text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The interactions-based approach to modeling socioeconomic behavior (for an overview, see ) is becoming increasingly popular among economists to explain collective phenomena such as herding behavior in financial markets. Blume and Durlauf define the interactions-based approach as “focusing on direct interdependences between economic actors rather than those indirect interdependences which arise through the joint participation of economic actors in a set of markets.”

Our present paper focuses on a particular instance of socioeconomic interaction, whereby an economic agent tends to align herself with the opinions hold by others. Such group pressure effects on the opinion of individual group members have been experimentally found and analysed in social psychology . They have been explained within Leon Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory as resulting from a deep seeded need of a typical individual to have his/her opinions, thoughts, actions and attitudes compared with others and to adapt oneself to the reference group if a substantial deviation from the group status is recognized. In our particular context, we assume that a business manager is influenced in her expectations about the future business prospects in the industry to which her firm belongs by the expectation prevalent in her professional peer group.

Socioeconomic interactions-based phenomena can be effectively modeled by the mathematical concept of a random field111The meaning attached to the term random field is different in mathematical physics and applied statistical physics. We follow in this paper the mathematical tradition to use the term random field for a family of random variables indexed by a not linearly ordered set, such as the integer lattice $`^d`$. (see  for a pioneering contribution). In that stochastic approach in economic modeling, to each agent is associated a random variable the state space of which is the set of possible individual characteristics or decisions. The interaction between agents is then characterized by a family of conditional probabilities for an agent to assume some individual characteristic or decision given a fixed configuration of characteristics/decisions in the peer group of the agent. The peer group structure is modeled by a certain graph structure on the set of agents.

The particular structure of our model is motivated by a business climate survey performed monthly by the German Ifo institute. In that survey, business managers are asked to characterize their expectations about business prospects in their particular industry using the three categories, negative, neutral or positive. The time series obtained from the survey data,222The same survey has been used in the study by B. Flieth and J. Foster , and, in fact, it was their study which attracted our attention to the particular time series shown in Figure 1. depicted in Figure 1, are used as an empirical benchmark for our model.

Among the salient features in these time series are sharp swings in the fractions of agents holding particular expectation types occurring at least four times between 1970 and 2000 and the tendency of the fractions to settle at a particular level in between the swings. We follow Flieth and Foster  in attributing such phenomena to herd behavior resulting from the tendency of economic agents to align themselves with the prevalent expectation of peers. However, in the present paper we use a micro-model with local instead of global interaction, the latter being used in , to reproduce swings similar to those present in the empirical data.

In our model, large but rare swings in the time series of the fractions of agents holding particular expectation types occur spontaneously possibly explaining similar swings in empirical time series for which no apparent explanation based on economically relevant events in the particular industry exists . Such effects arise within our modeling framework as random collective coordination phenomena.

The structure of our paper is as follows. In Section 2 we present the basic specification of the spatio-temporal stochastic process underlying our model. In Section 3 we present Monte Carlo generated time series of the fractions of agents holding particular expectation types. The paper concludes with a discussion of some aspects of our approach in Section 4.

## 2 A model of expectation formation with local interaction between agents

Let $`A`$ denote a finite set of economic agents. Given the specific context of our paper, we interpret $`A`$ as a population of business managers within a particular industry. To each agent $`aA`$ there is associated a variable $`X_a`$ with values from the set $`S=\{1,0,1\}`$. The specification of a three-element state space is motivated by the survey described in the introduction. The realizations of $`X_a`$ are interpreted as expectation types hold by the agents regarding the business prospects they expect to prevail in their industry over a certain time horizon. Those expectations are labeled negative, neutral and positive and each is associated with an element from $`S`$.

We assume socioeconomic interaction between agents in accordance with Festinger’s theory of social comparison  resulting in agents tending to align themselves with the prevalent expectation type in their peer group. The peer group of an agent $`aA`$ is identified with the set of next neighbors $`𝒩(a)`$ of agent $`a`$ with respect to a graph structure imposed on $`A`$. For simplicity we assume the graph structure to be a finite square sublattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`^2`$ with periodic boundary conditions.

We specify an interaction pattern which seems to be implied by the phenomenological characteristics of the empirical time series presented in Figure 1. There are two types of expectations which seem to be prone to group pressure as the sharp swings in the fraction of business managers holding one of these types appear to be a collective phenomenon. In addition, there is a third type of expectation, which is more autonomous in the sense that it appears to be less influenced by group pressure as no sharp swings occur. There are two macroscopic states each one with characteristic population fractions of the non-autonomous expectation types. The autonomous expectation type coexists in both of the macroscopic states and is slightly correlated with the fraction of the non-autonomous types.

We obtain such an interaction pattern by the following specification of the local characteristics of the random field333 See footnote 1. First, the probability that an agent holding a non-autonomous expectation type changes to the other non-autonomous type increases with the fraction of agents in the peer group holding the other type and is almost one if all neighbors are of the other type. Second, the probability that an agent holding the autonomous expectation type changes to one of the non-autonomous types is less dependent than in the first case on the fraction of agents in the peer group holding other types of expectation.

For a quantitative formulation of the above specified interaction pattern, we define a mathematical object, which we call the Festinger-function444The Festinger-function corresponds to the energy function or Hamiltonian of a physical system., $`F:S^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that the probability of each configuration $`xS^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be written as

$$P(x)=\frac{1}{Z}e^{F(x)}$$
(1)
with the normalization constant

$$Z=\underset{xS^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}e^{F(x)}.$$
(2)
In this paper we confine ourselves to a generic specification of the Festinger-function leaving a quantitative experimental investigation of such group pressure effects for future research (see Section 4). A concrete specification of the Festinger-function fulfilling the above requirements on the interaction structure is the following

$$F(x)=J\underset{}{}(x_ix_j)^2$$
(3)
with the sum over all pairs $`i<j`$ of next neighbors. By that specification, the more neighboring agents have both assumed the same expectation type the higher is the probability of a given configuration because each such pair of neighboring agents contributes $`0`$ to the sum, while each pair of neighboring agents holding different expectation types contributes either $`J`$ or $`4J`$ to the sum. In effect, this generic specification captures the basic features of group pressure as specified above.

Next, we formulate a discrete-time stochastic dynamics for the atemporal model described in the previous paragraphs. The type of stochastic dynamics we use is called Glauber dynamics . Let $`(X^\tau )_\tau =(X^0,X^1,\mathrm{})`$ denote a family of random variables with state space $`S^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The realization of the process at time555The time index $`\tau `$ does not correspond to the time scale of the system. See remarks below in the main text. $`\tau `$ characterizing the configuration of all agents’ expectations at $`\tau `$, will be denoted by $`x^\tau `$.

