 2) If $`T<T_{\mathrm{MCT}}`$ and the number of spins $`N`$ is not too large then activated processes are observable for long enough times . Moreover, activation barriers can be tuned by changing the size of the system ; 3) Computation of $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$ is numerically affordable.

The ROM is defined in terms of a set of $`N`$ spin variables that can take two values $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$, each configuration corresponding to a set of spin values, $`𝒞=\{\sigma _i;1iN\}`$. Spins interact via random exchange couplings $`J_{ij}`$ leading to an energy function with strong disorder-induced frustration and therefore to a complex pattern of local minima. The energy $`E`$ of a configuration is given by $`E=2_{i<j}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j`$ where the $`J_{ij}`$ are Gaussian distributed variables (zero mean and variance $`1/N`$) with correlations $`_{i=1}^NJ_{ij}J_{ik}=\delta _{jk}`$. A Monte Carlo dynamics is implemented where spins are randomly selected and updated $`\sigma _i\sigma _i`$ depending on the energy change $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ according to the Metropolis algorithm. For sake of clarity, all along the paper, we will present results for $`N=64`$ where the statistics collected is much better. Nevertheless, as a check of the correctness of our results, other sizes have been investigated $`N=32,48,300`$ finding identical results in all cases (the $`N`$ dependence of the values of the trapping times ensure that we are indeed observing activated processes). The ROM has a MCT transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{MCT}}0.53`$. Three quenching temperatures have been investigated $`T=0.3,0.2,0.1`$ and around $`10^4`$ different quenches have been collected for each experiment.

Figure 1 shows the $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$ for different values of $`t_w`$ and $`T`$. It clearly shows the existence of two sectors, a Gaussian sector for small heat values of $`Q`$ and an exponential tail extending down to negative $`Q`$ values. A salient feature of this figure is the clear cut distinction existing between the two sectors, the total amount of heat released by the spontaneous mechanism is generally quite small (compared to the overall absolute value of the heat exchanged through the stimulated process) yet the spontaneous decay is the leading mechanism by which heat is released to the bath. The stimulated and the spontaneous sectors can be very well fitted to a Gaussian $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{st}}(Q)\mathrm{exp}((Qa)^2/(2b^2))`$ and an exponential function $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)\mathrm{exp}(Q/\lambda )`$ respectively, the normalization constant of these distributions being unimportant. In general there is no reason a priori for the spontaneous component not to display a Gaussian correction, $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)\mathrm{exp}(Q/\lambda +𝒪(Q^2))`$, yet in the present case this correction appears negligible. In Table I we show the results obtained for the fitting parameters. The numbers there reported confirm the scenario previously described. As the temperature of the bath decreases the width of the Gaussian $`b^2`$ decreases. On the other hand, the width of the Gaussian is nearly $`t_w`$ independent and the width of the exponential tail $`\lambda `$ decreases with $`t_w`$. Note that the average heat exchanged through the stimulated process (the parameter $`a`$) is different form zero, the reason being our protocol where values of $`Q`$ are measured along non-regularly spaced time intervals.

The result for the spontaneous component $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)\mathrm{exp}(Q/\lambda +𝒪(Q^2))`$ can be recast in the form of a FT ,

$$\frac{P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)}{P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2Q}{\lambda }\right).$$
(1)
An explicit numerical check of this identity requires to identify the spontaneous component $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)`$ out of the global distribution $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$. This is a difficult task, as heat fluctuations with $`Q>0`$ are masked by the stimulated component. Actually spontaneous events with $`Q>0`$ are never observed, however they enter into the formulation of the FT. We plan to substantiate the fact that the easiest way to probe spontaneous transitions with $`Q>0`$ is by applying an external perturbation that lifts the energy levels of the system making these transitions accessible. This is accomplished by the evaluation of fluctuation-dissipation relations as they specifically contain these transitions. A general feature of glassy systems is the existence of violations of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT)  that lead to a modified version of the theorem and have been interpreted in terms of an effective macroscopic temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ . An important aspect of effective temperatures is that they are generally uncoupled to the temperature of the bath, their emergence thought to be related to the presence of an exponential density of states. Previous considerations and the validity of (1) call for a connection between the value of $`\lambda `$ and the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as derived from the modified FDT. The outcome of all these considerations is that $`\lambda 2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the factor $`2`$ being consequence of the validity of the FT (1). The proof of this relation is based on the presence of an exponential tail of the heat released from system to bath and a microcanonical entropic argument a la Edwards used in granular media  that counts the number of valleys with free energy $`F`$ available to the system (for a discussion of how partitioning of the phase space in valleys can be accomplished see ). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(F)`$ stand for the number of valleys of free-energy $`F`$ and let $`Q`$ be the heat released to the system when jumping from a valley of free energy $`F`$ to a valley of free energy $`F^{}`$. Because spontaneous transitions are entropically driven the distribution $`P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)`$ is proportional to the number $`\mathrm{\Omega }(F^{})`$. For the ratio between the forward and reverse transitions we can write,

$$\frac{P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)}{P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(F^{})}{\mathrm{\Omega }(F)}.$$
(2)
The number of valleys with a given free energy defines a configurational entropy of valleys $`S_c(F)=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Omega }(F))`$. Inserting this dependence and identifying (2) with (1) we obtain,

