text:
# Influence of Co3+ spin-state on optical properties of LaCoO3 and HoCoO3

## 1 Introduction

At present a temperature dependence of structural and magnetic properties of LaCoO3 is usually described within a three-spin-states model. In the ground state LaCoO3 is a nonmagnetic insulator and all Co3+ ions have a low spin-state configuration (LS, t$`{}_{}{}^{6}{}_{2g}{}^{}`$e$`{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{g}{}^{}`$, S=0).

There are two transitions at approximately 100 and 500 K in LaCoO3 with the increase of temperature. At 100 K this compound undergoes the spin-state transition to a paramagnetic state, as evidenced by a steep increase of magnetic susceptibility and can be interpreted as a spin-state transition to the intermediate spin-state (IS, t$`{}_{}{}^{5}{}_{2g}{}^{}`$e$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{g}{}^{}`$, S=1) or to a mixture of low and high spin-state (HS, t$`{}_{}{}^{4}{}_{2g}{}^{}`$e$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{g}{}^{}`$, S=2). The second transition at 500 K is associated with a metal-insulator (MI) transition. Band structure calculations within LDA+U approximation demonstrated that IS is the lowest in energy spin-state after the first transition. In contrast to the expectation from the simple ionic model IS is stabilized by a strong $`pd`$ hybridization and possible orbital ordering in $`e_g`$ shell of Co3+ ions .

From experimental point of view there are gradual changes in x-ray absorption spectroscopy at the first spin-state transition. Up to now optical spectroscopy as well as an electroresistivity investigation have not found any significant changes in the electronic structure of LaCoO3 in the low temperature region. Change of the optical conductivity spectrum was observed only near MI transition. However, infrared spectroscopy revealed anomalous splitting of the phonon modes and change of their intensities with the increase of temperature, which was associated with local distortions due to the spin-state transitions.

In this paper we’ve performed experimental and theoretical investigations of the changes in electronic structure, occurring at the spin-state transition. We’ve chosen two isoelectronic compounds: LaCoO3 and HoCoO3, which have different spin-state configurations at room temperature due to a chemical pressure happening with substitution of La ions by smaller Ho ions and hence increasing of a crystal field $`t_{2g}e_g`$ energy splitting . Observed changes in the optical properties of HoCoO3 in comparison with LaCoO3 can be associated with larger lattice distortions in HoCoO3 and with different spin-state stabilization of Co3+ ions in these compounds.

## 2 Experimantal details

In order to grow LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 single crystals a kind of anodic electrodeposition technique was used. In particular, McCarrol approach  was modified  to use seeded flux melt growth based on Cs2MoO4-MoO3 mixture in the ratio 2.2 : 1 as solvent. Appropriate solute quantity was added into a 100 $`cm^3`$ platinum crucible contained the mixture to grow these single crystals with a seed served as anode at $``$ 950-1000 C under current density in the range 0.5-0.7 mA/cm2. Simultaneously the crucible serves as cathode in a such electrochemical cell.

The typical dimensions of the samples were 2x2x1 mm3. According to X-ray data they were single phase. Optical measurements were performed on a cleaved mirror as well as on mechanically polished by diamond powder (with grains less than 0.5 $`\mu `$m) surface. In this paper we use experimental data for a cleaved surface, because in this case numerical data for the reflectance were higher and spectral features had a better resolution.

The refractive index $`n`$ and absorption constant $`k`$ were measured in the spectral range 0.5-5.0 eV by ellipsometric technique at the room temperature. The automated ellipsometer for measurements on small samples was assembled on the basis of the KSVU-12 spectrometer. For energies less than 0.5 eV absorption constant $`k`$ abruptly decreases and an error of measured values rises. Thus we had to break off our measurements at 0.5 eV. The relative experimental errors were 2$`\%`$-4$`\%`$. From $`n`$ and $`k`$, the real $`\epsilon _1(\omega )=n^2k^2`$ and imaginary $`\epsilon _2(\omega )=2nk`$ parts of the complex dielectric constant $`\epsilon (\omega )`$, the optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )=nk\omega /2\pi `$ and the reflectance $`R(\omega )=[(n1)^2+k^2]/[(n+1)^2+k^2]`$ were derived.

## 3 Experimantal results

The real $`\epsilon _1(\omega )`$ and imaginary $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$ parts of the dielectric function for LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 are presented in figure 1. As seen from behaviour of $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$ function, there is a strong absorption region in the energy range 1.0-5.0 eV for both compounds. Two maxima for HoCoO3 are clearly observed at 1.7 and 2.9 eV. For LaCoO3 such features are broaden and shifted to the low energy region on $``$ 0.3 eV. The dispersion of $`\epsilon _1(\omega )`$ near these peaks has anomalous behavior and positive values show that optical properties are defined by interband transitions. Another one feature is revealed more distinctly in the spectrum of the reflectance R$`(\omega )`$ for HoCoO3, which has a maximum at 4.5 eV (figure 1, inset).

Changes in the optical charge gap values for the direct optical transitions and consequently the shift of the main spectral features with decrease of the rare earth ionic radii have been already observed in the series of compounds RCoO3 where R was changed from La to Gd. It can be explained in a following way. With decreasing of the rare earth ionic radii Co-O-Co bond angles deviate much more from 180 and Co-O bond length reduces. Since overlap between Co-3d and O-2p orbitals is determined by Co-O distances and Co-O-Co bond angles, it affects the $`dpd`$ interaction. As a result such distortions cause the band width to decrease and hence band gap to increase.

Right panel of figure 1 shows a variance analysis of the imaginary part of the dielectric function $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$, which has been expanded on 4 Lorentz oscillators (A1, A2, A3, A4). Except the shift of oscillators maxima (on 0.04, 0.30, 0.21 and 0.33 eV respectively) to the high energy region there is a strong enhancement (in 3 times) of A3 oscillators strength in HoCoO3 in comparison with LaCoO3. At the same time other oscillator intensities are changed not more than on 30$`\%`$.

Presumably, such strong enhancement of the optical absorption can be associated with different spin-state configurations of Co3+ ions in these compounds. At room temperature Co3+ ions in HoCoO3 are in LS, but in LaCoO3 a most part of them (about 80$`\%`$ from ) are in IS. In this case absorption slackening in the range 1.3-2.3 eV in LaCoO3 may be evidence of some transitions blocking and as a result of suggestive changes in the band structure for IS in comparison with LS. For LaCoO3 similar effect of the spectral feature intensity decreasing with temperature across spin-state transition near 1 eV was observed in photoemission experiment.

In order to compare experimental results with the band structure calculations presented below, let us discuss the optical conductivity spectra $`\sigma (\omega )`$ shown in figure 2. The optical conductivity spectrum for our LaCoO3 crystals is in a good agreement with the literature data on numerical values and dispersion. Optical properties for HoCoO3 were investigated for the first time. The shift to the high energy region and an appearance of addition absorption were observed in optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ as well as in $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$ spectra. Optical properties of the series of compounds RCoO3 (R=La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd) were investigated by Yamaguchi et al  using reflectance measurements with Kramers-Kronig analysis in the spectral range $`E<2`$ eV at T=9 K, where all compounds have the same LS state. Let us analyze this paper results and supplement them by our results for HoCoO3. If an intensity of the optical conductivity for LaCoO3 at 1.7 eV will be considered as 1, then for the series of RCoO3 compounds, where R=La, Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Ho it is increased as a whole with a drastic drop on Nd like 1, 1.47, 1.30, 1.07, 1.27, 1.86. Similar tendency has the temperatures of the spin-state transitions with decrease of the rare earth ionic radii.

Thus LS state becomes more stable with decrease of the rare earth ionic radii and one can see, that the higher temperature of transition from nonmagnetic LS state to IS state is the bigger values of the spectral features intensities are observed in the narrow spectral range 1.3 - 2.3 eV. That is naturally reflected in the electronic structure reorganization: an additional channels of interband transitions appearance.

## 4 Computational details

In order to find out an origin of the difference in the optical conductivity spectra in LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 we’ve performed band structure calculations within the LDA+U approximation. The calculation scheme was realized in the framework of the linear muffin-tin orbitals (LMTO) method based on the Stuttgart TBLMTO-47 computer code.

Temperature was introduced in our calculations only by the change of lattice parameters and atomic positions. Corresponding crystal data for room temperature were taken from Radaelli et al. (for LaCoO3) and Liu et al. (for HoCoO3). Co($`4s`$,$`4p`$,$`3d`$), O($`3s`$,$`2p`$) and La,Ho($`6s`$,$`6p`$,$`5d`$) were included to the orbital basis set in our calculations. In contrast to reference 10 almost empty La-$`4f`$ states as well as partially filled $`4f`$ states of Ho were treated as pseudo-core states.

It is important to describe La-$`4f`$ states correctly because in the present work we need to have as more precise density of states (DOS) as possible, since it is used for the optical properties calculations. An attempt to describe La-$`4f`$ states as valence one in the framework of LDA calculation leads to the appropriate La-$`4f`$ states peaks appearance in the low energy region near the Fermi level (see figures 3 - 5 in reference 10) in contrast to the experiment, where it placed at $``$ 9.0 eV above EF.

However, we have found that the presence or the absence of La-$`4f`$ states in the basis set has not effect on total energies difference of the various spin-state configurations. There are two ways to describe La-$`4f`$ states properly: to apply LDA+U correction on these states or to treat them as a pseudo-core. We’ve chosen the second way.

On-site Coulomb interaction parameter and Stoner exchange parameter were taken to be 7.0 eV and 0.99 eV respectively for Co-$`3d`$ shell. The Brillouin-zone (BZ) integration in the course of the self-consistency iterations was performed over a mesh of 27 k points in the irreducible part of the BZ. DOS as well as CPDOS (see below) were calculated by the tetrahedron method with 512 k points in the whole BZ.

There are two ways to calculate optical properties ab-initio. First of all, one can calculate optical conductivity using the Kubo formula and matrix elements of momentum operator $`<𝐤n|i\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha |𝐤^{}n>`$. But such rather difficult and time-consuming procedure requires knowledge of the band structure with a better accuracy than that provided by LMTO-ASA method. Second, it is possible to calculate joint density of states (JDOS), defined as

$$J(h\omega )=\underset{𝐤}{}N(\epsilon _𝐤)N((\epsilon _𝐤+h\omega )),$$
(1)
where $`N(\epsilon _𝐤)`$ is a total DOS. However, JDOS calculations do not take into account selection rules and as a result their comparison with an experiment usually is not good. In this paper optical absorption is estimated to be proportional to the convolution of partial density of states (CPDOS)

$$C(\omega )=\frac{1}{h\omega }\underset{\sigma }{}_0^{h\omega }N_A^\sigma (\epsilon )N_B^\sigma (\epsilon h\omega )𝑑\epsilon ,$$
(2)
where $`N_A^\sigma (\epsilon )`$ and $`N_B^\sigma (\epsilon h\omega )`$ are partial densities of states (PDOS) respectively for the energy arguments above and below of the Fermi level and $`\sigma `$ is spin projection. In this way one should use a ”proper” PDOS to satisfy the selection rules. Due to such rules $`N_A^\sigma (\epsilon )`$ and $`N_B^\sigma (\epsilon h\omega )`$ should be the partial DOS of the same atom, have the same spin index $`\sigma `$ and their orbital quantum numbers should differ only on $`\mathrm{\Delta }l=`$ $`\pm `$1. Thus, this approximation can be compared with a conventional constant matrix elements approximation.