The specification of the transition probabilities of the Glauber dynamics is as follows. At each point of (computational) time $`\tau `$ only a single agent, denoted by $`\widehat{a}`$, is allowed to change her expectation (To avoid notational clutter, we write $`\widehat{a}`$ instead of $`\widehat{a}(\tau )`$)666There are various ways of selecting the agent $`\widehat{a}(\tau )`$ at each computational step $`\tau `$. In our specification of the dynamics we have chosen the “type-writer” algorithm, i.e. the agents are updated sequentially along the rows of the lattice.. In a first step, one of the two expectation types other than that which the agent $`\widehat{a}`$ currently holds is randomly independently selected with equal probability assigned to each of them. We denote that alternative expectation type for agent $`\widehat{a}`$ as $`\xi _{\tau +1}`$. In a second step, the agent $`\widehat{a}`$ might change to the expectation type $`\xi _{\tau +1}`$. The probability of that event is denoted by $`p_{\widehat{a},\tau }`$ while $`1p_{\widehat{a},\tau }`$ denotes the probability of the complementary event that the agent $`\widehat{a}`$ retains her expectation type, i.e. $`x_{\widehat{a}}^{\tau +1}=x_{\widehat{a}}^\tau `$.

The probability for agent $`\widehat{a}`$ to assume at $`\tau +1`$ the expectation type $`\xi _{\tau +1}`$ is defined in the Glauber process as the following conditional probability

$$p_{\widehat{a},\tau }=P(X_{\widehat{a}}=\xi _{\tau +1}|(X_{\widehat{a}}=\xi _{\tau +1}X_{\widehat{a}}=x_{\widehat{a}}^\tau )X_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{a}}=x_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{a}}^\tau )$$
(4)
with $`P()`$ denoting the measure on the finite space of configurations $`S^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ associated with the atemporal model and derived from the Festinger-function according to Equation 3.

Thus the transition probability $`p_{a,\tau }`$ obtains after some algebra to

$$p_{\widehat{a},\tau }=\frac{e^{(F(x^{\tau +1})F(x^\tau ))}}{1+e^{(F(x^{\tau +1})F(x^\tau ))}}$$
(5)
In the above equation $`x^{\tau +1}`$ denotes the juxtaposition $`(\xi _{\tau +1}x_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{a}})S^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e. the configuration in which $`\xi _{\tau +1}`$ replaces $`x_{\widehat{a}}^\tau `$ in the configuration $`x^\tau `$.

Finally, we follow the usual concept to define a time step of the modelled system as the number of time steps in the Glauber process such that every agent is updated once.

The Glauber dynamics of a finite random field has the property that the distribution of the process at time $`\tau `$ converges to the unique distribution $`P`$ of the atemporal model as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ (see ).

## 3 Results

This section presents time series of the Glauber dynamics of our model described in the previous section (along with a modified version of it) obtained by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The aim of our model is to reproduce some generic features of the empirical time series data of the fractions of agents holding particular expectation types depicted in Figure 1 (see also Figure 1 in Flieth and Foster ). In summary, these features are, first, the occurrence of large but rare swings in the fractions of two types of expectations which are hardly explainable by the factual situation of the particular industry, second, the settling of the fractions on particular levels in between the transitions and, third, a relatively low fraction of the third type of expectations slightly correlated with one of the other types of expectation.

We have used in the simulations a more general version of the Festinger-function than that specified in Equation 3. The Festinger-function can be written as

$$F(x)=2J\underset{}{}x_ix_j+\delta \underset{i}{}x_i^2$$
(6)
with $`\delta =4J`$. The parameter $`\delta `$, now taken as independent, allows us to control the fraction of the autonomous expectation type.

Figure 2 depicts a representative interval of MC-generated time series of the fractions of expectation types associated with the state space elements $`1`$ (top), $`0`$ (middle) and $`1`$ (bottom) obtained from the specification in the Festinger-function with $`\delta =0`$ and $`J=0.2976`$. There are several spontaneous phase changes in which the prevalent fraction of expectations changes from $`1`$ to $`1`$ or vice versa. It is known from previous work on the Blume-Capel model that with our choice of the Festinger-function there are only two stable phases for $`J>0`$ and $`\delta =0`$, namely those in which either the element $`1`$ or the element $`1`$ prevails.

Moreover, it is known from work on similar models that the average length of the time period between two consecutive transitions from one macroscopic state to the other increases exponentially with lattice size . The system stays on average the same time in either of the two phases associated with a high fraction of $`1`$ or $`1`$.

The fraction of the element $`0`$, representing the expectation type which is less influenced by other agents’ expectations, does not correlate with the fractions of the other expectation types, i.e. it is independent of the prevailing macroscopic state. To account for the feature visible in Figure 1, namely a correlation of the fraction of the weakly interacting expectation ($`0`$) to one of the other two, we have modified the basic model in that we have replaced the state space $`S=\{1,0,1\}`$ by $`S^{}=\{1.014,0.05,1\}`$. The replacement of the element $`0`$ by the element $`0.05`$ makes for an asymmetry in the model which results in reproducing the empirically observed correlations described above. In addition, the element $`1`$ is replaced by $`1.014`$ to approximately equalize the minima of the Festinger-function to secure that the system stays on average equally long in both of its macroscopic states. The resulting time series displaying the feature of a correlation between the autonomous expectation type with one of the non-autonomous expectation types is presented in Figure 3.

Finally, we remark that finite-size effects, which in fact underlie the results presented in this section, can be reasonably expected in some economic settings, in which the number of involved participants is by several magnitudes smaller than in similarly structured physical systems.

## 4 Discussion

In the presented simulation results, the constant characterizing the strength of interaction is set $`\frac{1}{2J}=1.68`$, that is, near the value of critical temperature of the Blume-Capel model. Should we assume that business managers all know the Blume-Capel critical temperature? Of course, not. Instead, a simple heuristic argument can justify why the system is in the range of that value. For $`J`$ much smaller than this critical value the variables associated with the various expectation types flip very fast; for $`J`$ much larger than this critical value nearly all such variables have the same value. Business, in contrast to a basket ball game, cannot survive if the manager changes opinion every second. Thus management moves towards slow changes in opinion, corresponding to $`J`$ near the critical point where relaxation times in infinitely large systems become infinite. On the other hand, managers are supposed to be reasonable such that positive and negative expectations are possible. If everybody would always follow the majority of neighbors (as in our model for large $`J`$), most companies would produce the same goods, offer the same services, and soon go bankrupt. Thus, $`J`$ moves automatically from too high values towards the range of the critical point where all three types of expectations start to coexist.

In our specification of the interaction structure by a Festinger-function of the Blume-Capel type, one additional issue deserves further discussion. Does a frequent observation of an opinion which is, in a heuristic sense, “far away” from one’s own, exert more or less pressure to change one’s opinion than of an opinion which is “closer” to one’s own? The answer to this question seems to depend on the specific context. For example, individuals having strongly different political opinions often refuse to talk to each other so that any influence is inhibited resulting in less pressure . On the other hand, if individuals are flexible enough to learn and respect the knowledge of peers, then presumably more pressure to change is exerted by opinions which are “far away”. We believe that in the context of our paper the second scenario is more appropriate and thus the chosen Festinger-function justified.