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2Q}{\lambda })=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{S_c(F)}{F}\mathrm{\Delta }F\right)$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=F^{}F`$ and where we have kept the linear term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ in the r.h.s. Using the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }ET\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ and the identity $`Q=\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ as well as the definition for the effective temperature $`1/T_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{S_c(F)}{F}`$ we obtain the result,

$$\frac{1}{\lambda }=\frac{1}{2T_{\mathrm{eff}}}\left(1T\frac{S(E)}{E}\right)$$
(4)
where $`S(E)`$ denotes the dependence of the entropy of individual valleys on their average energy $`E`$. A good approximation amounts to retain valleys as having very similar properties, in that case $`S(E)`$ is only a function of the temperature of the bath and $`\lambda =2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. In other cases, however, $`S(E)`$ is simply very small and so is the term $`\frac{S(E)}{E}`$. This is the case of the ROM where, among other features, the entropy of valleys has been shown to be quite small  so the identity $`\lambda =2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is a very good approximation. Let us mention that both $`\lambda `$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in (4) are time dependent, an indirect manifestation of the existence of activated processes. The identity (4) is challenged in Figure 2 were we show the corresponding fluctuation-dissipation plots. These are constructed by evaluating the zero-field cooled susceptibility $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ at time $`t`$ after applying a small field $`h_0`$ at $`t_w`$, the corresponding correlation $`C(t,t_w)`$, and plotting one in terms of the other . The identity $`\lambda =2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is well verified in all cases.

To better justify the FT (1) and the identity (4) we have considered a family of exactly solvable models where these results can be explicitly checked. The family of models is defined by an ensemble of $`N`$ one-dimensional oscillators described by the variables $`\{x_i;1iN\}`$ where $`\mathrm{}<x_i\mathrm{}`$. Oscillators are subject to a potential $`V(x)=\frac{k}{2p}x^{2p}`$ where $`k`$ is a stiffness constant and $`p`$ is an integer $`p1`$. The total energy of the ensemble is given by $`E=_{i=1}^NV(x_i)`$. The model being non-interacting has no phase transition at finite temperature and the partition function is given by $`𝒵=𝒵_1^N`$ with $`𝒵_1=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}(\beta V(x))`$. For this family of models to show glassy behavior at low temperatures we consider a Monte Carlo dynamics where oscillator positions are updated in parallel $`x_ix_i+\frac{r_i}{\sqrt{N}}`$, and the $`r_i`$ are random distributed variables of zero mean and variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The case $`p=1`$ corresponds to the harmonic oscillator model introduced in . The Monte Carlo dynamics generates glassy behavior at $`T=0`$ as the ground state configuration $`x_i=0`$ has zero measure, thereby remaining unaccessible due to the finite value of the step distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. At $`T=0`$ relaxation becomes logarithmic and the system partially equilibrates over the surface of constant energy with spontaneous energy decays whenever a configuration with lower energy is found. In such adiabatic regime each configuration corresponds to a valley so the identity $`\lambda =2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is expected to be exact. Moreover because at $`T=0`$ there is no stimulated component, all heat exchanges are spontaneous and $`P_{t_w}(Q)=P_{t_w}^{\mathrm{sp}}(Q)`$. Rather than addressing the full dynamical solution  we content ourselves to present the main steps of the calculation. To compute the $`P_{t_w}(Q)`$ is enough to determine the PDF of energy changes given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=Q=\frac{k}{2p}_i_{l=1}^{2p}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2p}{l}\right)x_i^{2pl}r_i^lN^{l/2}`$. It is easy to verify that such a distribution is a Gaussian of mean $`\overline{Q}=\frac{k(p1)}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^2h_p`$ and variance $`\overline{Q^2}\overline{Q}^2=k^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2h_{2p}`$ with $`h_p=x^{2(p1)}`$, the average taken over dynamical histories. Inserting the expression for the Gaussian in the FT (1) gives the exact result $`\lambda =\frac{2kh_{2p}}{(2p1)h_p}`$. For relaxation is adiabatic, the moments $`h_p`$, albeit time dependent functions through the energy $`E`$, are related each other by the corresponding equilibrium relations. A straightforward calculation gives $`h_{2p}/h_p=(2p1)(2p)E/Nk`$. Inserting this expression into the previous one we get $`\lambda =4pE/N`$, and using the relation $`S_c(E)=\frac{N}{2p}\mathrm{log}(E)`$ we obtain $`\lambda =2/S_c^{}(E)=2T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. As we said, the total entropy coincides with the configurational entropy as configurations correspond to valleys.

Albeit in a different context, a FT strikingly similar to (1) has been recently obtained  for the case of a Brownian particle in a steady state when dragged by a moving harmonic potential and subjected to a viscous drag force. The result (1) underlies the connection between intermittency and entropy production in the aging regime beyond the case of non-equilibrium systems in their steady states . This raises the intriguing possibility that heat exchange FTs are widespread in condensed matter physics in many non-equilibrium situations.

The experimental determination of the two types of heat emission here described could be addressed in Nyquist noise measurements of glass formers where voltage noise fluctuations induce heat dissipation in the resonant cavity. Indeed the heat dissipated by a resonant cavity of impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ should be proportional to $`V^2(\omega )/Z(\omega )`$ and intermittent bursts in the voltage signal would correspond to spontaneously dissipated heat events. Actually, recent experiments  have obtained PDFs of the voltage signal $`V`$ whose profile is strikingly similar to the results shown in Figure 1. Moreover, these profiles show the presence of exponential tails with a slowly decaying width (therefore, in agreement with our results) that we interpret in terms of a time-dependent effective temperature. Conversion of the voltage into dissipated power will result in a signal whose PDF still shows intermittency. The width of the exponential tail will satisfy $`\lambda (t_w)=cT_{\mathrm{eff}}(t_w)`$, the structural constant $`c`$ depending on the cavity as well as on the type of coupling between the system and the cavity. Similarly, the non-Gaussian tails observed by time resolved correlation analysis of intensity signals in colloidal glasses  could be interpreted in terms of exponential tails describing spontaneous events where heat is released to the bath due to the existence of CRRs. In general, intermittency measurements offer a potentially interesting vein where new quantitative results on the non-equilibrium dynamics of slow systems can be inferred. Finally, let us mention that the existence of a FT that governs heat exchanges in the non-equilibrium aging state can be further investigated in numerical and theoretical investigations of other models for the glass transition. Preliminary investigations in Lennard-Jones binary mixtures confirm all the results we have presented for the ROM. A detailed exposition of these results will be presented in the future. These ideas could be also extended to granular systems where now relaxed free volume (instead of released heat) would describe the relaxation . The results here purported suggest the existence of an interesting link between general theoretical aspects of the non-equilibrium dynamics of glass formers in their aging regime and intermittent noise signals experimentally measurable by different methods. Further work in experiments, theory and simulations will clarify the implications and potentialities of the present approach.