To this rule satisfy transitions $`6s6p`$ and $`6p5d`$ for Ho and La ions, $`3s2p`$ for O, $`4s4p`$ and $`4p3d`$ for Co ions. On the contrary, the valence band in both compounds is defined by O-$`2p`$ states which hybridize with a partially filled Co-$`3d`$ band, but O-$`3s`$ states are much far away from the Fermi level (approximately on 30 eV higher) and hence oxygens $`3s2p`$ transitions also should be neglected.

Thus there are Co $`4s4p`$, $`4p3d`$ and La,Ho $`6s6p`$, $`6p5d`$ transitions which can be taken into account in the calculation of (2). However, there is a strong hybridization between Co-$`4p`$ and O-$`2p`$ states due to a large spatial extension and a sizable overlap between these orbitals on neighboring Co and O ions. So in this way excitations from occupied Co-$`4p`$ into unoccupied Co-$`3d`$ band can be considered in a certain way as O-$`2p`$ – Co-$`3d`$ transitions.

## 5 LDA+U results

Recently, using the results of LDA+U calculations Nekrasov et al. have shown that a different spin-state stabilizes in LaCoO3 (IS) and in HoCoO3 (LS) at room temperature due to a chemical pressure happening with substitution of La ions by small Ho ions and hence increasing of a crystal field $`t_{2g}e_g`$ energy splitting.

Calculated in the present work PDOS for IS state in LaCoO3 and LS state in HoCoO3 are presented in figure 3. Both compounds should be insulators in the calculations at room temperature. However, IS state for LaCoO3 gave a metallic state in LDA+U in contrast to the experiment. This contradiction have been explained by a prediction of a possible orbital ordering of partially filled eg orbitals of Co3+ ions in IS state . A band gap for HoCoO3 in LS state is found to be 0.7 eV in agreement with experiment, where it is estimated to be $``$ 0.7 eV (see left panel of figure 2, inset). Local magnetic moment on Co ion in LaCoO3 is equal to 2.2 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$.

The results of optical convolution calculations are presented in right panel of figure 2. Due to the presence of a sizable band gap in HoCoO3 there are no electronic transitions below 0.7 eV, while LaCoO3 is a metal in our calculation (insulator with very small band gap $``$0.1 eV in experiment). As a result in LaCoO3 the electronic excitations, which form optical conductivity, appear already at very small energies. Drastic increase of the absorption is observed at $``$ 2.3 eV for LaCoO3 and at $``$ 1.1 eV for HoCoO3.

The origin of such different behavior one can find in two interrelated features of O$`2p`$ and Co$`3d`$ PDOS for both compounds. From one side the $`pd`$ hybridization for majority spin is stronger for IS configuration because of partial filling of $`e_g`$band in IS in comparison with LS. It leads to the increase of valence oxygen $`2p`$ band width in IS and to the decrease of PDOS just below the Fermi level (compare left and right panels in figure 3). From other side there is a sizable $``$ 2.3 eV gap in PDOS for Co$`3d`$ and O$`2p`$ minority spin, because in general they are placed on different sides from the Fermi level and almost do not hybridize. Thus, there is a small intensity of the optical absorption in LaCoO3 due to only one (majority) spin contribution to this absorption in the low energy range till $``$ 2.3 eV. In this case ”drastic growing” of the intensity of O$`2p`$ – Co$`3d`$ transitions in optical conductivity spectra appears for IS state of Co3+ ions in LaCoO3 at the higher energies than for LS Co3+ in HoCoO3. Such shift and absorption intensity enhancement in the range 1.2-2.6 eV results in the crossing of CPDOS for LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 at $``$ 1.2 eV in a good agreement with experiment (see left panel of figure 2).

Thus, analysis of the LDA+U calculation results shows that there are qualitative changes in the electronic structures connected with the shift of the onset of the absorption and absorption intensity enhancement due to the different spin-state configuration at room temperature. It is important to note that the structural modifications by itself without changing of the spin-state configuration do not lead to the considerable changing of the electronic structure (see figures 3 and 4 in reference 10).

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper, we’ve reported the results of the optical properties investigations of isoelectronic compounds LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 with the aim to clarify the influence of the different spin-state stabilization on electronic structure as a whole and on the optical properties in particular.

We’ve measured the real $`\epsilon _1(\omega )`$ and imaginary $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$ parts of the dielectric function, reflectance $`R(\omega )`$ and optical conductivity and found several differences in the optical spectra between LaCoO3 and HoCoO3 at room temperature.

First of all, the shift of the main spectral features to the high energy region on 0.3 eV associated with smaller rare earth ionic radii and as a result with larger distortions in HoCoO3 in comparison with LaCoO3 was found. As well, there is an increase of the absorption in the range 1.3-2.3 eV in all kinds of spectra in HoCoO3, which can be attributed basing on the results of LDA+U calculations to the different spin-state stabilization in these compounds.

We’ve performed convolution of partial density of states computations obtained in the framework of the LDA+U approach taking into account dipole-dipole selection rules. As a result we’ve found qualitative changes in the electronic structures, which is reflected in the optical spectra as the shift of the onset of the absorption edge from less than 0.1 eV in LaCoO3 to 0.7 eV in HoCoO3 and an absorption intensity enhancement in a narrow spectral range 1.2-2.6 eV. Such changes are assumed to be induced by the different Co3+ spin-state in these compounds at room temperature.

The work was supported by the INTAS project No.01-0278 and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through grants RFFI-01-02-17063 (VA, IN, MK) and RFFI-03-02-06026, the grant of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences for Young Scientists, Grant of the President of Russia for Young Scientists MK-95.2003.02 (IN).

## References


format: text

text:
# Quick View on Jet Tomography at RHIC Energies

## 1 Short introduction

Recent high-$`p_T`$ RHIC experimantal results on pion production in central $`AuAu`$ collision at mid-rapidity at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ and $`200`$ AGeV have shown a strong suppression compared to binary scaled $`pp`$ data . Analysing this effect in different impact parameter ranges, the suppression vanishes with increasing centrality. In $`dAu`$ the lack of the suppression  was found also. A quantitative analysis of the suppression pattern, the so called ”jet-tomography” , yields information about the physical aspects of the produced dense matter and the impact parameter dependence of the formation of deconfined matter in $`AuAu`$ collisions. Latest data on $`dAu`$ collision confirmed that initial state effects can not be responsible for suppression in $`AuAu`$ collision. Thus medium induced non-Abelian jet-energy loss in the final state becomes a strong candidate to explain the missing pion yield. Jet energy loss can be calculated in a perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD) frame . Our aim is to calculate $`\pi `$ production in nucleus-nucleus $`AA`$ collision in a pQCD improved parton model, taking into account a phenomenological intrinsic transverse momentum distribution (intrinsic-$`k_T`$) for the colliding partons, which is necessary to get better agreement between data and calculations in $`pp`$ collisions . For $`AA`$ collision we included initial state effects into our calculations: nuclear multiple scattering, saturation in the number of semihard collisions, and shadowing effect inside nucleus. We used Glauber-like collision geometry.

Here we investigate jet energy loss. As high-energy quark and gluon jets are travelling throught dense colored matter, they can lost their energy described by induced gluon radiation in thin non-Abelian matter. The GLV-description  of energy loss can be included into the pQCD improved parton model as a strong final state effect. Comparing theory to data we can extract the opacity values ($`\overline{n}=L/\lambda `$) of the produced colored matter at different centralities.

## 2 Numerical results vs. experimental data

Applying the above sketched model for reproducing $`\pi `$ yields in $`AuAu`$, and $`dAu`$ collisions we can accomplish a tomographic analysis of the produced dense and colored matter in reactions. In Fig. 1 we display the nuclear modification factor: $`R_{AA^{}}(p_T)=\frac{E_\pi \text{d}\sigma _\pi ^{AA^{}}/\text{d}^3p_T}{N_{bin}E_\pi \text{d}\sigma _\pi ^{pp}/\text{d}^3p_T},`$ as a function of $`p_T`$ for pion production from central to peripheral $`AuAu`$ (lower curves) and in $`dAu`$ (the upper curve). In the most central $`AuAu`$ collision the measured suppression is reproduced with opacity $`L/\lambda =`$ 3.5. As Fig. 1 displays, in $`AuAu`$ collisions the suppression of the high-energy pions goes away with decreasing centrality, which is followed by the descreasing values of the opacity. In $`dAu`$ collision we do not need to include jet quenching to reproduce pion production, this final state effect does not appear there, only multiscattering and shadowing.


text:
# Massive Field Stars and the Stellar Clustering Law

## 1. Introduction

It is commonly held that most massive, OB stars are found in stellar clusters, or associations, since their short ($`10`$ Myr) lifetimes are not long enough to permit spatial dispersion from their natal companions. However, apparently-isolated, massive field stars are well-known to exist, including a class of runaway OB stars with unusually large ($`30\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) velocities. While runaway OB stars are generally believed to be kinematically ejected from a parent OB association, the ordinary non-runaway field OB stars have been suggested to originate in a different mode of star formation from their counterparts in associations. Suggested differences between clusters and the field in the stellar initial mass function (IMF) for high-mass stars (Massey 2002; Kroupa & Weidner 2003) support this possibility. This contribution explores the relationship between OB associations and massive field stars.

In recent years, it has emerged that the number of stars $`N_{}`$ per cluster appears to follow a universal power law distribution:

$$N(N_{})dN_{}N_{}^2dN_{}.$$
(1)
This has been found empirically for young, massive clusters (e.g., Hunter et al. 2003; Zhang & Fall 1999), super star clusters (Meurer et al. 1995), globular clusters (e.g., Harris & Pudritz 1994) and H II regions (Oey & Clarke 1998). The apparent universality of this relation is emerging as fundamental (e.g., Oey & Muñoz-Tuñon 2003; Oey & Clarke 1998; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997), similar to the constant power-law relation for the IMF. If individual, field OB stars have a fundamentally different origin from clustered OB stars, then this is likely to be manifest in the distribution of $`N_{}`$, near $`N_{}=1`$, where $`N_{}`$ specifically counts massive stars only (here, $`m10\mathrm{M}_{}`$). In what follows, we examine the form of $`N(N_{})`$, for small $`N_{}`$, a regime that has not been investigated to date, to illuminate the relationship between massive star clustering and massive field stars.