It should be emphasized that a pattern of large but rare swings, characteristic for two of the time series in the empirical data, can be obtained in the Glauber dynamics of a finite lattice model for many other specifications of the Festinger-function/energy function. For example, we have obtained results very similar to those in Figure 2 (top) and (bottom) from the so-called three-state Potts model. However, the Potts model has two properties which make it in our modeling context less appropriate than the Blume-Capel model. First, the energy function in the Potts model is symmetric with respect to the elements of the state space. There exist three symmetrical macroscopic states, in contrast to the empirical data in which there is a strong asymmetry of the time series associated with the three types of expectations. Second, in the Glauber dynamics of the Potts model, transition probabilities violate a natural assumption related with the intuitive order on the set of expectation types. For example, consider an agent holding a negative expectation in an environment with all agents holding positive expectations. According to the Glauber dynamics, the agent will then switch to the positive expectation with high probability, will stick to the negative expectation with low probability and will switch to the neutral expectation with an even lower probability. Clearly, the latter aspect of such a specification of the transition probabilities is counterintuitive.

A final remark addresses a methodological issue from the perspective of economics. In our approach we do not pose the question why individuals might behave in a conformistic manner. Instead a descriptive (statistical) approach is used in which the behavior is described by conditional probabilities of an agent holding some expectation given a fixed configuration of expectations of the other agents constituting her peer group. That description should be based on an appropriately designed experiment, for instance, in which individuals are asked to form an expectation faced with a varying proportion of others in their peer group who allegedly hold some expectation. The proportion of agents holding some expectation conditional on the configuration of expectations in the peer group then corresponds to the local characteristics of the atemporal random field model.


format: text

text:
# 1 Magnitudes of neutrino masses generated via double seesaw

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. R.N. Mohapatra for communications


text:
# Magnetic Acceleration and Collimation of Gamma-Ray Burst Jets

## 1 Magnetic Driving of GRB Outflows

Gamma-ray burst (GRB) outflows are likely powered by the extraction of rotational energy from a newly formed stellar-mass black hole or neutron star, or from a surrounding debris disk established in the course of the central object’s formation (e.g., Mészáros, 2002). Magnetic fields threading the central object or disk provide the most plausible means of extracting the inferred amount of energy on the timescale of the burst; they can also guide, collimate, and accelerate the flow (see Vlahakis & Königl, 2001, and references therein). This picture is supported by a recent measurement of a high ($`80\pm 20\%`$) linear polarization in the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission from GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs, 2003), which can be plausibly interpreted in terms of a large-scale magnetic field advected from the origin (e.g., Granot, 2003) and is consistent with magnetic driving by an ordered field that threads the source. Although purely hydrodynamic driving powered by neutrino emission or magnetic field dissipation at the source can probably be ruled out (e.g., Di Matteo, Perna, & Narayan, 2002; Daigne & Mochkovitch, 2002), thermal effects may nonetheless dominate the initial acceleration of magnetic jets (e.g., Mészáros et al., 1993; Vlahakis & Königl, 2001).111It has also been argued (e.g., Drenkhahn & Spruit, 2002) that electromagnetic energy dissipation could contribute to the conversion of Poynting energy into kinetic energy throughout the acceleration region of such flows.

Motivated by the above considerations, Vlahakis & Königl (Vlahakis & Königl, 2003a, b, hereafter VK03a and VK03b, respectively) constructed a general formalism for special-relativistic ideal MHD, allowing for the presence of a baryonic component as well as of a “hot” electron-positron/radiation component that can dominate the pressure. They showed how one can derive exact semianalytic solutions for axisymmetric outflows under the assumption of radial self-similarity and presented illustrative results for representative GRB parameters. Vlahakis, Peng, & Königl (Vlahakis at al., 2003, hereafter VPK03) further generalized this scheme by obtaining solutions for initially neutron-rich outflows, which they used to address the baryon loading problem in GRB source models. A general description of the formalism and of the derived solutions is given in Vlahakis & Königl’s contribution in these Proceedings. The present contribution provides a brief overview of the main results and focuses on their observational implications.

## 2 Relativistic MHD Solutions

The initial (subscript i) magnetic field amplitude can be inferred from an estimate of the injected energy, $`_\mathrm{i}`$ = (Poynting flux) $`\times `$ (surface area) $`\times `$ (burst duration). In a disk geometry \[with initial cylindrical radius $`\varpi _\mathrm{i}`$ and radial width $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi )_\mathrm{i}`$\], $`_\mathrm{i}cE_\mathrm{i}B_{\varphi ,\mathrm{i}}\varpi _\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi )_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where the electric field is given by $`E=B_\mathrm{p}V_\varphi /cB_\varphi V_p/c`$ (with the subscripts p and $`\varphi `$ denoting the poloidal and azimuthal components, respectively). For characteristic parameter values \[$`_\mathrm{i}10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$, $`\varpi _\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi )_\mathrm{i}10^6\mathrm{cm}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t10\mathrm{s}`$\], one obtains $`B_\mathrm{i}10^{14}10^{15}\mathrm{G}`$. This field is most plausibly generated by differential-rotation amplification of a much weaker poloidal field component that originally threads the source.

If $`|B_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{i}}/B_{\varphi ,\mathrm{i}}|>1`$, a trans-Alfvénic outflow is produced, whereas if $`|B_{\varphi ,\mathrm{i}}/B_{\mathrm{p},\mathrm{i}}|>1`$, the outflow is super-Alfvénic from the start. The latter situation may correspond to amplified toroidal flux loops that have been disconnected by magnetic reconnection and escape from the disk surface in a nonsteady fashion. Exact solutions for these two situations were derived in VK03a and VK03b, respectively. It was demonstrated that, in either case, Poynting flux-dominated jets can transform $`>50\%`$ of their magnetic energy into baryon kinetic energy (with $`E_\mathrm{K}10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}`$ and terminal Lorentz factors $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}10^210^3`$). If relativistic $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs and radiation dominate the initial enthalpy, then a thermal acceleration zone develops at the base of the flow and remains dominant until the specific enthalpy drops below $`c^2`$, at which point magnetic acceleration takes over. In contrast to the trans-Alfvénic solutions, part of the enthalpy flux in the super-Alfvénic flows is transformed into Poynting flux during the thermal acceleration phase. Furthermore, the subsequent, magnetically dominated acceleration in these flows can be significantly less rapid than in the trans-Alfvénic case.

The derived solutions have a free parameter, $`F`$, which controls the distribution of the poloidal current $`I=c\varpi B_\varphi /2`$. For $`F>1`$ the flow is in the current-carrying regime, with the poloidal current density being antiparallel to the magnetic field. In this case the current tends to zero as the symmetry axis is approached, so such solutions should provide a good representation of the conditions near the axis of a highly collimated flow. Conversely, solutions with $`F<1`$ correspond to the return-current regime (in which the poloidal current density is parallel to the field) and are most suitable at larger cylindrical distances. Although the detailed global current distribution cannot be modeled using the self-similarity approach, one can nevertheless generate “hybrid” flow configurations that combine a current-carrying solution for low values of $`\varpi `$ and a return-current solution for high values of $`\varpi `$ (see Fig. 1 below for an example). Initially Poynting-dominated flows that attain a rough equipartition between the kinetic and Poynting energy fluxes at large distances from the origin have $`F`$ close to 1. When $`F>1`$ the Lorentz force can collimate the flow to cylindrical asymptotics. For $`F<1`$ the collimation is weaker and the flow only reaches conical asymptotics; however, the acceleration is more efficient in this case in that a larger fraction of the Poynting flux is converted into kinetic energy.