Acknowledgments. FR is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología Grant BFM2001-3525 and Generalitat de Catalunya.


text:
# The unreasonable accuracy of the Jastrow approach in many-body physics

(March 19, 2024)

## Abstract

We investigate in a simple model whether a Jastrow-based approach for a many-body system containing two-body interactions can be exact. By comparison with recent assertions to the contrary, we find that in general the exact wave function is *not* purely two-body correlated. Nonetheless, we show that the energy estimate obtained from the calculations is as accurate as it can possibly be, suggesting why Jastrow wave functions are such a good choice.

A long-standing and ongoing fundamental problem in quantum physics is the search for general methods to provide accurate descriptions of strongly interacting systems with many degrees of freedom, starting from a microscopic Hamiltonian. One of the first such broadly based techniques, which is still in widespread use, was introduced by Feenberg Feenberg . He generalized a similar variational approach of Jastrow Jastrow , the basic idea of which is that in a strongly correlated $`N`$-body system the wave function may be approximated as the product of two parts. The first is a simple “uncorrelated” part which incorporates the correct quantum statistics (e.g., a Slater determinant for fermions). The second describes the correlations and is a product of pairwise Jastrow factors, which depends only on the interparticle separations.

Many, if not most, of the key methods in modern quantum many-body theory are based on similar ideas, but often with simple but subtle differences which have deep implications, as we elaborate below. For example, the variational Monte Carlo (VMC) method often employs a parametrized Jastrow-correlated wave function which is optimized using a statistical approach. Although the VMC method is not intrinsically tied to Jastrow wave functions, their usefulness has been proven empirically by the high level of accuracy that can be reached with such a simple form of trial wave function in many applications in nuclear physics and elsewhere VMC . Many authors in many different fields have attempted to understand the surprisingly accurate results obtained by Jastrow trial wave functions. For example, Gaudoin *et al.* Gaudoin  have shown how by generalizing the random phase approximation of the electron gas to the inhomogeneous case, a Slater-Jastrow trial wave function arises rather naturally. They also showed how the uncorrelated Slater determinant contains optimal orbitals which are close both to standard Hartree-Fock orbitals and to orbitals obtained from density-functional theory within the local density approximation, even though neither of these latter approaches includes Jastrow factors *a priori*.

Although the use of such simple Jastrow-correlated many-body wave functions has been seen to give a large part of the correlation energy in many diverse applications, one would also like to improve the method. Several such refinements have been widely used. Firstly, one may extend the two-body correlations to depend also on internal quantum numbers such as spin. This is particularly important in cases where the interactions are state-dependent, such as in nuclear physics. State-dependence in the two-body correlators turns them effectively into operators. The fact that the parameters of a given particle occur in many of the Jastrow factors then leads to them not commuting between themselves, and hence the product of $`N(N1)/2`$ correlation operators needs to be symmetrized. This considerably complicates the formalism, and the Fermi hypernetted chain (FHNC) method FHNC  is one approach that deals with it. It is based on a cluster expansion of the Jastrow correlations, and the method has proven to be quite accurate. An alternative to the FHNC method for Hamiltonians which include tensor and other spin-dependent interactions has been developed by Schmidt and Fantoni FS , using a purely numerical approach. A second extension of the simplest Jastrow scheme is the inclusion of the product of all 3-body scalar cluster correlation functions, $`_{i<j<k}f(r_{ij},r_{jk},r_{ki})`$, and similar products of $`n`$-body cluster correlation functions with $`n>3`$, as well as the Jastrow product of all 2-body correlation functions, $`_{i<j}f(r_{ij})`$. Thirdly, the more general method of correlated basis functions (CBF) Feenberg ; FHNC ; CBF , which employs a correlated basis rather than a single trial wave function as above, is one of the two most successful universal many-body methods available today. The correlation operator in CBF calculations is commonly taken as a product of a state-dependent part and a scalar Jastrow-Feenberg part.

The main competitor to the many-body techniques outlined above is the coupled cluster method (CCM) Ray . It is based on describing the correlations in terms of exponentiated *independent* excitations, which are parametrized as multiconfigurational creation operators with respect to some suitable reference state. The CCM thereby completely avoids the complications arising from the overlapping products of correlation functions inherent in the Jastrow method. A huge advantage is that it is now much easier to deal with state dependence, since the issue of non-commutativity of the correlation operators never arises. A corresponding disadvantage is that it is much more difficult to deal with such extreme correlations as arise in hard-core systems in the second-quantized representation that provides the natural framework for the CCM than it is in the first-quantized representation in which the Jastrow and CBF methods are most naturally expressed.