## 2. The SMC sample of OB stars

A study of OB star clustering properties and field stars requires high spatial resolution and essentially complete detection of the OB stars over a large area of a given galaxy. The Magellanic Clouds are optimal target galaxies by virtue of their proximity and high Galactic latitude. Indeed, some of the earliest work on OB associations and massive star censuses was carried out for the Magellanic Clouds by Feast et al. (1960), Sanduleak (1969), Lucke & Hodge (1970), Azzopardi & Vigneau (1982), and Hodge (1985). More recently, the $`UBVR`$ survey data of Massey (2002) for the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), together with UV photometry (Parker et al. 1998) from the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UIT), provide unprecedented depth, resolution, completeness, and broadband coverage for the massive star population over a large fraction of the SMC. The area observed by UIT is smaller than the optical survey, but covers the SMC bar, which includes most of the active star formation in that galaxy. Figure 1 shows the regions covered by the two surveys. SMC OB associations have previously been identified and catalogued by Hodge (1985) and Battinelli (1991), the latter from the photographic OB census of Azzopardi & Vigneau (1982). Here, we re-examine the clustering properties of these massive stars in the SMC, using the modern datasets to first systematically identify OB stars, and then to systematically identify groups or associations of them. We will especially focus on the statistical properties of the low-$`N_{}`$ regime.

Parker et al. (1998) provide UIT photometry in the B5 filter ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 1615 Å, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 225 Å), which recently has been recalibrated by Parker, Cornett, & Stecher (2004, in preparation). The $`UBVR`$ photometry of Massey (2002) was observed through a Harris filter set and transformed to the Johnson-Cousins system (Landolt 1992). Reddening-free $`Q`$ indices were computed using the extinction law of Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis (1989) with a total to selective extinction ratio $`R_V`$ = 3.1. Different combinations of filters were used to best select two different stellar samples: Stars with initial masses $`10\mathrm{M}_{}`$, corresponding to spectral types of B0 V, B0.5 I and earlier, were selected on the basis of their optical photometry only; and stars with initial masses $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$, corresponding to spectral types of O9 V, B0 I and earlier were selected on the basis of both their $`UBVR`$ and UIT photometry. We refer to the former as the OB sample, and the latter as the O-star sample, although we emphasize that neither sample consists of spectroscopically confirmed stars. Our criteria are as follows, using an SMC distance modulus DM$`=18.88`$ (Dolphin et al. 2001) and global average extinction $`A_B=0.53`$:

$`m_B`$ $``$ $`4.2+\mathrm{DM}+A_B`$ (2)
$``$ $`15.21`$
$`Q_{UR,BR}`$ $``$ $`0.84,`$ (3)
$`Q_{B5U,BR}`$ $``$ $`1.45,`$ (4)
$`Q_{B5V,UV}`$ $``$ $`0.03,`$ (5)
where

$`Q_{UR,BR}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_Um_R){\displaystyle \frac{A_UA_R}{A_BA_R}}(m_Bm_R)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`(m_Um_R)1.396(m_Bm_R),`$
$`Q_{B5U,BR}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{B5}m_U){\displaystyle \frac{A_{B5}A_U}{A_BA_R}}(m_Bm_R)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`(m_{B5}m_U)1.668(m_Bm_R),`$
$`Q_{B5V,UV}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{B5}m_V){\displaystyle \frac{A_{B5}A_V}{A_UA_V}}(m_Um_V)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`(m_{B5}m_V)2.718(m_Um_V).`$
The OB sample is selected from equations 2 and 3 only, while the O-star sub-sample meets all of equations 2 to 5.

Table 1 shows all the stars having both $`UIT`$ B5 photometry, $`UBVR`$ photometry, and spectral classifications listed by Massey (2002), excluding stars with objective prism classifications and those identified as uncertain spectral types. The ID number and classification from Massey (2002) are shown in Columns 1 and 2. Column 3 shows whether the star met the O-star selection criteria above. Our attempts to select only stars earlier than O9 V and B0 I were successful for 27 out of 31 stars; of the 4 not selected, one had nebular emission affecting the photometry and two others had weak metal lines (designation W in spectral type). The false positives were 8 out 26 stars; the majority of the false positives were weak lined stars (W), emission line stars, and peculiar stars.

## 3. Identification of OB associations

Having identified two samples of 1360 OB and 382 O stars, we then used the friends-of-friends algorithm described by Battinelli (1991) to identify the associations of these stars. Our parameter $`N_{}`$ refers specifically to counts of OB stars from these samples, identified as described above. Battinelli’s algorithm adopts as the clustering distance $`d_s`$ between associated members the value of $`d_s`$ that maximizes the number of clusters for $`N_{}3`$. All stars within $`d_s`$ of another member star are defined to be within the same group. (We do not distinguish between “group,” “association,” and “cluster” in this work.) Figure 2 shows the number of clusters $`N`$ as a function $`d_s`$ near the peak in $`N`$ for the OB sample (Figure 2$`a`$) and O-star sample (Figure 2$`b`$). For the OB sample, the characteristic $`d_s=28`$ pc ($`97\mathrm{}`$) is straightforward to determine, but for the O-star sample, it is apparent that $`N`$ is less sensitive to $`d_s`$. We adopt $`d_s=34`$ pc ($`117\mathrm{}`$) for the O-star sample, corresponding to the mean value over the considered range; the larger value of $`d_s`$ as compared to the OB sample is consistent with the lower stellar density for O stars. Although the clustering properties are relatively insensitive to the choice of $`d_s`$ within a few pc, we caution that larger values of $`d_s`$ will result in flatter slopes for the clustering law $`N(N_{})`$ (e.g., equation 1), as discussed below in §4. Our values of $`d_s`$ are much smaller than Battinelli’s value of 60 pc; this is consistent with a much greater completeness in our data, yielding a higher density of OB stars, and therefore smaller clustering distance.

Table 2 presents the groups having at least 3 stars that are identified from our OB sample. Column 1 shows the group ID number, columns 2 and 3 give the group centroid position in decimal degrees (J2000.0), columns 4 and 5 give the group diameter $`D`$ in arcmin and pc, respectively, and column 6 lists the number of stars in the group. Table 3 presents the groups identified from the O star sample in the same way. The group diameters are defined as $`D=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )`$ following Battinelli (1991), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ represent the maximum difference between members in RA and Dec, respectively, in degrees of arc. We also list the individual member stars for each group in Tables 4 and 5, which are fully available in the on-line edition. The first two columns of Tables 4 and 5 give the RA and Dec of each star in decimal degrees (J2000.0), columns 3 – 10 give the $`UBVR`$ magnitudes and uncertainties from Massey (2002), and the last two columns give the star ID from Massey (2002) and our newly-determined OB group ID. Table 5 also lists the UIT B5 magnitudes from Parker et al. (2004) in columns 11 and 12. Note that these group identifications represent the results from two separate runs of the group-finding algorithm; thus, if a star belongs to both samples, it may belong to groups in both Table 4 and Table 5.

Figure 3 shows the location of the group centroids compared to those of associations identified by Hodge (1985; solid black circles) and Battinelli (1991; dashed black circles). Our OB and O-star groups are indicated by the solid blue and red circles, respectively. The circle sizes correspond to the mean diameters $`D`$ from Tables 2 and 3. For the Hodge objects, the diameters are taken to be the mean of the dimensions in RA and Dec given by Hodge (1985). There is good general correspondence between the positions of our groups and these earlier catalogs; certainly at least as good as the correspondence between the Hodge (1985) and Battinelli (1991) identifications. It is apparent that the net tendency from our smaller $`d_s`$ is for our associations to be smaller than those in the earlier catalogs, and to break up some of those associations into smaller groups. Figures 4$`a,c`$ and 4$`b,d`$ show the size distributions for, respectively, the OB and O-star samples. It is apparent that, aside from individual stars, the peak in the distribution is around 10–15 pc, compared to 50 pc for both the Battinelli (1991) and Hodge (1985) catalogs. Whereas Hodge (1985) reports that the mean diameter of his sample is similar to the mean for the LMC sample, our smaller characteristic value is consistent with the lower luminosities of the SMC H II regions and star-forming regions compared to those of the LMC (e.g., Kennicutt, Edgar, & Hodge 1989).

## 4. Field vs Clusters

Figure 5 shows the distribution in $`N_{}`$ for the OB groups (panel $`a`$) and O-star groups (panel $`b`$). Two slopes are shown fitted to the power-law distribution, weighted by the square root of the bin value, $`\sqrt{N(\mathrm{log}N_{})}`$: the solid line shows the fit for the entire distribution, yielding $`2.51\pm 0.29`$ and $`2.33\pm 0.42`$ for the OB and O-star samples, respectively; and the dotted line shows the fit omitting the first bin, which corresponds to single stars, resulting in fits of $`2.27\pm 0.38`$ and $`2.11\pm 0.55`$ for the OB and O-star samples, respectively. The fits omitting the single stars agree with the power-law slope of –2 (equation 1), found for the $`N_{}`$ distribution in a variety of systems, as discussed in §1. We again emphasize, as mentioned above, that the fitted slope has a dependence on the clustering distance $`d_s`$: for large $`d_s`$, more stars are drawn into the associations, causing the resultant slope of the clustering law to be flatter relative to clustering defined by a small $`d_s`$. Since we seek a characteristic value for the slope of $`N(N_{})`$, it is important to ensure that $`d_s`$ is in turn characteristic of the sample. For the $`d_s`$ in the extreme range of 20 – 40 pc (see Figure 2$`b`$), the O-star sample shows a variation in fitted slope, omitting the field stars, of $`2.79\pm 0.84`$ to $`1.85\pm 0.52`$, respectively.

It is apparent that the single stars are slightly greater in number than the power law for the remainder of the $`N_{}`$ distribution, particularly in the OB sample. How significant is this excess in the isolated, “field” stars? We note that the magnitude of the excess may be a lower limit, since the slope of the $`N_{}`$ distribution is expected to flatten slightly at the smallest values of $`N_{}`$, owing to statistical effects, as follows. We assume, as suggested above, that the OB stars counted in the value of $`N_{}`$ represent only the most massive stars for a population of star clusters that are in reality populated by a mass distribution described by a conventional IMF. Since we identified only OB stars, our clusters are selected with the criterion that each cluster contains a star of at least mass $`m_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The smallest, “unsaturated” clusters have a lower probability of having their maximum stellar mass $`m_{\mathrm{max}}m_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, so they will be progressively missing from a sample of clusters selected in this way (see Oey & Clarke 2003 for a detailed discussion of this effect).