## 3 Implications to the Baryon Loading Problem

As an illustration of the unique properties of the relativistic MHD solutions, consider the ramifications of a hydromagnetic jet model to the baryon loading problem in GRB outflows. The apparent difficulty stems from a comparison between the estimated mass of protons in the jet, $`M_{\mathrm{proton}}=3\times 10^6(E_\mathrm{K}/10^{51}\mathrm{ergs})(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}/200)^1M_{}`$, and the minimum mass of the debris disk from which the jet is thought to originate, obtained under the assumption that at most $`10\%`$ of the disk gravitational potential energy could be converted into outflow kinetic energy. This comparison implies that the outflow can comprise at most $`10^4`$ of the disk mass, whereas disk outflow models that utilize a large fraction of the disk potential energy typically also entail substantial mass loading. One approach to this issue has been to postulate that the outflow emerges along magnetic field lines that thread the black-hole event horizon and not the disk, but then the converse problem — how to avoid having too few baryons — must be addressed (e.g., Levinson & Eichler, 2003). A possible resolution of the problem in the context of disk-fed jet models was proposed in (Fuller et al., 2000), where it was noted that such outflows are expected to be neutron-rich (neutron/proton ratios as high as $`\mathrm{n}/\mathrm{p}2030`$; e.g., Pruet et al., 2003; Beloborodov, 2003b; Vlahakis at al., 2003). Since only the charged outflow component couples to the electromagnetic field, the neutrons could potentially decouple from the protons before the latter attain their terminal Lorentz factor. In this picture, the inferred value of $`M_{\mathrm{proton}}`$ may represent only a small fraction of the total baryonic mass ejected from the disk, which would alleviate the loading problem. However, it can be shown that, for purely hydrodynamic outflows, the Lorentz factor $`\gamma _\mathrm{d}`$ at decoupling is at least a few times $`10^2`$ (e.g., Derishev et al., 1999; Beloborodov, 2003b; Vlahakis at al., 2003). This implies that $`\gamma _\mathrm{d}/\gamma _{\mathrm{}}1`$ and hence that the protons end up with only a small fraction of the injected energy, which is not a satisfactory resolution of the problem.

As demonstrated by VPK03, the incorporation of magnetic fields makes it possible to attain $`\gamma _\mathrm{d}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and thereby reclaim the promise of the Fuller et al. proposal. They wrote down the equations of motion for the neutron component (which couples to the protons through a collisional drag) and for the charged component (incorporating protons and their neutralizing electrons as well as initially “hot” pairs and radiation), and simplified them by considering a well-coupled neutral/charged fluid for $`\gamma \gamma _\mathrm{d}`$ and only the charged fluid component for $`\gamma >\gamma _\mathrm{d}`$. The pre-decoupling region was described by a super-Alfvénic outflow solution. As noted in § 2, in this case part of the enthalpy flux is converted into Poynting flux during the initial thermal acceleration phase. This reduces the acceleration rate, so at the point of decoupling (when $`V_{\mathrm{proton}}V_{\mathrm{neutron}}c`$) the Lorentz factor is still comparatively low. The energy deposited into the Poynting flux is returned to the matter beyond the decoupling point as kinetic energy, thereby enhancing the acceleration efficiency of the proton component. The end result is a large $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}/\gamma _\mathrm{d}`$ ratio and comparable terminal kinetic energies in the proton and neutron components, in clear contradistinction to the purely hydrodynamic solutions.

An illustrative solution is shown in Fig. 1.222In this example $`\mathrm{n}/\mathrm{p}=30`$, the pre-decoupling and post-decoupling regions correspond to the current-carrying ($`F=1.05`$) and return-current ($`F=0.1`$) regimes, respectively, and the flow collimates from an initial opening half-angle of $`55^{}`$ to $`\theta _\mathrm{j}20^{}`$. The top panel shows the behavior of the various components of the energy flux, corroborating the qualitative description given above. The thermal acceleration effectively terminates at a height $`z10^9\mathrm{cm}`$ above the disk, and the neutrons decouple from the protons at $`z_\mathrm{d}10^{13}\mathrm{cm}`$, corresponding to $`\gamma _\mathrm{d}15`$. By the time of decoupling the neutrons have acquired $`2/3`$ of the injected energy, with the remainder residing predominantly in the electromagnetic field. The latter portion is then transferred with almost 100% efficiency into proton kinetic energy, so that, ultimately, the protons have $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=200`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{K},\mathrm{proton}}10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}0.5E_{\mathrm{K},\mathrm{neutron}}`$. The proton jet thus carries $`1/3`$ of the injected energy but only $`3\%`$ of the injected mass. The lower panel of Fig. 1 shows that, even though the decoupling in this case is initiated by the growth of the n–p drift velocity along the poloidal magnetic field, there is also a transverse drift component (induced by the ongoing magnetic collimation), which at the time of decoupling is $`V_{\mathrm{neutron},}0.1c`$.333The exact value of the angle between $`𝐕_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`𝐕_\mathrm{p}`$ at decoupling can only be obtained by solving the equations of motion without the “strong coupling” approximation adopted in the solution shown in Fig. 1.

## 4 Additional Implications

Polarization — Magnetic driving of GRB outflows by large-scale, ordered magnetic fields would naturally lead to a large linear polarization $`P`$ in the prompt $`\gamma `$-ray emission, and a high value of $`P`$ is also predicted for the emission from the reverse shock (the “optical flash” and “radio flare”) (Granot & Königl, 2003). As shown in (Granot, 2003), in this picture the prompt emission may be expected to exhibit $`P43\%61\%`$ for typical values of the synchrotron-radiation spectral index, consistent with the observations of GRB 021206 (Coburn & Boggs, 2003). The ordered field is also expected to induce measurable circular polarization (Matsumiya & Ioka, 2003).