Both the CBF method and the CCM have been widely applied in many different areas of quantum many-body physics outside the field of nuclear physics to which both can trace their origins. For example, the CCM has found many applications in quantum chemistry, where it is the method of first choice for very accurate descriptions of highly correlated atoms and molecules (see, e.g., Ref. Bartlett ). Recently, in this context, an attempt was made Nooijen  to extend the CCM to include more general excitations than those generated by exponentiated *independent* two-particle/two-hole excitations.

This extension is tantamount to the use of state-dependent Jastrow wave functions, although the equations to be solved differ slightly from the usual variational ones, as discussed more fully below. There are now claims in the literature that this method can give the *exact* ground state wave function for systems interacting via pairwise forces Nooijen ; Piecuch . We shall argue here that although the method can certainly be extremely accurate, it is *not* in general exact.

Our fundamental concern is thus twofold: why is the Jastrow method so accurate, and what limits its accuracy? One obvious such limit is clearly any constraint on the parametrisation of the correlation functions. However, the key issue is that even if we use the most general parametrisation possible, can the Jastrow method be exact? In view of our earlier discussion, it would clearly be surprising if it were always exact, but in recent papers Nooijen Nooijen  and Piecuch and his collaborators Piecuch  have claimed that this is the case. Their basic idea is to work in a finite part of occupation-number space, and obtain equations for the coefficients in a second-quantized two-body operator that specifies the correlations. Although there are an equal number of unknowns and equations, in practice there seems to be a large degeneracy to the solutions. Nevertheless, by tackling semi-realistic problems they find such a high accuracy that the method *seems* exact. In this letter we analyse their method, and we argue that such high accuracy is intrinsic to the Jastrow approach underlying their calculations. In particular, we analyse a simple model with the aim of shedding some light on the issues raised above.

In the original Jastrow approach a correlated $`N`$-particle wave function is decomposed as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝒓_1,\mathrm{},𝒓_N)=\left(\underset{i<j}{}f(r_{ij})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (𝒓_1,\mathrm{},𝒓_N),$$
(1)
where $`f(r_{ij})`$ incorporates the effects of short-range correlations between the particles, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a “simple” wave function, typically Hartree or Hartree-Fock, which also incorporates internal quantum numbers such as spin, etc., which we collectively denote by the label “$`\alpha `$”.

We now rewrite the product of correlation functions in terms of a sum, by means of an exponential representation,

$$\underset{i<j}{}f(r_{ij})=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}u(r_{ij})\right).$$
(2)
The sum in the exponent can be recognized as a special case of a general two-body operator. If we look at state-dependent correlations which involve internal degrees of freedom as well as relative coordinates, the correlated wave function is characterized by a Jastrow *operator*,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{T}_2\right)|\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(3)
where the correlator $`\widehat{T}_2`$ is a general two-body operator.

In the work of Nooijen Nooijen  it has been argued that Eq. (3) represents the exact ground state for *any* two-body Hamiltonian. Although the examples studied recently ex ; Piecuch  provide numerical support for this method, they are neither rigorous nor transparent. This is partially because they involve realistic or semi-realistic applications, where the limitations and successes of the approach are less evident, and partially because, as in most quantum-chemistry problems, the results are largely perturbative, and thus do not provide a rigorous test of the general method.

We can easily derive the form of Jastrow’s method introduced by Nooijen for use in a finite configuration space. This starts from a general Jastrow operator in the form $`\widehat{T}=_it_i\widehat{O}_i,`$ where $`\widehat{O}_i`$ is a complete set of two-body operators (we shall also include one-body operators in our analysis, but the principle remains the same). We label a complete normalised basis in the space by $`|n`$, with $`|0=|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The ground-state wave function is assumed to take the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\widehat{T}}|\mathrm{\Phi },\widehat{H}|\mathrm{\Psi }=E|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(4)
where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a simple reference state. One then evaluates the energy using a technique similar to that used in the coupled cluster method,

$$E=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}}\widehat{H}e^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(5)
We now use the fact that if $`e^{\widehat{T}}|0`$ is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, it must satisfy the equations H\_Nouji

$$0=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}^{}}\widehat{O}_i\widehat{H}e^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }E\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}^{}}\widehat{O}_ie^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(6)
Actually, very similar equations follow from the variational approach to the Jastrow problems. By minimising the energy

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}^{}}\widehat{H}e^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}^{}}e^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(7)
and using hermiticity, we get Eq. (6), apart from the fact we must use Eq. (7) for $`E`$ rather than the similarity transformed expression in Eq. (5).

Finally, one can use the energy relation (5) combined with completeness to write the basic equations (6) in the form derived in Nooijen’s original work

$$\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{\widehat{T}^{}}\widehat{O}_ie^{\widehat{T}}\right|nn\left|e^{\widehat{T}}\widehat{H}e^{\widehat{T}}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(8)
Since the number of equations in Eqs. (6,8) equals the number of unknowns in the operator $`\widehat{T}`$, one might expect that these equations have a solution. Since the equations are highly non-linear, there is no general proof of this assertion, and its validity must depend on the nature of the Hamiltonian. One may argue that if $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is close to an eigenfunction of $`\widehat{H}`$, a perturbative argument will show that there may well be a solution to the problem.

One of the reasons to believe that the Jastrow method may be exact is based on the technique of Euclidean filtering, as disccused in Refs. Nooijen ; Piecuch . This starts from the fact that the wave function

$$|\psi (t)=e^{\widehat{H}t}|\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }\left|e^{2\widehat{H}t}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/2}$$
(9)
approaches the exact one as $`t\mathrm{}`$, and that it is obviously a two-body correlated wave function for all *finite* $`t`$. If, in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, the wave function $`|\psi (t)`$ remains a two-body wave function, it must be a solution to Eqs. (6). For this argument to be correct, it is a necessary and sufficient condition that the set of two-body-correlated wave functions is complete. The non-trivial nature of such a statement can be seen from the fact that we try to find a set of finite parameters in the operator $`\widehat{T}`$ that can describe the same physics as obtained by the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (9). Actually, what we shall do below is provide an indirect proof that the exact solution for a simple problem, which by the filtering argument must also be the limit of $`|\psi (t)`$, is *not* two-body correlated.