Figure 6 shows Monte Carlo models that demonstrate this effect. $`N_{}`$ is drawn from a power-law distribution of slope –2 (equation 1), with the individual stellar masses drawn from a Salpeter (1955) IMF having $`10m100\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Figure 6$`a`$ shows the distribution in $`N_{}`$ for 10,000 clusters having at least one star with mass $`m_{\mathrm{max}}20\mathrm{M}_{}`$, and Figure 6$`b`$ is the same, but selected for $`m_{\mathrm{max}}40\mathrm{M}_{}`$. We see a flattening in the distributions for small $`N_{}`$, and the flattening is stronger in Figure 6$`b`$, since the probability of drawing a $`40\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star is less than for a $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ star.

Figure 7 shows the stellar density of all catalogued stars in the $`UBVR`$ survey as a function of radius around the isolated, field massive stars found in the OB (solid line) and O-star (dashed line) samples. The errors are computed as $`\sqrt{n}/\pi r^2`$ for the total $`n`$ stars within radius $`r`$, omitting the central field massive stars. As seen in Figure 7, it is apparent that the stellar density increases at small $`r`$. This is consistent with our suggestion that most massive field stars represent the most massive component of groups of smaller stars, as is expected from the stellar IMF.

Another effect that can offset the statistical flattening in the form of the $`N_{}`$ distribution for small $`N_{}`$, is evolution. In the most extreme situation, we consider that all the OB associations in the SMC were formed together in a single burst of global star formation. Staveley-Smith et al. (1997) find that the H I shells identified in the SMC appear to have a narrow age distribution around 5 Myr. We described above that the unsaturated, lowest-$`N_{}`$ clusters have a lower average stellar mass (e.g., Oey & Clarke 2003). Since stellar lifetimes are longer for lower-mass stars, we therefore expect that these unsaturated clusters will tend to last longer, on average, than the statistically fully-sampled, or saturated, objects. Thus, we may expect that the distribution in $`N_{}`$ steepens with time.

We constructed Monte Carlo simulations of such an aging burst of clusters. Figure 8 shows the models for a population of clusters at 0, 15, and 25 Myr after their simultaneous formation. We used the same IMF parameters are before, and the stellar ages are from the grid of Charbonnel et al. (1993) for SMC metallicity. Each of the model $`N_{}`$ distributions is fitted with a power-law slope, shown in Figure 8. We see that, while it is difficult to discern the slope steepening over the entire sample after 15 Myr, and even at 25 Myr, it is apparent that the aging effect is most pronounced in the smallest $`N_{}`$ bins, and that the $`N_{}`$=$`1`$ bin becomes the most disproportionately enhanced. For continuous creation of the clusters, the net observed slope will be intermediate between the forms in Figure 6 and Figure 8.

The modest observed excess of single stars is also likely to be caused in part by a contribution to their population by runaway OB stars. If runaway OB stars originate in associations, however, then this contribution must be small, since runaways correspond to about 3% and 20% of field early B and early O stars, respectively (Blaauw 1961). Runaways will contribute primarily to the single-star population, while binary runaways represent $`19`$% of all runaways (Gies 1987). Binary runaways are likely to be tight pairs that remain unresolved in the 0.67 pc px<sup>-1</sup> survey resolution.

It is also possible that spurious selection of candidate stars, owing to the coarse photometric criteria, are a factor. We showed in §2 that there may be a net of about 15% of the O-star sample that consist of spuriously selected B stars; while in principle, these should be distributed proportionately between clusters and the field, it is possible that crowding effects in clusters favor field selection. If so, owing to the longer lifetimes of B stars, they could contribute disproportionately to the field star population. However, we emphasize that this requires a significant variation in the spatial distribution of only the spurious candidates, between field and clusters.

The most important factor in enhancing the field star population, however, is probably the strong variation in star formation density across the SMC. The highest star formation density occurs in the SMC bar, where, as seen in Figure 3, most of the associations are located. Individual massive field stars, on the other hand, have a much more uniform distribution, as seen in Figure 9. The uneven star formation density distribution in this galaxy therefore favors the field stars and enhances the $`N_{}`$$`=1`$ bin for the OB sample in Figure 5. The effect is much less pronounced in the O-star sample, which is limited to the SMC bar region.

Considering these effects, it is apparent that there is no strong variation or change in character of the power-law distribution seen in Figure 5 for the smallest values of $`N_{}`$. The empirical samples (Figure 5) are much smaller than those in the models and therefore have significantly poorer statistics in $`\mathrm{log}N(\mathrm{log}N_{})`$. Thus, the modeled effects will be more difficult to discern in the data. Since our results are largely consistent with a single intrinsic power-law form for the clustering law, this suggests that the massive field star population simply represents an extension of the massive cluster population extending down to $`N_{}=1`$. There is no evidence that the majority of massive field stars originate from a mode of star formation that is different from those in associations. However, further studies of massive field and cluster populations in other environments are necessary to confirm the generality of these results.

## 5. Discussion

For a universal IMF, the constant slope of the $`N_{}`$ distribution extending to the field stars has profound consequences for their global feedback influence in galaxies. We can now quantify the assertion that most massive stars form in associations: for an $`N_{}`$ distribution given by equation 1, the total number of OB stars is,

$$N_{,\mathrm{tot}}\underset{N_{}=1}{\overset{N_{,\mathrm{up}}}{}}N_{}N_{}^2,$$
(9)
where $`N_{,\mathrm{up}}`$ refers to the upper-limit, maximum cluster of stars. Equation 9 corresponds to a divergent harmonic series which can be approximated for large $`N_{,\mathrm{up}}`$ as:

$$N_{,\mathrm{tot}}\mathrm{ln}N_{,\mathrm{up}}+\gamma ,$$
(10)
where $`\gamma 0.5772`$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Thus the fraction of $`N_{}`$$`=1`$ field stars is $`(\mathrm{ln}N_{,\mathrm{up}}+\gamma )^1`$ of the total $`N_{,\mathrm{tot}}`$. For our OB and O star samples, respectively, $`\mathrm{log}N_{,\mathrm{up}}2.0`$ and 1.8, yielding 19% and 21% fractions for the field stars.

Counting the actual stars in our OB and O star samples, we find that 374 and 91 candidates, respectively, had no massive companions within the clustering radius. These correspond to 28% and 24%, reflecting the excess found above. These fractions are about a factor two lower than the finding by Parker et al. (2001) that over half of their UIT-selected candidate O stars are outside catalogued association boundaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). The results for both the SMC and LMC may be odds with the results of Massey et al. (2002), who found a much steeper IMF slope for field vs cluster massive stars: a steeper IMF slope in the field would be manifested as a smaller number of field OB stars, yet the slope of the $`N_{}`$ distribution tends to be steeper than expected, rather than flatter. If the field star IMF is indeed steeper than in clusters, then the clustering law must also steepen substantially for the smallest clusters, in such a way as to compensate for a steep IMF in our data. Further investigation is necessary to resolve this issue.

In the meantime, the data appear to be broadly consistent with the simpler scenario of, simultaneously, a universal IMF and universal clustering law given by equation 1. As emphasized by McKee & Williams (1997), the total OB star population, and thus the fraction of isolated field massive stars, is driven by $`N_{,\mathrm{up}}`$ with an inverse logarithmic dependence. For maximum $`N_{,\mathrm{up}}`$ ranging between 10 and $`10^6`$, equation 10 yields a fraction of field OB stars ranging from 35% to 7%, respectively.

The clustering law in equation 1 has important consequences for feedback, implying that the interstellar porosity caused by the formation of superbubbles and supernova remnants has equal relative contributions from objects of all sizes (Oey & Clarke 1997). And, since the Strömgren volume $`V_sN_{}`$, it also implies that a strong majority of the field massive stars likely contribute to ionizing the diffuse, warm ionized medium, which constitutes about 40% of the total H$`\alpha `$ luminosity in star-forming galaxies (e.g., Walterbos 1998). Our result is quantitatively consistent with the result of Hoopes & Walterbos (2000) that field OB stars can power 40% $`\pm `$ 12% of the warm ionized medium in M33, where the fraction of field OB stars is likely around 15%.

## 6. Conclusion

We find no evidence that the field massive stars in the SMC are formed by a fundamentally different star-forming process. Rather, we find that the continuous power-law distribution in $`N_{}`$ down to $`N_{}`$$`=1`$ strongly suggests that the star-forming process is continuous from rich clusters to poor groups, apparently for all ensembles that form OB stars. The data are consistent with the model that single, field OB stars are usually the most massive member of a group of smaller stars, as expected from the universal $`N_{}`$ distribution (equation 1). These results are consistent with the simultaneous existence of a universal IMF and universal $`N_{}^2`$ clustering law. These joint universal power laws imply that field OB stars constitute roughly 35% to 7% of the total massive star population, with an inverse logarithmic dependence on $`N_{,\mathrm{up}}`$ of the the most populous cluster. Thus, the fraction is dependent on galaxy size and/or star formation rate. The contribution of these field stars to the ionized volume in the warm ionized medium is likely to scale according to their relative fraction. The universal clustering law also implies equal relative contributions by superbubbles of all sizes to the interstellar porosity.

We are pleased to acknowledge discussions with René Walterbos, Cristiano Porciani, Todd Small, and especially, Chris McKee and the anonymous referee. We also thank Phil Massey for generously providing the $`UBVR`$ data in advance of publication. This work was supported by the NASA Astrophysics Data Program, grant NAG5-10768.


text:
# Inelastic interactions between nuclei at high energies 11footnote 1Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 70, 768–784 (1976) [Sov. Phys. JETP 43, No. 3, 397-405 (1976)]

## 1 Introduction

Progress in the technology of acceleration of multiply charged ions  has substantially contributed to recent developments in this important field of research in nuclear physics. The complexity of the colliding systems, i.e., the accelerated ion and the target nucleus, gives rise to a variety of possible reaction channels specific for this category of processes. Let $`E_1`$ be the kinetic energy of the incident nucleus per nucleon. For $`E_11÷10`$ MeV, the nucleon binding energy in the initial systems, and the Coulomb barrier, which impedes the approach of the two particles, may still play an appreciable role. This, of course, leads to an increase in the fraction of reactions involving the transfer or capture of individual nucleons during the interaction . However, these values do not, in principle, represent the limit of experimental possibilities, and there is a promising tendency for $`E_1`$ and the atomic weight of the colliding systems to increase. The physical picture may then be expected to undergo a substantial change, and the predominant mechanism responsible for most of the interaction cross section turns out to be relatively simple.