Two-Component Outflow — The decoupled neutrons in a neutron-rich outflow will undergo $`\beta `$ decay into protons at a distance $`4\times 10^{14}(\gamma _\mathrm{d}/15)\mathrm{cm}`$. In contrast with the situation in purely hydrodynamic outflow models (Pruet & Dalal, 2002; Beloborodov, 2003a), there may well be no interaction between the two decoupled components in the MHD case since their motions are not collinear (see Fig. 1$`b`$). The latter scenario thus gives rise to a 2-component outflow: an outer (wider) component (comprising the decoupled neutrons) that carries most of the energy and may be responsible (after the neutrons decay) for the bulk of the optical/radio afterglow, and an inner (narrower) component (comprising the original protons) that accounts for the prompt $`\gamma `$-rays and possibly also for much of the X-ray afterglow. A 2-component outflow of this type was inferred in GRB 030329 (Berger et al., 2003; Sheth et al., 2003). A more detailed investigation of this scenario is currently under way. If $`E_{\mathrm{K},\mathrm{narrow}}<E_{\mathrm{K},\mathrm{wide}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{j},\mathrm{narrow}}/\theta _{\mathrm{j},\mathrm{wide}}<1/3`$, this picture would make it possible to reconcile current inferences of the radiated $`\gamma `$-ray energy (e.g., Bloom, Frail, & Kukarni, 2003) with internal-shock models.


text:
# Controlled vortex-sound interactions in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

The low temperature dynamics of a vortex in a trapped quasi-two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate are studied quantitatively. Precession of an off-centred vortex in a dimple trap, embedded in a weaker harmonic trap, leads to the emission of sound in a dipolar radiation pattern. Sound emission and reabsorption can be controlled by varying the depth of the dimple. In a shallow dimple, the power emitted is proportional to the vortex acceleration squared over the precession frequency, whereas for a deep dimple, periodic sound reabsorption stabilises the vortex against radiation-induced decay.

The superfluid nature of weakly-interacting atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) supports quantized circulation, as observed in the form of single vortices matthews , vortex lattices abo-shaeer2001 , and vortex rings anderson . Vortices are fundamental to the understanding of fluid dynamics, signalling the breakdown of ordered flow and the onset of turbulence. Dilute atomic gases enable easy control and observation of quantized vortices, complimenting vortex studies in liquid Helium, superconductors, and non-linear optics. Vortices in superfluids are subject to both thermal and dynamical instabilities. Thermal dissipation in BECs induces an outward motion of the vortex towards lower densities fedichev . Dynamical dissipation is evident in superfluids in the limit of low temperature, as manifested in the temperature-independent crystallisation of vortex lattices in BEC’s abo-shaeer2002 , and the decay of vortex tangles in liquid Helium davies . In this limit, reconnections and Kelvin wave excitations of vortex lines leads to dissipation by sound (phonon) emission vinen ; leadbeater . Superfluid vortices are also unstable to acceleration, in analogy to Larmor radiation induced in accelerating charges. For example, corotating pairs vortex\_pairs , and single vortices performing circular motion lundh ; vinen , within a two-dimensional (2D) homogeneous superfluid are predicted to decay via sound emission. However, this decay mechanism is not expected to occur in finite-sized BECs due to the sound wavelength being larger than the system size lundh ; fetter .

In this Letter we show that a vortex in a trapped quasi-2D BEC, precessing due to the inhomogeneous background density, emits dipolar sound waves in a spiral wave pattern. The quasi-2D geometry ensures that the vortex line is effectively rectilinear and that Kelvin wave excitations rosenbusch ; garcia\_ripoll  are negligible. This instability is closely analogous to the decay of dark solitons in quasi-1D BECs via sound emission due to longitudinal confinement busch ; parker1  . Quasi-2D ‘pancake’ BECs have recently been created experimentally, using tight confinement in one dimension gorlitz ; grimm . Although such systems are prone to strong phase fluctuations, these effects are suppressed in the limit of very low temperature petrov ; proukakis . In a harmonic trap sound reabsorption occurs, stabilising the vortex (in the absence of other decay mechanisms), while, in modified trap geometries, sound reabsorption can be prevented for times long enough to enable the vortex decay to be observed and probed. In the latter case, the power radiated by the vortex is found to be proportional to the vortex acceleration squared and inversely proportional to the precession frequency.

Our analysis is based on the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) describing the mean-field dynamics of a weakly-interacting BEC in the limit of low temperature,

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\psi +V_{\mathrm{ext}}\psi +g|\psi |^2\psi \mu \psi .`$ (1)
Here $`\psi `$ is the macroscopic order parameter of the system, $`m`$ the atomic mass, and $`\mu =ng`$ is the chemical potential, where $`n`$ is the atomic density. The atomic scattering amplitude $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$, where $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length, is taken to be positive, i.e. repulsive interatomic interactions. The external confining potential $`V_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is given by,

$$V_{\mathrm{ext}}=V_0\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2r^2}{\mathrm{w}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _r^2r^2+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z^2,$$
(2)
and consists of a gaussian dimple with waist $`\mathrm{w}_0`$ and depth $`V_0`$ embedded within a weaker harmonic trap. This configuration can be realised experimentally by focussing a far-off-resonant red-detuned laser beam in the centre of a magnetic trap. Close to the centre, the gaussian dimple is approximately harmonic with frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{d}=2\sqrt{V_0}/\mathrm{w}_0`$. For trap parameters, $`\omega _r=2\pi \times 5`$ Hz, $`\omega _\mathrm{d}=20\omega _r`$, and $`\omega _z=200\omega _r`$ (we choose $`\omega _z\omega _r`$ to suppress excitation in the $`z`$ direction), the harmonic oscillator time is $`\omega _\mathrm{d}^1=1.6`$ ms. In this case, the timescale of dynamical instability due to sound emission is much shorter than the expected thermodynamic vortex lifetime, which is of the order of seconds fedichev . Assuming a peak density $`n_0=10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and a chemical potential $`\mu =3.5\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{d}`$, a $`{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}`$) BEC has harmonic oscillator length $`l_\mathrm{d}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _\mathrm{d})}=1.1(2.1)\mu `$m, and healing length $`\xi =\mathrm{}/\sqrt{m\mu }=0.53l_\mathrm{d}`$.

A singly-quantized vortex, initially at position $`(x_0,y_0)`$ in the dimple (illustrated in Fig. 1) is expected to precess around the trap centre, along a path of constant potential, as observed experimentally anderson3 . This can be interpreted in terms of the Magnus force induced by the density gradient jackson ; svidzinsky . However, the acceleration of the vortex produces sound emission. By varying the depth of the dimple we show how this emission can be observed and quantified. Analogous control has previously been demonstrated for dark solitons parker1 .

The energy of a precessing vortex, for both deep $`V_0\mu `$ and shallow $`V_0<\mu `$ dimples, is shown in Fig. 2(a). The vortex energy is monitored by integrating the GP energy functional,

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}|\psi |^2+V_{\mathrm{ext}}\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}|\psi |^4,`$ (3)
across a ‘vortex region’, defined to be a circle of radius $`5\xi `$ centred on the core, and subtracting off the corresponding contribution of the background fluid. Although the vortex energy technically extends up to the boundary of the system, this region contains $`50\%`$ of the total vortex energy at all background densities considered here.

For $`\omega _z\omega _r`$ and providing $`l_za`$, where $`l_z`$ is the transverse harmonic oscillator length, the GPE can be reduced to a 2D form with a modified coefficient $`g_{2D}=g/(\sqrt{2\pi }l_z)`$ petrov ; lee . In Fig. 2(a) we compare the full 3D GPE (black lines) with the computationally less demanding 2D GPE (grey lines), where the 2D and 3D density profiles are matched as closely as possible. The excellent agreement justifies the use of the 2D GPE for subsequent results.