A standard test-bed for many-body calculations is the Lipkin model. This is a two-level model, where fermions can occupy either of two levels. If we denote by $`a_{\pm ,i}^{}`$ the creation operator of a fermion in state $`i`$ in either the upper ($`+`$) or lower level ($``$), the Hamiltonian of this model can be written in the form

$$\widehat{H}=J_0+\lambda \left(J_+^2+J_{}^2\right),$$
(10)
where

$`J_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}\left(a_{+,i}^{}a_{+,i}a_{,i}^{}a_{,i}\right),`$
$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}a_{+,i}^{}a_{,i},J_{}=J_+^{}.`$ (11)
The fact that only $`SU(2)`$ generators appear means that we can diagonalise states within different irreps of this algebra; here we shall concentrate on the one with $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }/2`$. Hence we shall only be considering the states

$$|M=J+n=\sqrt{\frac{(2Jn)!}{n!(2J)!}}(J_+)^n\underset{i=1}{\overset{2J}{}}a_{,i}^{}|0.$$
(12)
There are only a small number of two-body operators in the relevant space, and most of these do not respect the $`SU(2)`$ dynamical symmetry of the Hamiltonian. This leads to the only allowed two-body operators being $`J_+^2`$, $`J_{}^2`$, $`J_+J_{}`$, $`J_{}J_+`$, and $`J_0^2`$. The last three operators are overcomplete. Thus, when acting in the basis of Eq. (12,) all three of them correspond to a quadratic function in $`n`$. From the combination we can then construct a constant, linear and quadratic piece. The constant part is irrelevant for time-independent problems, and we only need the linear and quadratic parts. These can be reached with the operators $`J_0^2`$ and $`J_0`$ as well, which are what we shall use. The single-particle operator $`J_0`$ does not seem to play a key role. We see no *a priori* reason why this operator is irrelevant in the current calculation, apart from the fact that in the Jastrow method one-body operators correspond to a general modification of the single particle wave functions.

We now attempt to investigate perturbatively whether the result from Nooijen’s method agrees with the exact result. We write

$$t_i=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t_i^{(n)}\lambda ^n,$$
(13)
and use as our reference state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|M=J`$, the exact eigenstate for $`\lambda =0`$. There are three ways to solve the problem. Firstly, we can solve Eqs. (5) and (8) order by order in $`\lambda `$, which we shall refer to as “the solution to Nooijen’s equations”. Alternatively, we can either combine Eq. (8) with Eq. (7) to “solve the variational problem”, or we can write down the exact wave function in Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory, including all the arbitrary constants related to its normalisation, and require that $`e^T|0`$ is equal to this wave function order by order in $`\lambda `$ (equality of wave functions). All three approaches only involve matrix algebra, which can easily be done with a computer-algebra package. The result in each case is very instructive.

We look at these solutions as we vary $`J`$ from 1 to $`8`$, i.e., we look at even particle numbers only. The number of wave functions mixing in the ground state is easily seen to be $`J+1`$, so the number of parameters in the wave function changes from larger than the number of components, to much less than the number of components. Let us first study the equality of the wave functions.

For $`J=1,2,3`$ we have no problems, and all indications are that the wave function is exact. For all the other cases investigated we can only have equality of the wave functions up to 7th order in $`\lambda `$. If we insert this wave function in the energy expressions of Eqs. (5,7) we find that the energy for the similarity transformed result is accurate to the same order, whereas the variational estimate using the wave function is actually accurate to 14th order 111It is quite straightforward to understand this using a standard perturbative argument which can be used to show that the deviation of the energy is quadratic in any small fluctuation around the exact solution..

The solution to Nooijen’s equations is equally illuminating. First of all there appears to be an enormous degeneracy to these equations. An obvious source for such degeneracy is in the choice of normalisation of the wave function. Indeed, using intermediate normalisation drastically reduces the number of independent variables, but it doesn’t fully lift the degeneracy. We seem to be able to choose the coefficient of $`J_0`$ to equal zero, without any loss of generality. We can also impose the requirements that the coefficients of $`J_+^2`$ and $`J_{}^2`$ are odd in $`\lambda `$, and those of $`J_0^2`$ even. \[The problems cited above are totally independent of this choice, as has been checked for a few representative cases.\] An interesting observation is that the these equations have two solutions at order $`\lambda ^8`$, one of which leads to an inconsistent set of equations at the next order; the other continues. In the cases $`J3`$ it continues forever, as far as we can see, and when $`J>3`$ the solutions terminate at order $`\lambda ^{13}`$ where we again get an inconsistent set of equations. Surprisingly, this leads to a more accurate energy than above, up to order $`\lambda ^{12}`$ (which is almost, but not quite, as accurate as the Jastrow method). Note, however, that the lack of a solution to Nooijen’s equations gives rise to some problems. The deviations from zero may actually be hard to see if $`\lambda `$ is small enough, which may be an indication that for almost perturbative problems this is not such a bad approach after all.

Finally we can also solve the variational equations. It comes as no surprise that, whatever the number of particles, we can solve this problem. When $`J>3`$ the variational energy starts deviating from the exact result at order $`\lambda ^{16}`$, as expected.