To avoid unnecessary detail with very little bearing on the essence of the situation, we shall confine our attention to a head-on collision between two identical nuclei and, unless stated to the contrary, we shall carry out our analysis in the center-of-mass system (c.m.s.). Suppose that the kinetic energy per nucleon in this system is $`E_0`$, the mass number of the nuclei is $`A`$, and the atomic number is $`Z`$. For sufficiently high values of $`E_0`$, we can neglect electric forces and assume that, as the nuclei approach one another, an overlap between the spatial distributions of the initially cold medium will appear from a certain instant of time onward. To obtain an approximate measure of the strong interaction which results in this situation, let us estimate the mean free path. The cross section $`\sigma _{nn}`$ for the interaction between the initial elementary particles, i. e., nucleons, is known from experiment (see, for example, ) and is of the order of the pion Compton wavelength $`\mathrm{}/m_\pi c`$, whereas the role of the various constraints imposed by the Pauli principle decreases with increasing $`E_0`$. Very approximately, therefore, we have

$$\frac{1}{\sigma _{nn}n}\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\pi c},$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the density of nucleons in nuclear matter (the possible creation of new particles will require a more careful analysis, and in the discussion below we shall interpret $`n`$ as the spatial density of baryon charge). The mechanism and the possibility of a theoretical description of the phenomenon are very dependent on the relative free path given by (1) and the nuclear radius

$$R=r_0A^{1/3}.$$
(2)
It is well known that

$$r_0\mathrm{}/m_\pi c1.410^{13}\mathrm{cm}$$

(this has already been used above in estimating $`n`$). We thus find that, in the case in which we are interested here222In our previous papers \[4–7\] on the macroscopic treatment of apparently unrelated nuclear phenomena, we always came across the condition $`k_fR1`$, where $`k_f`$ is the limiting momentum of the Fermi liquid quasiparticles. It is readily seen that the condition given by (3) reduces to a very similar criterion.

$$1/\sigma _{nn}nRA^{1/3}1.$$
(3)
Since the mean free path is short, the initial stage is the fusion of the nuclei into a “compound system”. It is, however, important to emphasize the difference between this system and the usual compound nuclei formed, say, by nucleon capture. In cold or relatively low-temperature nuclei there is no appreciable pressure, and such nuclei exhibit no noticeable tendency to expand. On the other hand, a very high pressure is produced during the formation of the system in which we are interested. Thus, the most conservative estimates, which do not take into account the compression of the medium during fusion, show that the pressure is proportional to the total internal energy $`E=2AE_0`$. This results in the expansion of the compound system into vacuum. The condition given by (3) enables us to consider the second stage, i. e., expansion, in hydrodynamic terms. It is not clear whether any systematic theory would be capable of providing a detailed quantitative description of the “fusion stage”. The essential feature is that the entropy of the system increases from zero to some maximum value $`S`$.

The formulation of the problem is thus quite close to the suggestion put forward at one time, on Fermi’s initiative , for the description of collisions between relativistic strongly-interacting elementary particles. These ideas were extended further in an interesting paper by Landau . Without going into the various aspects of this complex problem, we shall merely note some of the features of the difference between the nuclear case and the “elementary interaction” between two hadrons. The initiating interaction between the two initial particles may in itself be capable of creating “hadron matter” in macroscopic amounts, but this entire question is, to some extent, shrouded in doubt. On the other hand, during the fusion of heavy nuclei, the number of particles is known to be macroscopically large because of the nucleons that are present right from the beginning. This enhances the credibility of the above thermodynamic and hydrodynamic conditions.

Strictly speaking, only the second stage of the process, i. e., the expansion stage, will be subjected to theoretical analysis. Let us begin with a few preliminary remarks on the physics of the phenomena involved in this process. The expansion of matter into vacuum occurs with near-sonic or ultrasonic velocities, so that viscous friction and thermal conductivity can hardly be expected to lead to an appreciable increase in entropy. If the resulting adiabatic motion ($`S=`$ const) of the continuous medium is to be treated in a simplified mechanistic way, the internal energy of the liquid will, so to speak, play the role of potential energy. This provides a clear physical picture of why the overall character of the motion of the individual elements of the medium (the fluid particles) depends on the order of magnitude of the velocities communicated to them.

In the case of inelastic collisions between nuclei, the physically interesting region is the relatively extensive nonrelativistic region $`E_0m_nc^2`$ ($`m_n`$ is the nucleon mass), which is even more accessible to current experimental possibilities. We shall write the nonrelativistic energy of a fluid particle in the form of the sum

$$\frac{1}{2}Mv^2+\epsilon ,$$

i.e., the sum of kinetic and potential energies ($`M=`$ const by definition and $`\epsilon `$ is the internal energy). In very approximate calculations, we can initially ignore the energy of interaction with the ambient fluid (i. e., the work done by pressure), and suppose that the velocity $`v`$ increases due to the reduction in $`\epsilon `$ during the adiabatic expansion. The latter leads to a subsequent reduction in pressure, so that the assumption that the interaction between the fluid particles is small will become increasingly valid. The net result is that $`Mv^2\epsilon `$, i.e., the fluid particles become “freed” and execute inertial motion with $`v`$ const. This condition also determines the validity of the assumption that the true particles of the medium have negligible thermal velocities (due to cooling on expansion), as compared with the translational velocity $`v`$ of the fluid. Thus, the final velocity distribution of the particles, i.e., the reaction products, is predetermined while, on the other hand, the hydrodynamic conditions which demand that the mean free path is small in comparison with the linear dimensions of the entire system may still be valid. Essentially, this stage is actually reached in a relatively short time $`tl/u_0`$, where $`l`$ represents the linear dimensions of the system before the onset of expansion, and $`u_0`$ is the initial velocity of sound.

The foregoing general ideas lose their validity as we enter the ultrarelativistic region $`E_0m_nc^2`$. The single expression

$$\frac{\epsilon }{(1v^2/c^2)^{1/2}}$$

cannot be divided into “kinetic” and “potential” components in an entirely natural fashion. We note that the idea of a “freed” liquid particle is not altogether consistent with the general character of relativistic relationships. It is clear, for example, that the reduction in $`\epsilon `$ should be compensated by a reduction in the denominator. The fluid continues to accelerate and, in reality, the pressure \[for which at ultrarelativistic temperatures one usually employs the equation of state given by (30)\] remains effective. The only process capable of terminating the reduction in $`\epsilon `$ during expansion, and of stabilizing the velocity, is the formation of individual particles in the hadron matter, the rest masses of which begin to dominate all the contributions to the internal energy. Here again we return to the situation where the energy and angular distribution of the reaction products are predetermined and, correspondingly, the equation of state for the medium changes and departs from (30). In the opinion of Pomeranchuk  and Landau , this occurs at temperatures $`Tm_\pi c^2`$.

## 2 Collisions of nonrelativistic nuclei

We shall suppose below that the change in the internal state of the medium during expansion is described by the Poisson adiabatic curve :

$$pV^\gamma =\mathrm{const}.$$
(4)
If we recall that $`dE=pdV`$ and integrate, we can write the basic relationships in the following form, which is particularly convenient for subsequent calculations:

$$\gamma =\frac{2\nu +3}{2\nu +1},w=\frac{2\nu +1}{2}u^2,dw=(2\nu +1)udu.$$
(5)
In simple cases, the parameter $`\gamma `$ is the ratio of specific heats, but this is not essential; $`w`$ is the enthalpy per unit mass. Moreover, for adiabatic (isentropic) flow

$$sn\rho u^{2\nu +1},$$
(6)
where $`\rho `$ is the density of the spatial mass distribution and $`s`$ is the entropy per unit volume. For the so-called simple (self-similar) rarefaction wave, we have

$$u+\frac{v}{2\nu +1}=u_0,$$
(7)
where $`u`$ is the local velocity of sound (see, for example, ) and

$$v_{max}=(2\nu +1)u_0$$
(8)
is the limiting value of the velocity of free expansion of the medium which is initially at rest in vacuum.

To obtain an estimate for the preliminary compression of nuclear matter, we shall suppose that the fusion of nuclei occurs gradually. Initially, in the region of space where the two media have come into contact, the liquid undergoes intensive “boiling” but, outside this region, it remains cold. Since, prior to collision, the product of the nucleon momentum by its velocity is $`2E_0`$, we find that the momentum transported out of the ambient space through unit area on the separation boundary per unit time is

$$p=2n_0E_0,$$
(9)
where $`n_0`$ is the usual equilibrium density of the baryon charge at zero temperature. The momentum transfer specified by (9) is obviously equivalent to a pressure $`p`$. After the medium has been brought to the boil, the pressure in the medium is approximately given by

$$p=\frac{2}{3}nE_0,$$
(10)
which is the equation of state for an ideal gas333This means that we are neglecting the potential energy of the interaction between the nucleons. The assumption that an ideal gas is produced seems, at first sight, to be somewhat drastic. Nevertheless, there are reasons to suppose that it does, in fact, lead to a reasonable description of the main features of the phenomenon. It is clear from the foregoing that the resulting particle-energy distribution essentially reflects the hydrodynamic character of the process, but is not too sensitive to the particular choice of the adiabatic curve. It is also important to remember that the contribution of the interaction energy rapidly decreases during the expansion process.. Assuming that mechanical equilibrium is established more rapidly than thermal equilibrium in the neighborhood of the separation boundary, we can equate the expressions given by (9) and (10). This yields

$$n/n_03$$
(11)
prior to the onset of free expansion. We emphasize that the result given by (11) is insufficient to determine both the longitudinal and transverse size of the figure at the very beginning of the hydrodynamic stage. The medium may undergo some flow in the transverse plane which is perpendicular to the $`x`$ axis during the fusion of the nuclei, and this is not impeded by external pressure. More accurate estimates of the radial size $`L>R`$ reached in this direction are difficult because of the highly non-equilibrium character of the fusion stage (see also the Introduction).

Let us now consider the adiabatic stage of the expansion process. The initial configuration can be schematically represented by a disk of thickness $`2l`$. It is natural to assume that

$$lL.$$
(12)
In the first approximation, therefore, the hydrodynamic flow can be looked upon as one-dimensional. The symmetry of the problem enables us to confine our attention to the region $`x>0`$. In addition to the coordinate measured from the center of symmetry, it will occasionally be useful to use the variable $`x^{}=xl`$. The edge of the distribution of matter moves forward with the velocity given by (8). As long as $`t<l/u_0`$, the situation is no different from the solution of the well-known problem on the expansion of a half-space into vacuum. Against the flow, we have the propagation of a simple wave up to the “weak discontinuity” $`x^{}=u_0t`$ (i. e., the point at which the sonic signal reaches at this time; see, for example, ). When $`t>l/u_0`$, the weak discontinuity moves in the positive direction of the $`x`$ axis, and the relative size of the region occupied by the simple wave decreases rapidly. The space on the other side of the weak discontinuity, where the appropriate value of the so-called general integral of hydrodynamic equations444In the model example corresponding to $`\nu =0`$, the “joining” of the general integral to the simple wave is readily achieved exactly and in an explicit form for any time $`t>l/u_0`$. The fraction of energy and entropy which is asymptotically taken up by the simple wave turns out to be of the order of $`l/u_0t1`$. Similar estimates are characteristic for other values of $`\nu `$. It must not, however, be supposed that the fact that the simple wave is negligible for large times $`t`$ is a universal feature of all hydrodynamic problems involving the free expansion of material into vacuum. In the ultrarelativistic case, the fluid is rapidly accelerated and tends to the limiting (light) velocity so that, in general, a considerable fraction of the total energy and total entropy is concentrated in the simple wave. A specific example of this is the problem solved in the Appendix. is reached, begins to play the dominant role. In principle, a general analytic expression can be obtained for it for integral values of $`\nu `$ .