For a deep dimple, the emitted sound waves are confined to the dimple region and reinteract with the vortex, and there is no $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑒𝑡}`$ decay of the vortex energy. The energy oscillations correspond to a beating between the vortex mode and the collective excitations of the trapped condensate. The beating effect is illustrated in Fig. 2(b), where we plot the Fourier transform of the vortex x-coordinate (dotted line) and energy (solid line). The two fundamental frequencies, the effective trap frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{d}`$ and vortex precession frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{v}`$, dominate the position spectrum, while the energy spectrum highlights the beat frequencies, $`(\omega _\mathrm{v}\omega _\mathrm{d})`$, $`(\omega _\mathrm{v}+\omega _\mathrm{d})`$, and higher order combinations. Similar beating effects are observed for a driven vortex caradoc\_davies , and between a dark soliton and the dipole mode in a quasi-1D BEC parker1 . In contrast, for a shallow dimple, $`V_0<\mu `$, the radiated sound escapes, and the vortex energy decays monotonically (dashed line in Fig. 2(a)).

In an experiment, the vortex energy can be extracted by measuring its position. The trajectory of the vortex for both deep (solid line) and shallow (dashed) dimples is shown in Fig. 3. For $`V_0\mu `$, the orbit is essentially closed, with the vortex remaining in the effectively harmonic region of the dimple, but features a small modulation due to the interaction with the collective excitations of the background fluid. In stark contrast, for $`V_0<\mu `$, the vortex spirals out to lower densities. A similar outward motion has recently been predicted for a vortex precessing in a harmonic trap modulated by an optical lattice frantzeskakis . The results presented here are for a homogeneous outer region $`\omega _r=0`$. Simulations for $`\omega _r0`$ are essentially indistinguishable up to a time when the sound reflects off the condensate edge and returns to the dimple. For example, for an outer trap $`\omega _r=\omega _\mathrm{d}/20`$, the emitted sound begins to reinteract with the vortex at $`t80\omega _\mathrm{d}`$. Following this interaction with the reflected sound, the vortex decay is slowed down, but not fully stabilised, due to a dephasing of the sound modes in the outer trap.

Weakly anisotropic 2D geometries yield the same qualitative results, with vortex precession now occuring in an ellipse, rather than a circle. In the limit of strong anisotropy, deviations arise as the system tends towards the quasi-1D regime, where vortices are not supported.

The continuous emission of sound waves during the precessional motion is evident by a close inspection of the surrounding density distribution during the course of the decay (Fig. 3, insets). The waves are emitted perpendicularly to the instantaneous direction of motion in the form of a dipolar radiation pattern, while the spiralling motion of the vortex modifies this into a dramatic swirling radiation distribution, reminiscent of spiral waves often encountered elsewhere in nature spiral\_waves . The wavelength of the emitted sound $`\lambda 25l_\mathrm{d}`$ agrees well with the theoretical prediction of $`\lambda 2\pi c/\omega _\mathrm{v}=21.3l_\mathrm{d}`$ fetter , where $`c=\sqrt{\mu /m}`$ is the speed of sound and $`\omega _\mathrm{v}`$ is the vortex precession frequency.

The power radiated by the vortex, in the limit of no reinteraction with the emitted sound ($`V_0=0.6\mu `$, is shown in Fig. 4, as a function of time and radius from the trap centre. Due to contraints on the size of our computational grid, this plot was mapped out by a few simulations, with the vortex being started progressively further from the trap centre. This could also be implemented experimentally in order to trace out the vortex decay. The curve can be understood qualitatively by considering the density inhomogeneity that the spiralling vortex experiences: the emitted power increases in line with the local radial density gradient up to $`r1.4\xi `$, where the gradient of the gaussian potential is a maximum, and subsequently tails off as the trap gradient decreases smoothly to zero. We have additionally considered the case where the dimple is harmonic instead of gaussian, and find the same qualitative results, but with enhanced power emission for a particular $`\omega _\mathrm{d}`$, due to the larger precession frequency (see Fig. 5, inset).

A 2D homogeneous superfluid can be mapped on to a (2+1)D electrodynamic system, with vortices and phonons playing the role of charges and photons respectively electro . By analogy to the Larmor radiation for an accelerating charge and the power emitted from an accelerating dark soliton in a quasi-1D BEC parker1 , we assume the power radiated $`P`$ by the spiralling vortex to be proportional to the square of the local vortex acceleration $`a`$. The coefficient of this relation, $`P/a^2`$, has been mapped out over a range of dimple strengths, as shown in Fig. 5. Each data point corresponds to the best-fit power coefficient and the average vortex precession frequency for that simulation. In a harmonic trap of frequency $`\omega `$, the vortex precession frequency is predicted to be $`\omega _\mathrm{v}=(3\mathrm{}\omega ^2/4\mu )\mathrm{ln}(R/\xi )`$, where $`R=\sqrt{2\mu /m\omega ^2}`$ is the Thomas-Fermi radius of the BEC svidzinsky . For a harmonic trap with a cut-off ($`V=V_0`$ for $`r>r_0`$), the vortex frequency (Fig. 5 inset, crosses) agrees well with this prediction. However, for a gaussian dimple of depth $`V_0`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{v}`$ falls short of this prediction, due to the tailing off of the gaussian potential with radius, as shown in Fig. 5 (inset, circles). Note that there are limitations to the range of precession frequencies that we can probe, just as would be experienced experimentally: in the limit of very tight dimples the vortex escapes almost instantaneously, whereas for very weak dimples, the vortex motion is too slow for such effects to be systematically studied. The data indicates a strong dependence on the inverse of the $`\omega _\mathrm{v}`$, suggesting a modified power law of the form

$`P=\beta mn_0\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\omega _\mathrm{v}}},`$ (4)
where $`\beta `$ is a dimensionless coefficient. An equation of this form for circular vortex motion in a homogeneous 2D fluid has been obtained by Vinen vinen  using classical acoustics and Lundh et al. lundh  by mapping the superfluid hydrodynamic equations onto Maxwell’s electrodynamic equations. Both approaches predict a rate of sound emission proportional to $`\omega _\mathrm{v}^3r_\mathrm{v}^2`$, where $`r_\mathrm{v}`$ is the precession radius, and yield a coefficient, $`\beta =\pi ^2/2`$. Despite the assumptions of perfect circular motion, a point vortex, and an infinite homogeneous system, there is remarkable agreement with our findings which indicate $`\beta 6.3\pm 0.9`$ (one standard deviation), with the variation due to a weak dependence on the geometry of the system. We believe that the deviation from the predicted coefficient arises primarily due to the radial component of the vortex motion, which is ignored in the analytical derivations.

Also plotted in Fig. 4, alongside the power emission from the GP energy functional, are an acceleration-squared law (dotted line) and the modifed acceleration squared law of Eq. (4) (dashed line), with the coefficients being chosen to give a best fit. Both lines give excellent agreement until the vortex starts to escape the dimple region at $`r1.4l_d`$. Here the vortex frequency, which previously remained roughly constant, starts to decrease due to the form of the local density. This causes the acceleration-squared law to deviate significantly, while the $`1/\omega _\mathrm{v}`$ term in Eq. (4) corrects for this deviation, giving excellent agreement throughout the decay.