From the simple model discussed here we can draw some conclusions on the use of a Jastrow-like method in configuration space. We have disproven the idea that it can be generally exact, but to our surprise it seems to be exact when the number of parameters in the correlation operator is larger than the number of parameters in a general wave function. Due to the non-linearity of the method, this is already a highly nontrivial statement. When the method breaks down the wave function is still correct to seventh order in perturbation theory, which leads to a fourteenth-order accuracy for the Jastrow method. If we input this wave function into an estimate of the energy based on a similarity transform of the Hamiltonian, we get a result that is only correct to the same order as the wave function is correct. If we determine the coefficients by what we called “Nooijen’s equations” the accuracy of the energy can be improved to twelfth order - only a little less accurate than the benchmark variational estimate! Nonetheless, if one deals carefully with the enormous degeneracy, numerical solution of the equations can be a valid approximation to a many-body system. The problem is that there is only an approximate solution to the equations, and so the method only works if the residual interaction is small in one sense or another, as is often the case in quantum-chemical calculations.

In conclusion, on the one hand we have the disappointing result that the Jastrow wave function is not in general exact for many-body systems interacting via two-body forces, in contrast to recent claims to the contrary. However, the Jastrow wave functions proposed in the new method may well be so accurate that in numerical approximations they are sufficient to obtain energies of the accuracy required, for example, in quantum chemistry calculations. It is surprising that the energy estinate of Eq. (5) is *almost* as accurate as the optimal variational estimate of Eq. (7). We see no intrinsic reason for this. Nevertheless, even when the parameters are derived from a solution to Nooijen’s equations, its is more acuurate to use the variational estimate Eq. (7).


text:
# A Note on Objects Built From Bricks without Corners

## 1 Introduction

Sibley and Wagon \[SW00\] proved that any collection of paralleograms glued whole-edge to whole-edge must have at least one “elbow”: a parallelogram with at most two neighbors. This enabled them to prove that such tilings are $`3`$-colorable. The analogous question in 3D is \[Wag02, DO03\]: Must every object built from paraellopipeds (henceforth, *bricks*) have at least one corner, a brick with at most three neighbors? The bricks must be *properly joined*: each pair is either disjoint, or intersects either in a single point, a single whole edge of each, or a single whole face of each. Two bricks in a collection are *adjacent* if they share a single whole face. Define the *brick graph* of a collection of bricks to have a node for each brick, and an arc for each pair of adjacent bricks. The question is whether there must exist a node of degree $`3`$ in the brick graph. If so, $`4`$-colorability could be established.

The answer is no: Robertson, Schweitzer, and Wagon found a polyhedron with no corner. This settled one question but raised another: Might this be true for a topological *ball*, i.e., an object of genus 0 (their Question 1)? Their example has a high genus; we show below its genus is $`13`$. The main purpose of this note is to describe another example that has genus 3.

## 2 The Buttressed Octahedron

Fig. 1 shows the $`52`$-brick example from \[RSW02\], in two views. As shown, it has corners, but when each brick is partitioned into eight sub-bricks from its center, it is an object built from bricks with no corners.

The authors did not report its genus. We compute the genus from the Euler characteristic $`VE+F=\chi `$, which is equal to $`22g`$, where $`g`$ is the genus. This computation is performed on the unrefined object in the figure; because $`\chi `$ is a topological invariant, it is unaltered by refinement/splitting. The calculations are shown in Table 1.

$`VE+F`$ $`=`$ $`140324+160=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}2g`$
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`13`$
## 3 The ZZ-Object

The overall design of our new example is shown in Fig. 2. It consists of two Z-shaped paths connecting four cubes. Each of the long connectors has no corner when split lengthwise into four bricks. Similarly, the four cubes have no corners when split into eight cubes. Prior to splitting, the object consists of only $`10`$ bricks. However, as is evident from the figure, it is self-intersecting.

In the figure, the centers of the four cubes are staggered at these coordinates:

$`(30,40,50)`$
$`(60,10,40)`$
$`(10,20,30)`$
$`(55,30,10)`$
The design of the object relies on this observation: If it can be arranged that every brick has two opposite faces covered by other bricks, then splitting will render it cornerless, with every sub-brick with $`2`$ exposed faces, and so of degree $`4`$.

The self-intersection can be removed by zig-zagging one of the Zs. The resulting object of $`14`$ bricks is shown in Fig. 3, in two views.

We again compute the Euler characteristic $`\chi `$. Because of its topological invariance, we compute it for the simpler object in Fig. 2, which has the same genus as the object in Fig. 3 . We count all vertices as part of the cubes. All $`12`$ edges of every cube are exposed, but only $`3`$ faces of each. Each of the $`6`$ connecting bricks contributes $`4`$ edges and $`4`$ faces. The calculations are shown in Table 2.

$`VE+F`$ $`=`$ $`3272+36=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}2g`$
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`3`$
## 4 Conclusion

We have constructed a $`14`$-brick, genus-$`3`$ object, which when refined by splitting, has no corners. The question remains whether there exists an object without corners of smaller genus: $`2`$, $`1`$, or $`0`$. We conjecture that all brick objects of genus $`0`$ must have a corner. This gains some support from the work in \[GO03\] which shows that one class of topological balls always has at least four corners.