In the case of an ideal gas of elementary particles, we have $`\gamma =5/3`$ and $`\nu =1`$. The corresponding general solution can be written in the form

$$\chi (w,v)=\frac{1}{u}\left\{F_1\left(u+\frac{v}{3}\right)+F_2\left(u\frac{v}{3}\right)\right\},$$
(13)
where $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ are some arbitrary functions. The “velocity potential” can be used for the implicit determination of the required functions $`w(x^{},t)`$ and $`v(x^{},t)`$ from the formulas

$$t=\frac{\chi }{w},x^{}=v\frac{\chi }{w}\frac{\chi }{v}$$
(14)
(see, for example, ). By satisfying the boundary conditions both at $`x^{}=l`$ $`(x=0)`$, at which the fluid is at rest, and at the point of contact with the simple wave (7), we finally obtain

$$\chi =\frac{3}{2}\frac{l}{u}\left\{\left(u+\frac{v}{3}\right)^2u_0^2\right\}.$$
(15)
By substituting in (14) \[see also (5)\], we immediately return to the physically most interesting time $`tl/u_0`$ (in which case, $`uu_0`$, where $`u_0`$ is the initial velocity of sound in the originally resting medium):

$$v=\frac{x}{t},\rho u^3=\frac{l}{2t}\left(u_0^2\frac{v^2}{9}\right).$$
(16)
The velocity field given by (16) corresponds to the inertial motion of the fluid particles, and the velocity distribution of the masses remains unaltered (see also the preliminary remarks in the Introduction). In fact, at any time

$$\rho dx\rho dv(u_0^2v^2/9)dv.$$
(17)
If we now transform to the new variable defined by $`v\sqrt{\epsilon },`$ $`dvd\epsilon /\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ and normalize the expression $`W(\epsilon )d\epsilon \rho dx`$ to the unit integral between $`0`$ and $`\epsilon _{max}`$, we obtain the following expression for the energy distribution of the reaction products, i.e., nucleons, in the center-of-mass system (see Fig. 1):

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\frac{3/4}{(\epsilon _{max})^{3/2}}(\epsilon _{max}\epsilon )\frac{d\epsilon }{\sqrt{\epsilon }}.$$
(18)
The presence of the cutoff point $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{max}`$ in (18) is a consequence of the hydrodynamic character of the expansion stage. The energy $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ averaged over the entire spectrum is given by

$$\epsilon _{max}=5\overline{\epsilon }=5E_0$$
(19)
($`\overline{\epsilon }=E_0`$ follows from energy conservation).

When (12) is satisfied, the angular distribution of the nucleons is confined to the forward and backward directions. It cannot be calculated in a closed form, and we shall therefore confine our attention to an estimate of the characteristic angle $`\theta v_y/v`$, where $`v_y`$ is the transverse component of the fluid-particle velocity. Its total acceleration $`d𝐯/dt`$ is given by the Euler equation, the transverse component of which is

$$\frac{dv_y}{dt}=\frac{p/y}{\rho }\frac{u^2}{L}\frac{l^{2/3}u_0^{4/3}}{Lt^{3/2}}.$$
(20)
The solution given by (16) is used here for approximate purposes and is valid for $`u_0tL`$, after which expansion enters the three-dimensional phase. Integrating up to the above limit, and recalling that $`vu_0`$, we find that

$$\theta (l/L)^{2/3}.$$
(21)
Transforming to the laboratory system, in which one of the nuclei was at rest prior to collision, we obviously obtain $`E_1=4E_0=4\overline{\epsilon }`$ for the primary energy per nucleon. For most particles, the observed angle $`\vartheta `$ between their momenta and the collision axis has the same order of magnitude, i.e., $`\vartheta \theta 1`$. If we apply the Galilean transformation to (18), we can readily show that

$$W(\epsilon _1)d\epsilon _1=\frac{3/8}{(5\overline{\epsilon })^{3/2}}\left[5\overline{\epsilon }\left(\sqrt{\epsilon _1}\pm \sqrt{\overline{\epsilon }}\right)^2\right]\frac{d\epsilon _1}{\sqrt{\epsilon _1}},$$
(22)
where $`\epsilon _1`$ is the laboratory nucleon energy, and the upper and lower signs refer to particles travelling in the forward and backward directions in this frame, respectively. The distribution given by (22) is normalized to a unit total integral evaluated over both regions, and the corresponding branches of it are shown in Fig. 1. We note that, when $`\epsilon _1E_1\theta ^2`$, the angular distribution of the nucleons becomes broad, filling the entire solid angle (in the laboratory system).

The foregoing discussion was, in fact, confined to the case $`E_0m_\pi c^2`$. When the inequality

$$m_\pi c^2E_0m_nc^2$$
(23)
is satisfied, the situation is modified somewhat because of the creation of a large number of relativistic pions during the fusion of the nuclei. In the region defined by (23), most of the mass is carried by the nucleons. On the other hand, the internal energy (less the nucleon rest mass, as is usually assumed in non-relativistic theory) resides mainly in the meson degrees of freedom, and these particles are also largely responsible for the pressure in the medium. By analogy with black-body radiation  \[see also the next section and, in particular, the equation of state given by (30)\], the pressure will be approximately specified by the equation

$$p=\frac{1}{3}nE_0.$$
(24)
Equating the pressure given by (24) to the external pressure given by (9), which, during the fusion stage, describes the cold part of the medium for a certain interval of time, we find that

$$n/n_06.$$
(25)
The increase in the preliminary compression as compared with (11) suggests that the validity of (12) may improve 555Nevertheless, the narrowness of the region in which (23) is valid is a serious defect of the theory applicable to it. The condition given by (23) may not be sufficient because the nucleon and pion rest masses are not, in reality, very different from one another..

Black-body radiation and other similar ultrarelativistic modifications of matter correspond to $`\gamma =4/3`$ and $`\nu =5/2`$. In principle, for fractional values of $`\nu `$, there is no closed general analytic solution of the equations of one-dimensional hydrodynamics that are analogous to (13) and (14). However, for large times $`t`$, the asymptotic behavior of the form given by (16) can readily be generalized to fractional values of $`\nu `$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v& =x/t,tl/u_0,\hfill \\ \hfill \rho u^{2\nu +1}& =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu +1)}{2^{2\nu }[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)]^2}\frac{l}{t}\left[u_0^2\frac{v^2}{(2\nu +1)^2}\right]^\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
If we use this expression to determine the energy distribution of the particles in the center-of-mass system, we have for $`\nu =5/2`$,

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\frac{16/5\pi }{(\epsilon _{max})^3}(\epsilon _{max}\epsilon )^{5/2}\frac{d\epsilon }{\sqrt{\epsilon }},\epsilon _{max}=8\overline{\epsilon },$$
(27)
which is valid for any reaction products with nucleons and pions predominating. The quantity $`\epsilon _{max}`$ is proportional to the mass of the particles with which we are concerned. For example, $`\epsilon _{n,max}/\epsilon _{\pi ,max}=m_n/m_\pi `$. Because the conditions for the validity of the theory are unfavorable (see the last footnote), the equation $`\overline{\epsilon }_nE_0`$ is, in fact, satisfied only approximately. Finally, if we estimate the transverse forces in the Euler equation by analogy with the derivation of (21) from (20) and (16), we get the expression

$$\theta (l/L)^{1/3}$$
(28)
for the effective angle at which the particles are emitted in the center-of-mass system. We shall not consider here the kinematics of the transformation to the laboratory system, since it is analogous to that discussed above for the case $`E_0m_\pi c^2`$.

## 3 Collisions of ultrarelativistic nuclei

When

$$E_0m_nc^2$$
(29)
we must use the method of relativistic hydrodynamics . We begin by writing down the basic thermodynamic relationships. In the spirit of the Landau idea  on the nature and the probable form of the equation of state for hadron matter at ultrarelativistic temperatures $`Tm_\pi c^2`$, we assume that

$$p=\frac{e}{3},e=ks^{4/3},T=\frac{de}{ds}=\frac{4}{3}ks^{1/3}.$$
(30)
In these expressions, $`e`$ is the energy per unit proper volume of the liquid particle in its rest system, $`s`$ is the entropy per unit proper volume, $`p`$ is the pressure, and $`T`$ the temperature. This yields the following constant value for the velocity of sound:

$$u=c/\sqrt{3}.$$
(31)
The numerical value of $`k`$ cannot be established by purely deductive means. Dimensional considerations suggest that

$$k\mathrm{}c.$$
(32)
The volume of the compound system produced as a result of the fusion of the original nucleus is given by

$$VR^3\frac{m_nc^2}{E_0},$$
(33)
where $`R`$ is the nuclear radius and the factor $`m_nc^2/E_0`$ appears as a result of the Lorentz compression:

$$\frac{n}{n_0}\frac{E_0}{m_nc^2}.$$
(34)
Recalling also the expression given by (2), we can readily show that the temperature and entropy of the system at the time preceding the onset of adiabatic expansion are given by

$$T_0m_\pi c^2\left(\frac{m_n}{m_\pi }\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{\frac{E_0}{m_nc^2}},SA\left(\frac{m_n}{m_\pi }\right)^{3/4}\sqrt{\frac{E_0}{m_nc^2}}.$$
(35)
Let us now consider the hydrodynamic stage. Because of the geometry of the initial configuration, this stage has the character of one-dimensional flow over a certain interval of time. However, analysis shows that the increase in the influence of transverse forces gradually leads to the isotropization of the flow and its rapid transformation into the three-dimensional phase 666This phenomenon was considered qualitatively in the papers . Landau called it “lateral” or “conical” expansion. He used conservation laws to predict a time dependence of the main quantities, which is confirmed by the rigorous formula (40); see below for further details.. As a result, the liquid is so rapidly accelerated that it becomes concentrated largely at finite distances from the surface which is expanding with the velocity of light. One way of describing this is to say that a “cavity,” i.e., a region of sharply reduced density, is produced inside the spatial distribution of matter with this peculiar geometry. We shall first describe this isotropic part of the process and will return to the influence of the initial conditions later.