Sound radiation due to acceleration may be important in the case of turbulent vortex tangles in liquid Helium, where evidence suggests that the vortex line length $`L`$ (providing a measure of the energy of the system) decays at a rate proportional to $`L^2`$ vinen . In the limit of low temperature, this decay is believed to be primarily due to reconnections and Kelvin wave excitations. We note that, for a system of many vortices, where the acceleration is induced by the surrounding vortex distribution, Eq. (4) would also lead to an $`L^2`$ decay.

In summary, we have shown that a vortex precessing in a trapped quasi-2D BEC at low temperature emits dipolar radiation, which becomes modified into a spiral wave pattern due to the motion of the vortex. The vortex energy decays at a rate proportional to its acceleration squared and inversely proportional to the precession frequency. For appropriate trap geometries, the sound emission is experimentally observable via the spiralling motion of the vortex towards lower densities. An analogous instability may arise in the case of optical vortices, which also exhibit a fluid-like motion rozas . For harmonic traps the vortex decay is stabilised by reinteraction with the emitted sound.


text:
# References

Ground state bands of the E(5) and X(5) critical symmetries obtained from Davidson potentials through a variational procedure

Dennis Bonatsos#111e-mail: bonat@inp.demokritos.gr, D. Lenis#222e-mail: lenis@inp.demokritos.gr, N. Minkov333e-mail: nminkov@inrne.bas.bg, D. Petrellis#, P. P. Raychev444e-mail: raychev@phys.uni-sofia.bg, raychev@inrne.bas.bg, P. A. Terziev555e-mail: terziev@inrne.bas.bg

# Institute of Nuclear Physics, N.C.S.R. “Demokritos”

GR-15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Attiki, Greece

Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

72 Tzarigrad Road, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria

Abstract

Davidson potentials of the form $`\beta ^2+\beta _0^4/\beta ^2`$, when used in the original Bohr Hamiltonian for $`\gamma `$-independent potentials bridge the U(5) and O(6) symmetries. Using a variational procedure, we determine for each value of angular momentum $`L`$ the value of $`\beta _0`$ at which the derivative of the energy ratio $`R_L=E(L)/E(2)`$ with respect to $`\beta _0`$ has a sharp maximum, the collection of $`R_L`$ values at these points forming a band which practically coincides with the ground state band of the E(5) model, corresponding to the critical point in the shape phase transition from U(5) to O(6). The same potentials, when used in the Bohr Hamiltonian after separating variables as in the X(5) model, bridge the U(5) and SU(3) symmetries, the same variational procedure leading to a band which practically coincides with the ground state band of the X(5) model, corresponding to the critical point of the U(5) to SU(3) shape phase transition. A new derivation of the Holmberg–Lipas formula for nuclear energy spectra is obtained as a by-product.

PACS: 21.60.Ev; 21.60.Fw

1. Introduction

The recently introduced E(5)  and X(5)  models are supposed to describe shape phase transitions in atomic nuclei, the former being related to the transition from U(5) (vibrational) to O(6) ($`\gamma `$-unstable) nuclei, and the latter corresponding to the transition from U(5) to SU(3) (rotational) nuclei. In both cases the original Bohr collective Hamiltonian  is used, with an infinite well potential in the collective $`\beta `$-variable. Separation of variables is achieved in the E(5) case by assuming that the potential is independent of the collective $`\gamma `$-variable, while in the X(5) case the potential is assumed to be of the form $`u(\beta )+u(\gamma )`$. We are going to refer to these two cases as “the E(5) framework” and “the X(5) framework” respectively. The selection of an infinite well potential in the $`\beta `$-variable in both cases is justified by the fact that the potential is expected to be flat around the point at which a shape phase transition occurs. Experimental evidence for the occurence of the E(5) and X(5) symmetries in some appropriate nuclei is growing ( and  respectively).

In the present work we examine if the choice of the infinite well potential is the optimum one for the description of shape phase transitions. For this purpose, we need one-parameter potentials which can span the U(5)-O(6) region in the E(5) framework, as well as the U(5)-SU(3) region in the X(5) framework. It turns out that the exactly soluble  Davidson potentials

$$u(\beta )=\beta ^2+\frac{\beta _0^4}{\beta ^2},$$
(1)
where $`\beta _0`$ is the position of the minimum of the potential, do possess this property. Taking into account the fact that various physical quantities should change most rapidly at the point of the shape phase transition , we locate for each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ the value of $`\beta _0`$ for which the rate of change of the ratio $`R_L=E(L)/E(2)`$, a widely used measure of nuclear collectivity, is maximized. It turns out that the collection of $`R_L`$ ratios formed in this way in the case of a potential independent of the $`\gamma `$-variable correspond to the E(5) model, while in the case of the $`u(\beta )+u(\gamma )`$ potential lead to the X(5) model, thus proving that the choice of the infinite well potential made in Refs.  is the optimum one. The variational procedure used here is analogous to the one used in the framework of the Variable Moment of Inertia (VMI) model , where the energy is minimized with respect to the (angular momentum dependent) moment of inertia for each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ separately.

In Section 2 the E(5) case is considered, while the X(5) case is examined in Section 3, in which a new derivation of the Holmberg–Lipas formula  for nuclear energy spectra is obtained as a by-product. Finally, Section 4 contains a discussion of the present results and plans for further work.

2. Davidson potentials in the E(5) framework

The original Bohr Hamiltonian  is

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2B}\left[\frac{1}{\beta ^4}\frac{}{\beta }\beta ^4\frac{}{\beta }+\frac{1}{\beta ^2\mathrm{sin}3\gamma }\frac{}{\gamma }\mathrm{sin}3\gamma \frac{}{\gamma }\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}\underset{k=1,2,3}{}\frac{Q_k^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi k\right)}\right]+V(\beta ,\gamma ),$$
(2)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the usual collective coordinates describing the shape of the nuclear surface, $`Q_k`$ ($`k=1`$, 2, 3) are the components of angular momentum, and $`B`$ is the mass parameter.

Assuming that the potential depends only on the variable $`\beta `$, i.e. $`V(\beta ,\gamma )=U(\beta )`$, one can proceed to separation of variables in the standard way , using the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\beta ,\gamma ,\theta _i)=f(\beta )\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma ,\theta _i)`$, where $`\theta _i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are the Euler angles describing the orientation of the deformed nucleus in space.

In the equation involving the angles, the eigenvalues of the second order Casimir operator of SO(5) occur, having the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\tau (\tau +3)`$, where $`\tau =0`$, 1, 2, …is the quantum number characterizing the irreducible representations (irreps) of SO(5), called the “seniority” . This equation has been solved by Bes .