### Acknowledgements.

We thank Sasha Berkoff, Asten Buckles, Jessie McCartney, and Shawna King for assisting in the preparation of Figs. 2 and 3.


text:
# Untitled Document

Doubling of Landau levels in $`GaAs/Al_xGa_{1x}As`$ heterostructures.
Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

Usually the Landau levels are given by $`(n+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ with $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=eB/mc`$. There are interactions which push the electrons from $`l=0`$ to $`l0`$ so that there is doubling in the Landau levels with $`\mathrm{}\omega _c=\frac{1}{2}g_\pm eB/mc`$ where $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm =(l+\frac{1}{2}\pm s)/(2l+1)`$. For $`s=\pm 1/2`$, two distinct values of $`\omega _c`$ appear whereas only one seems to be known in the literature. This is because only one value, $`s=1/2`$ is populated. When microwaves of a suitable frequency such as 13.1 GHz at a field of about 2.5 Tesla, are turned on, s= -1/2 also gets populated. For singlets s=0, $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm =1/2`$ so that $`\omega _c=\frac{1}{2}(eB/mc)`$. This cuts the cyclotron frequency to half and doubles the number of oscillations in the resistivity as a function of magnetic field. This theory of doubling of the oscillations agrees with the experimental data in GaAs/AlGaAs.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-40-2301 0145.Phone: 2301 0811.

1. Introduction

Recently, Mani et al have reported that at certain values of the the magnetic field, the resistance is found to become zero. This zero-resistance state has been of considerable interest and has been discussed extensively\[2-4\]. We note that this zero-resistance state is found at high magnetic fields whereas at low magnetic fields another phenomenon which may be called “doubling of levels” occurs. This phenomenon can be understood by the same theory used to understand high magnetic fields.

In this note, we show that “doubling of levels” occurs and hence the number of oscillations in the resistivity as a function of magnetic field doubles when both spin states, $`\pm 1/2`$ get populated. The $`s`$=0 state has energy levels with separation given by half of the cyclotron frequency. This factor of 1/2 is important when cyclotron frequency is used to measure the magnetic field. Thus there are two types of doubling of levels, one due to two signs of $`s=\pm 1/2`$ and another type due to $`s`$=0. This $`s`$=0 type doubling is present also in the experimental data indicating the condensation of $`s`$=0 state.

2. Theory

In a two dimensional electron system, when a magnetic field is applied normal to the surface, with zero orbital angular momentum such as for electrons in a conduction band, the electron energies become similar to that of a harmonic oscillator, $`E_n=(n+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ where $`\omega _c`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`\omega _c=eB/mc`$. Here $`e`$ is the charge of the electron, B the magnetic field, $`m`$ the electron mass and $`c`$ the velocity of light. These harmonic oscillator type levels are called “Landau levels”. The response function of such a system varies inversely as the magnetic field. The evacuation of states occurs as, $`(n+\frac{1}{2})=mcϵ_F/(eB)`$. At small values of the magnetic field, a large $`n`$ occurs. As the value of $`B`$ increases, smaller and smaller values of $`n`$ cross the Fermi level but there is only one value of $`\omega _c`$. It has been reported that both the signs of spin may be considered, i.e., $`j=l\pm s`$. In this case, the cyclotron frequency becomes\[5-10\],

$$\omega _c=\frac{1}{2}g_\pm \frac{eB}{mc}$$
(1)
where

$$\frac{1}{2}g_\pm =\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}\pm s}{2l+1}$$
(2)
so that there are two cyclotron frequencies instead of the well known single value. When $`l`$=0, $`s`$=1/2, $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm `$=1, so that well known value is recovered. When $`l`$=0, $`s`$= - 1/2, $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm `$=0, the cyclotron frequency becomes zero. The zero-frequency solution is usually associated with charge-density waves or soft modes. The $`S`$=0 state is superconducting and the charge per particle is 1/2. Two quasiparticles are needed to make one electron. Obviously, four such particles are needed to make one Cooper pair. When electron clusters are considered, there can occur different values of $`l`$. As the value of $`l`$ is varied, the effective charge may be taken as $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm e`$. For various values of $`l`$ and $`s`$ all of the predicted values match with those measured. The Zeeman energy from the above expression may be written as,

$$E_z=\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}}{2l+1}\mu _BH.S\pm \frac{S}{2l+1}\mu _BH.S$$
(3)
For $`l`$=0, $`S`$=+ 1/2, $`g_\pm `$=2. When the magnetic field of the electromagnetic field of the electron is taken into account, this value becomes 2.0023. The effect of the spin-orbit interaction is to mix the excited states so that this value is usually reduced by small amounts. Some times, the g values are not defined by the spin flip transitions of H.S but they are obtained by equating the Zeeman energy $`g\mu _BH`$ to a band gap energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in which case $`g=\mathrm{\Delta }/\mu _BH`$ is not related to the free electron value for which $`l`$=0 but such values are to be interpreted by using the band structure.

For $`S`$=0, there are spin singlets. We consider that one electron has spin up and the other spin down. Substituting S=0 in the above formula, we obtain,

$$\frac{1}{2}g_\pm =\frac{1}{2}$$
(4)
for all values of $`l`$. For $`l`$=0, we obtain superconducting states which are similar to “zero-resistance states”. For finilte $`l`$, there is a cancellation so that $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm `$=1/2. The resistivity at the plateau is $`\rho _{xy}=h/ie^2`$ which at i=1/2 is $`\rho _{xy}=2h/e^2`$. Near the plateau the flux is quantized so that the resistivity is zero. Away from the zero-resistivity state where the resistivity is less than $`h/e^2`$, the Landau levels have a separation given by the cyclotron frequency,

$$(n+\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{}\omega _c=ϵ_F$$
(5)
so that oscillations in the resistivity occur every time the field is changed so that $`n`$ changes by 1 at a time.

$$n=\frac{ϵ_F}{\mathrm{}\omega _c}$$
(6)
We make use of the formula which changes the cyclotron frequency to $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm \mathrm{}\omega _c`$. At $`s`$=0, $`\frac{1}{2}g_\pm =\frac{1}{2}`$ so that a factor of half arises in the cyclotron frequency or n changes to n/2. So whereas there were oscillations at 0,1,2, … etc. Now we have oscillations at 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, …, etc. In other words we had oscillations with frequency $`\omega _c`$ but for $`s`$=0, we have them at $`\omega _c/2`$. This will double the oscillations when $`s`$=0 is generated. If both $`s`$=+1/2 as well as -1/2 are populated, $`s`$=0 may occur and for finite $`l`$ we have oscillations in the resistivity, i.e., $`s`$=0, $`l0`$ oscillates whereas $`s`$=0, $`l`$=0 superconducts.