It is well known that the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics are contained in the differential conservation laws

$$\frac{T^{ik}}{x^k}=0,$$
(36)
where $`T^{ik}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the medium . It will be convenient to use the system of units in which $`c=1`$ and adopt (30) to simplify all the expressions to the case of spherical symmetry. Instead of the radial distance $`r`$, we shall use the independent variable

$$\xi =tr$$
(37)
and expand into a series in powers of the reciprocal of the relativistic 4-velocity

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^2}}1,$$
(38)
retaining only the first two terms ($`t/\xi \gamma `$, as we shall soon show). In terms of the new variables, we then obtain the following set of equations for the ultrarelativistic flow:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \gamma ^2\frac{s}{t}+2\frac{1}{t}\gamma ^2s+2\frac{\xi }{t^2}\gamma ^2s+\frac{1}{2}\frac{s}{\xi }+\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\gamma ^2}{t}\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{\gamma }{\xi }\right]s=0,\hfill \\ & \gamma ^2\frac{s}{t}\frac{1}{2}\frac{s}{\xi }+\frac{3}{2}\left[\frac{\gamma ^2}{t}+\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{\gamma }{\xi }\right]s=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
It is readily verified that all the requirements are satisfied by the following very simple solution777From the more formal point of view, the simplicity of this solution and the complexity of the one-dimensional Landau-Khalatnikov solution  are probably connected with the three-dimensional character of real physical space. Both the hydrodynamic equations (39) and the equation of state (30), which is taken into account in their derivation (this also implicitly assumes the three-dimensional character of space), correspond to this nature of physical space. In this sense, complete concordance of the equations of hydrodynamics and thermodynamics in the “one-dimensional world” also results in an exceedingly simple solution. We shall not reproduce this solution here and merely note the following: when the one-dimensional analog of the thermodynamic relationships given by (30) is used, the equations of hydrodynamics turn out to be strictly linear and can be readily solved in general form. The solution is some explicit function of the initial conditions.

$$s=\frac{C}{t^3\xi ^3},\gamma ^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{t^2}{\xi ^2}.$$
(40)
The singularity at $`\xi =0`$ reflects, formally, the inability of matter to propagate with velocities in excess of the velocity of light and this is, of course, the basic feature of the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics. In point of fact, the value of the general integral of these equations given by (40) is valid only up to a certain $`\xi _0>0`$. The sphere $`\xi =\xi _0`$ is a surface of weak discontinuity. Integrating the differential equation of its motion \[it can be set up with the aid of the relativistic law of addition of velocities; relative to the fluid, the weak discontinuity always propagates with the velocity of light which, in this case, is $`1/\sqrt{3}`$, see (31)\], we can verify that $`\xi \mathrm{const}`$ when

$$t\xi _0.$$
(41)
To achieve a more specific physical interpretation of $`\xi _0`$, let us consider the conservation laws. The spatial energy density is the time component

$$T_{00}=(e+p)\gamma ^2p\frac{4}{3}e\gamma ^2$$
(42)
of the energy-momentum tensor . Moreover, the total entropy $`S`$ is a constant in the case of adiabatic flow. Using (30) and (40), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E& =\frac{4}{3}ks^{4/3}\gamma ^2𝑑𝐫=\frac{4}{3}4\pi t^2k\frac{C^{4/3}}{t^4}\frac{t^2}{2}_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\xi }{\xi ^6}=\frac{8}{15}\pi k\frac{C^{4/3}}{\xi _0^5},\hfill \\ \hfill S& =s\gamma 𝐫=4\pi t^2\frac{C}{t^3}\frac{t}{\sqrt{2}}_{\xi _0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\xi }{\xi ^4}=\frac{2^{3/2}}{3}\pi \frac{C}{\xi _0^3},\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
which enable us to calculate $`\xi _0`$ and the arbitrary constant $`C`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \xi _0& =\frac{2}{5}\left(\frac{3}{\pi }\right)^{1/3}k\frac{S^{4/3}}{E}=\frac{2}{5}\left(\frac{3}{\pi }\right)^{1/3}V^{1/3},\hfill \\ \hfill C& =\frac{2^{3/2}}{125}\left(\frac{3}{\pi }\right)^2k^3\frac{S^5}{E^3}=\frac{2^{3/2}}{125}\left(\frac{3}{\pi }\right)^2SV.\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
Consequently \[see (33), and we return to ordinary units\]

$$\xi _0V^{1/3}R(m_nc^2/E_0)^{1/3}.$$
(45)
When the temperature is reduced to $`Tm_\pi c^2`$, the individual particles are finally formed, and the relativistic acceleration mechanism ceases to operate (see also the preliminary remarks at the end of the Introduction). To estimate the corresponding time $`t`$, let us return to (40). It is clear that the volume in which the medium is concentrated is $`(ct)^2\xi _0`$. Moreover, $`\gamma ct/\xi _0`$. We may therefore conclude that the order of magnitude of the “proper volume” is $`(ct)^2\xi _0\gamma (ct)^3`$. In this volume, the above temperature corresponds to pion separations of the order of their Compton wavelength. Thus,

$$ct\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_\pi c}N_\pi ^{1/3}.$$
(46)
We note that this result is similar to the well-known formula given by (2). Since $`N_\pi A`$, comparison with (45) shows that the inequality given by (41) is clearly satisfied. The energy spectrum of the particles must be judged from the entropy distribution (see ). Its observed density is $`s\gamma `$ and is determined by (40). Therefore,

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon s\gamma d\xi =s\gamma \frac{d\xi }{d\gamma }d\gamma \gamma ^2d\gamma .$$
(47)
This distribution cuts off sharply at $`\gamma =\gamma _{max}`$, which corresponds to $`\xi =\xi _0`$ at time given by (46). It is readily seen that

$$\gamma _{max}\left(\frac{m_n}{m_\pi }\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{E_0}{m_nc^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(48)
The particle-energy distribution in the center-of-mass system, normalized to unity, assumes the form

$$W(\epsilon )d\epsilon =\frac{3}{(\epsilon _{max})^3}\epsilon ^2d\epsilon ,\overline{\epsilon }=\frac{3}{4}\epsilon _{max},\epsilon <\epsilon _{max}=mc^2\gamma _{max}.$$
(49)
In this expression, $`m`$ is the rest mass of the particular type of particles with which we are concerned.

Let us now briefly consider the kinematics of the transformation to the laboratory system. Elementary relativistic transformation yields:

$$E_12\frac{E_0^2}{m_nc^2}E_0,$$

where $`E_1`$ is the primary laboratory energy per nucleon in the bombarding nucleus. The particle energy and angular distribution can be found without great difficulty, but the process is laborious. Integrating it with respect to one of the variables, we find that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill W(\vartheta )do& =\frac{(m_nc^2/E_0)^2}{[\vartheta ^2+(m_nc^2/E_0)^2]^2}\frac{do}{\pi },\hfill \\ \hfill W(\epsilon _1)d\epsilon _1& =\frac{3/2}{\epsilon _{1,max}}\left[1\left(\frac{\epsilon _1}{\epsilon _{1,max}}\right)^2\right]d\epsilon _1,\epsilon _{1,max}=\frac{E_1}{E_0}\epsilon _{max},\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
for the angular and energy distributions, respectively. The quantity $`do=2\pi \vartheta d\vartheta `$ is the solid-angle element and, as can be seen, $`\overline{\theta }m_nc^2/E_01`$, i.e., the angular distribution is confined to forward directions in the laboratory system. We emphasize these simple distributions are valid for the great majority of particles but, strictly speaking, not for all of them. As a matter of fact, the laboratory energy has the lower bound

$$\epsilon _{1,min}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m}{m_n}\frac{E_0}{\gamma _{max}}\epsilon _{1,max},$$

which is relatively low but still ultrarelativistic. In the “soft” part of the spectrum adjacent to $`\epsilon _{1,min}`$, the particles are emitted at relatively large angles right up to the maximum possible

$$\vartheta _{max}=\frac{m_nc^2}{E_0}\gamma _{max},1\vartheta _{max}\vartheta .$$

These details of the ultrarelativistic distributions are illustrated in Fig. 2.

One further remark must be introduced in connection with the foregoing. The general principles of solution of this kind of hydrodynamic problem would appear to enable us to say that the region of space $`\xi <\xi _0`$ cannot be absolutely “empty.” It should contain the simple wave which is in direct contact with vacuum. Since in the equation of state given by (30) the edge of the distribution of matter (strictly speaking, it, too, is a weak discontinuity) always moves with the velocity of light, the radial size $`\zeta _0`$ of the simple wave will also remain constant in the ultrarelativistic limit which we have considered. To estimate it, therefore, we must return to an earlier stage in the expansion process.

The one-dimensional Landau-Khalatnikov theory  is valid for $`ct\xi _0`$. The initial configuration was characterized by the longitudinal size $`lRm_nc^2/E_0`$ \[see also (33)\]. When $`ct>l\sqrt{3}`$, both weak discontinuities move in the same, positive, direction. It is readily shown that, in the one-dimensional relativistic simple wave (self-similar, see, for example, ), we have

$$\zeta _0t^\lambda ,\lambda =\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}1}{\sqrt{3}+1}\right)^2=74\sqrt{3}0.07,$$
(51)
which describes the distance $`\zeta _0`$ between the weak discontinuities as a function of time. Thus,

$$\zeta _0l\left(\frac{ct}{l}\right)^\lambda lR\frac{m_nc^2}{E_0},$$
(52)
if, for the purpose of very approximate calculations, we neglect the effect of the small exponent, and take into account the short duration of the entire one-dimensional phase of the expansion process. Comparison with (45) then yields

$$\zeta _0\xi _0.$$
(53)
We may, therefore, neglect the contributions of the energy and entropy of the simple wave, and this was taken into account in the derivation of the formulas considered below.

## 4 Charge distribution of reaction products

The fact that the individual particles (hadrons) have certain discrete quantum numbers, i.e., different “charges,” enables us to derive a number of interesting relationships.

The equilibrium character of the resulting electric charge distribution is clear even from (46). Immediately after the formation of the individual hadrons, the free path $`\mathrm{}/m_\pi c`$ is still small in comparison with the linear dimensions of the entire system, so that hydrodynamics and thermodynamics remain valid, as before, for an appreciable length of time even after transition to the region $`Tm_\pi c^2`$ in which we have a Boltzmann gas with a practically constant number of particles 888Transition to the Boltzmann region $`Tm_\pi c^2`$ is accompanied by the strong suppression of pion annihilation processes because, as the density falls, the role of triple (and higher order) collisions falls rapidly to zero.. Under these conditions, elastic interactions between the particles, including charge-transfer processes, are sufficiently effective.

We shall base our analysis on the principle of isotopic invariance (see, for example, \[17-19\]). When nuclei with the same number of protons and neutrons coalesce, the initial state is completely isotropic in isotopic space, with all the ensuing consequences. In particular, all pions ($`\pi ^+,\pi ^0,\pi ^{}`$) are then created in equal numbers. However, in practice, sufficiently heavy nuclei have a neutron excess $`A2Z`$. Using the analogy with thermodynamics, and the statistics of rotating bodies , we can adhere to the point of view that, in equilibrium, a fluid particle rotates as a whole in isotopic space with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The Boltzmann distribution then contains the factor $`\mathrm{exp}\{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\tau /T\}`$, which includes the component $`\tau `$ of the particle isospin along the rotation axis. Consequently,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{N_p}{N_n}=\frac{N_{\pi ^+}}{N_{\pi ^0}}=\frac{N_{\pi ^0}}{N_\pi ^{}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}\right)1+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{T},\hfill \\ & N_{\pi ^+}=\frac{M_\pi }{3}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}\right),N_{\pi ^0}=\frac{N_\pi }{3},N_\pi ^{}=\frac{M_\pi }{3}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(54)
where $`N_p`$ is the number of protons and $`N_n`$ is the number of neutrons among the reaction products, and the other subscripts refer to pions of the appropriate type.

The validity of relationships such as those given by (54) does not depend on the presence of other particles. Let us suppose now that antibaryons can be practically neglected, and baryons are represented only by protons and neutrons. Conservation of the baryon charge $`2A`$ of the entire system then yields

$$N_p=A\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2T}\right),N_n=A\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2T}\right).$$
(55)
Let us now apply the conservation of electric charge $`N_p+N_{\pi ^+}N_\pi ^{}=2Z`$. We have

$$\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}=2\frac{A2Z}{A+(4/3)N_\pi },\frac{AN_p}{A2Z}=\frac{1}{1+(4/3)(M_\pi /A)}.$$
(56)
Thus, after the reaction, the neutron excess $`AN_p`$ decreases in comparison with its original value $`A2Z`$, and hence the pion fraction contains more negative pions than positive pions.

We note that the above formulas are even more valid for $`E_0m_nc^2`$ when, roughly speaking, there is not enough energy for antinucleon creation. Even in the absence of pions, the relative neutron excess is not large enough to enable us to assume that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/T1`$, as above. For the region defined by (23), we can readily show that, very approximately,

$$N_\pi S\left(\frac{E_0}{m_\pi c^2}\right)^{3/4}A.$$
(57)
In the ultrarelativistic limit $`E_0m_nc^2`$, the situation can, at least in principle, become modified by the creation of baryon pairs, However, under these conditions, since $`N_\pi S`$ (see (35) and ), the neutron excess in the nucleon fraction is negligible compared with the initial excess.

## 5 Discussion

Let us now briefly review the conclusions of the theory of collisions between energetic nuclei, which refer to the energies of the individual particles after interaction. Their mean value is, as a rule, of the order of the temperature $`T_0`$ of the resulting compound system. However, the shape of the energy spectra of the reaction products does not in itself exclude the possibility that the mechanism may be interpretable as purely thermal and “evaporative.” It is difficult to imagine, for example, that the restriction on the maximum energy of the emitted particle is due to anything other than the hydrodynamic character of the expansion of the compound system. There is a particularly sharp jump in the distribution function at $`\epsilon =\epsilon _{max}`$ in the ultrarelativistic limit (see (49) and the explanation in text). When we refer to the nonrelativistic case $`E_0m_nc^2`$, we must also emphasize the shape $`d\epsilon /\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ of the soft part of the spectrum, which is totally uncharacteristic for particle-evaporation processes in the case of the usual compound nucleus. When the necessary experimental data become available, therefore, one would hope to be able to achieve a sufficiently reliable identification of the hydrodynamic mechanism discussed in the present paper.

We must now briefly consider the specific features of collisions that are not of the head-on type. The compound system whose evolution is described by the above theory arises in the region of space where the colliding nuclei overlap. Those parts of the nuclei which do not overlap remain as relatively cold fragments, in effect, truncated on collision. They largely continue to execute inertial motion with energy $`E_0`$ per nucleon. Subsequently, the shape of a fragment in its rest system tends to an equilibrium, and the oscillations of the surface become transformed into heat. The final temperature reached in the course of this process is probably a slowly-varying function of the primary energy $`E_0`$ and is low. Consequently, the velocity of the nucleons evaporated from the fragment is also small in comparison with its translational velocity as a whole. The nucleons evaporated by this mechanism should therefore produce an additional monochromatic peak at $`\epsilon E_0`$ in the energy spectrum (in the center-of-mass system). This interesting feature of the phenomenon suggests that the experimental energy distributions should be even more informative.

We would like to express our gratitude to A.I. Baz’, I.I. Gurevich, L.P. Kudrin, V.A. Novikov, A.A. Ogloblin, I.I. Roizen, Ya.A. Smorodinskii, Yu.A. Tarasov, and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan for discussions of the present results.

## Appendix

There is some methodical interest in the problem of expansion of matter which initially occupies uniformly a spherical volume of radius $`R`$ at rest. We shall assume that the temperature is ultrarelativistic.

In the limit $`tR`$, when the one-sided expansion away from an internal weak discontinuity $`\xi =\xi _0`$ has taken place, we have the general integral given by (40). On the other side, $`\xi <\xi _0`$ we have a spherically symmetric simple wave. To establish the shape of the singularity on the surface of the external weak discontinuity, i. e., on the boundary with vacuum, let us consider the corresponding self-similar solution (which depends only on the variable $`\eta =r/t`$). Detailed analysis, which we shall omit for lack of space, leads to the following natural-looking result

$$s=\frac{C}{\xi _0^3t^3}\left(\frac{\zeta }{\zeta _0}\right)^3,\gamma ^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{t^2}{\xi _0^2}\left(\frac{\zeta _0}{\zeta }\right)^2,tR,\zeta t.$$
(A.1)
Here, in contrast to $`\xi `$, the coordinate $`\zeta `$ is measured from a different bounding surface of the light signal (see also below); $`\zeta _0`$ is the position of the internal weak discontinuity on the $`\zeta `$-scale. In (A.1), the constants have been chosen so as to ensure that it agrees with (40) when $`\xi =\xi _0`$. For the conserved total energy and entropy, we now have $`E=E^{}+E^{\prime \prime }`$, $`S=S^{}+S^{\prime \prime }`$, where $`E^{}`$ and $`S^{}`$ are given by (43) and $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ can be calculated by analogy, using the solution (A.1) for the simple wave, and then integrating with respect to $`\zeta `$ between zero and $`\zeta _0`$. The result is

$$S=\frac{2^{3/2}}{3}\pi \frac{C}{\xi _0^3}\left(1+\frac{\zeta _0}{\xi _0}\right),E=\frac{8}{15}\pi k\frac{C^{4/3}}{\xi _0^5}\left(1+\frac{5}{3}\frac{\zeta _0}{\xi _0}\right).$$
(A.2)
To ensure that the “asymptotic” solution (40), in general, misses the region in which the equations of hydrodynamics are at least formally satisfied (this is discussed below with a suitable choice of the origin of time), the sphere $`\xi =0`$ must be reduced to a point. It is clear, on the other hand, that, in reality, this kind of singularity at $`r=0`$ occurs only when the surface of the internal weak discontinuity contracts to the origin, $`t=R\sqrt{3}`$. During the same time, the external weak discontinuity will move forward to a distance $`R\sqrt{3}`$. Subsequently, the distance

$$\zeta \xi =\zeta _0\xi _0=(\sqrt{3}1)R$$
(A.3)
between the singular surfaces (the spheres $`\zeta =0`$ and $`\xi =0`$) of the two solutions to be matched undergoes no changes because both surfaces expand with velocities strictly equal to the velocity of light. This is the necessary third condition which, together with (A.2), determines finally all three arbitrary constants $`C`$, $`\xi _0`$, and $`\zeta _0`$. Since

$$k^3\frac{S^4}{E^3}=V=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3,$$

we obtain an algebraic equation of a high (sixth) degree in the ratio $`R/\xi _0`$. Numerical solution yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \xi _0=0.52R,\zeta _0=3.25R,\zeta _0/\xi _0=6.3,\hfill \\ & C=\frac{24\sqrt{2}}{125\pi }\frac{(1+5\zeta _0/3\xi _0)^3}{(1+\zeta _0/\xi _0)^5}R^3S.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.4)
Returning now to ordinary units, and using the dimensionless small combinations

$$z^{}=1\frac{r+\sqrt{3}R}{ct},z^{\prime \prime }=1\frac{rR}{ct}$$

for the sake of brevity, we finally obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s=\frac{C}{(ct)^6}(z^{})^3,& \gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(z^{})^1,\text{for}z^{\prime \prime }>\frac{\zeta _0}{ct};\hfill \\ \hfill s=\frac{C}{\xi _0^3\zeta _0^3}(z^{\prime \prime })^3,& \gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\zeta _0}{\xi _0}(z^{\prime \prime })^1\text{for}0<z^{\prime \prime }<\frac{\zeta _0}{ct};\hfill \\ & tR/c.\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.5)
Equations (A.4) and (A.5) form the solution of our problem.

If, as a result of further expansion, the medium cools down to nonrelativistic temperatures, the equation of state given by (30) will be violated and the particle energy distribution will cease to vary. We shall not consider the details of this; the necessary derivations are similar to those leading to (47) and (49). We merely note that the “weakness” of the internal discontinuity at $`\xi =\xi _0`$ is reflected in the continuity of the thermodynamic and hydrodynamic quantities (but not of their spatial derivatives). However, to determine the particle-energy spectrum, we must transform to the $`\gamma `$ scale, in which case the spectral density $`W(\epsilon )`$ itself exhibits a discontinuity. It is not difficult to show that

$$\frac{W_+}{W_{}}=\frac{\zeta _0}{\xi _0}$$
(A.6)
directly at the singularity $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0=mc^2\gamma (\xi _0)`$ (the subscripts $`+`$ and $``$ indicate the values of the functions to the right and to the left of it). The final result is that the energy density $`W(\epsilon )`$ increases discontinuously \[see (A.4)\] and thereafter decreases in accordance with the formula $`W(\epsilon )d\epsilon d\epsilon /\epsilon ^4`$, $`\epsilon >\epsilon _0`$. On the other hand, it follows from (53) that, in the case of the problem considered in Sec. 3, the initial geometry ensures that the distribution function $`W(\epsilon )`$ falls to a negligible value for $`\epsilon =\epsilon _0=\epsilon _{max}`$.

Figures captions

Fig. 1. The dashed curve shows the particle spectrum in the c.m.s. Curve $`1`$ refers to particles travelling in forward directions in the laboratory system. Curve $`2`$ refers to particles travelling in the backward directions. In the laboratory system $`\epsilon _{1max}=(6\pm 2\sqrt{5})\overline{\epsilon }`$.

Fig. 2. These graphs were plotted for (48) replaced by an equation in which the proportionality factor was taken to be equal to unity.