3. Experiment.

The samples are modulation doped $`GaAs/Al_{0.3}Ga_{0.7}As`$ heterostructures. The layers were grown by MBE on 001 face of a GaAs wafer. A 40 nm undoped $`Al_{0.3}Ga_{0.7}As`$ spacer layer was used to separate 50 nm thick Si donor layer with $`n=10^{18}cm^3`$ from the 2DEG formed between the spacer and a 500 nm GaAs buffer layer. NiCr gates were evaporated on both sides. The ESR is detected by a probe current of 200 nA at 720 Hz. The microwave is modulated with a frequency of 10.8 Hz. The change in resistivity due to microwaves is measured by another amplifier. The details of such measurements are described by Jiang et al.

In Fig.1 we show the transverse resistivity, $`\rho _{xx}`$, as a function of magnetic field. The figure (1a) shows the usual Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations due to the oscillations in the response function. At low fields, large values of $`n`$ are seen. As the field increases, the value of $`n`$ reduces. The values 4, 5 and 6 are clearly visible. At these magnetic fields only one spin orientation is available so that all of the oscillations arise from only one spin value. When microwave power of about 1 mW at the frequency of 13.1 Hz is turned on, the other spin orientation gets populated and $`s=0`$ mode condenses so that the cyclotron frequency reduces to $`\frac{1}{2}\omega _c`$. Hence the number of oscillations doubles. In figure (1b) we show the change in the resistivity as a function of magnetic field with 13.1 GHz microwave turned on. If we count the number of oscillations from 0 to 1 Tesla at least 5 maxima are seen with microwave turned off, whereas 10 maxima are seen with microwave turned on. This means that there are two times more oscillations with microwave $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑛}`$ than with microwave $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑓𝑓}`$. This is the phenomenon born out due to two spin orientations with $`S=0`$.

The g-value of -0.44 belongs to the band gap in GaAs. It varies due to spin-orbit interaction and due to temperature. At low temperatures, it is closer to the band value. At 14.1 GHz the ESR line occurs at about 2.672 Tesla. This field is higher than shown in figure. The ESR is obviously a different phenomenon than the doubling of lines. In the experiment performed by Jiang et al an electric field is applied. For small electric fields, $``$ 1000 V/cm the ESR line occurs at $``$ 0.382 whereas at larger electric fields, $``$ 5000 V/cm a different line is seen at -g =0.377. Adding these two values we get 0.759. The first value normalized by the sum is 0.5033 whereas the second value is 0.4967. These values are $`0.5\pm 0.0033`$. The formula gives $`0.5\pm S/(2l+1)`$. These deviations are a result of the spin-orbit interaction and the changes in the band energies due to temperature. For $`l`$=2, s=1/2, the predicted $`\frac{1}{2}g_{}`$=2/5=0.4 so the formula is consistent with the data. Adding the electric field is equivalent to adding eV in the energy so that different direction shifts result due to $`\pm `$ sign in the formula.

4. Conclusions

At S=0, $`l=0`$, the charge per particle is 1/2. Two such particles make one electron. The 1/2 charge gives half the cyclotron frequency and doubles the number of oscillations. These phenomenon are independent of ESR.

There is splitting of ESR line due to doubling in the g values such that when electric field is applied one line moves towards lower frequency side (red shift) while the other line moves towards higher frequency side (blue shift). There is a quasiparticle of zero charge. The g values occuring at 2.0023 and at -0.44 are found to have quite different origin. The deviations from our formula are a result of spin-orbit interaction.

5. References

1. R. G. Mani, et al, Nature 419, 646(2002)
2. R. G. Mani, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, V. Narayanmurti, W. B. Johnson and V. Umansky, cond-mat/0306388; cond-mat/0303034.
3. A. F. Volkov, cond-mat/0302615
4. F. S. Bergeret, B. Huckestein and A. F. Volkov, cond-mat/0303530.
5. K. N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A 113, 435 (1986).
6. K. N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 13, 1087 (1999).
7. K. N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 14, 1009 (2000).
8. K. N. Shrivastava, cond-mat/0303309, cond-mat/0303621, cond-mat/0212552.
9. K. N. Shrivastava, Superconductivity: Elementary Topics, World Scientific, New Jersey, London, Singapore, 2000.
10. K.N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect,
Nova Science Pub. Inc., N. Y. (2002).
11. H. W. Jiang and E. Yablonovitch, Phys. Rev. B 64, 041309 (2001).

Note: Ref.5 is available from:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.,
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600,
Hauppauge, N. Y.. 11788-3619,
Tel.(631)-231-7269, Fax: (631)-231-8175,
ISBN 1-59033-419-1 US$`\$69`$.
E-mail: novascience@Earthlink.net

Fig.1. (a) Upper curve shows the diagonal resistivity as a function of magnetic field showing Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations. The Landau level quantum numbers 6, 5, and 4 are marked as a function of increasing magnetic field. The microwave is off. (b) Lower graph shows the change in resistivity upon turning on the 13.1 GHz microwaves. Due to condensation at $`\omega _c/2`$ the number of oscillations doubles, so that lower graph has twice the number of oscillations than the upper graph.