The “radial” equation can be simplified by introducing  reduced energies $`ϵ=\frac{2B}{\mathrm{}^2}E`$ and reduced potentials $`u=\frac{2B}{\mathrm{}^2}U`$, leading to

$$\left[\frac{1}{\beta ^4}\frac{}{\beta }\beta ^4\frac{}{\beta }+\frac{\tau (\tau +3)}{\beta ^2}+u(\beta )\right]f(\beta )=ϵf(\beta ).$$
(3)
When plugging the Davidson potentials of Eq. (1) in the above equation, the $`\beta _0^4/\beta ^2`$ term is combined with the $`\tau (\tau +3)/\beta ^2`$ term appearing there and the equation is solved exactly , the eigenfunctions being Laguerre polynomials of the form

$$F_n^\tau (\beta )=\left[\frac{2n!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+p+\frac{5}{2}\right)}\right]^{1/2}\beta ^pL_n^{p+\frac{3}{2}}(\beta ^2)e^{\beta ^2/2}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ stands for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function, while $`p`$ is determined by

$$p(p+3)=\tau (\tau +3)+\beta _0^4,$$
(5)
leading to

$$p=\frac{3}{2}+\left[\left(\tau +\frac{3}{2}\right)^2+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}.$$
(6)
The energy eigenvalues are then  (in $`\mathrm{}\omega =1`$ units)

$$E_{n,\tau }=2n+p+\frac{5}{2}=2n+1+\left[\left(\tau +\frac{3}{2}\right)^2+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}.$$
(7)
For $`\beta _0=0`$ the original solution of Bohr , which corresponds to a 5-dimensional (5-D) harmonic oscillator characterized by the symmetry U(5) $``$ SO(5) $``$ SO(3) $``$ SO(2) , is obtained. The values of angular momentum $`L`$ contained in each irrep of SO(5) (i.e. for each value of $`\tau `$) are given by the algorithm  $`\tau =3\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda `$, where $`\nu _\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, 1, …is the missing quantum number in the reduction SO(5) $``$ SO(3), and $`L=\lambda ,\lambda +1,\mathrm{},2\lambda 2,2\lambda `$ (with $`2\lambda 1`$ missing).

The levels of the ground state band are characterized by $`L=2\tau `$ and $`n=0`$. Then the energy levels of the ground state band are given by

$$E_{0,L}=1+\frac{1}{2}\left[(L+3)^2+4\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2},$$
(8)
while the excitation energies of the levels of the ground state band relative to the ground state are

$$E_{0,L,exc}=E_{0,L}E_{0,0}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left[(L+3)^2+4\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}\left[9+4\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}\right).$$
(9)
For $`u(\beta )`$ being a 5-D infinite well

$$u(\beta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\beta \beta _W\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for }\beta >\beta _W\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
one obtains the E(5) model of Iachello  in which the eigenfunctions are Bessel functions $`J_{\tau +3/2}(z)`$ (with $`z=\beta k`$, $`k=\sqrt{ϵ}`$), while the spectrum is determined by the zeros of the Bessel functions

$$E_{\xi ,\tau }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2B}k_{\xi ,\tau }^2,k_{\xi ,\tau }=\frac{x_{\xi ,\tau }}{\beta _W}$$
(11)
where $`x_{\xi ,\tau }`$ is the $`\xi `$-th zero of the Bessel function $`J_{\tau +3/2}(z)`$. The spectra of the E(5) and Davidson cases become directly comparable by establishing the formal correspondence $`n=\xi 1`$.

It is instructive to consider the ratios

$$R_L=\frac{E_{0,L}E_{0,0}}{E_{0,2}E_{0,0}},$$
(12)
where the notation $`E_{n,L}`$ is used.

For $`\beta _0=0`$ it is clear that the original vibrational model of Bohr  (with $`R_4=2`$) is obtained, while for large $`\beta _0`$ the O(6) limit of the Interacting Boson Model (IBM)  (with $`R_4=2.5`$) is approached . The latter fact can be seen in Table 1, where the $`R_L`$ ratios for two different values of the parameter $`\beta _0`$ are shown, together with the O(6) predictions (which correspond to $`E(L)=AL(L+6)`$, with $`A`$ constant ). It is clear that the O(6) limit is approached as $`\beta _0`$ is increased, the agreement being already quite good at $`\beta _0=5`$.

It is useful to consider the ratios $`R_L`$, defined above, as a function of $`\beta _0`$. As seen in Fig. 1, where the ratios $`R_4`$, $`R_{12}`$ and $`R_{20}`$ are shown, these ratios increase with $`\beta _0`$, the increase becoming very steep at some value $`\beta _{0,max}`$ of $`\beta _0`$, where the first derivative $`\frac{dR_L}{d\beta _0}`$ reaches a maximum value, while the second derivative $`\frac{d^2R_L}{d\beta _0^2}`$ vanishes. Numerical results for $`\beta _{0,max}`$ are shown in Table 2, together with the values of $`R_L`$ occuring at these points, which are compared to the $`R_L`$ ratios occuring in the ground state band of the E(5) model . Very close agreement of the values determined by the procedure described above with the E(5) values is observed in Table 2, as well as in Fig. 2, where these ratios are also shown, together with the corresponding ratios of the U(5) and O(6) limits.

The work performed in this section is reminiscent of a variational procedure. Wishing to determine the critical point in the shape phase transition from U(5) to O(6), one chooses a potential (the Davidson potential) with a free parameter ($`\beta _0`$), which helps in covering the whole range of interest. Indeed, for $`\beta _0=0`$ the U(5) picture is obtained, while large values of $`\beta _0`$ lead to the O(6) limit. One then needs a physical quantity which can serve as a “measure” of collectivity. For this purpose one considers the ratios $`R_L`$, encouraged by the fact that these ratios are well-known indicators of collectivity in nuclear structure . Since at the critical point (if any) one expects the collectivity to change very rapidly, one looks, for each $`R_L`$ ratio separately, for the value of the parameter at which the change of $`R_L`$ is maximum. Indeed, the first derivative of the ratio $`R_L`$ with respect to the parameter $`\beta _0`$ exhibits a sharp maximum, which is then a good candidate for being the critical point for this particular value of the angular momentum $`L`$. The $`R_L`$ values at the critical points corresponding to each value of $`L`$ form a collection, which should correspond to the behaviour of the ground state band of a nucleus at the critical point. The infinite well potential used in E(5) succeeds in reproducing all these “critical” $`R_L`$ ratios in the ground state band for all values of the angular momentum $`L`$, without using any free parameter. It is therefore proved that the infinite well potential is indeed the optimum choice for describing the ground state bands of nuclei at the critical point of the U(5) to O(6) shape phase transition.

In other words, starting from the Davidson potentials and using a variational procedure, according to which the rate of change of the $`R_L`$ ratios as a function of the parameter $`\beta _0`$ is maximized for each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ separately, one forms the collection of critical values of $`R_L`$ which corresponds to the ground state band of the E(5) model, which is supposed to describe nuclei at the critical point.

Variational procedures in which each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ is treated separately are not unheard of in nuclear physics. An example is given by the Variable Moment of Inertia (VMI) model , in which the energy of the nucleus is minimized with respect to the (angular momentum dependent) moment of inertia for each value of the angular momentum separately. From the cubic equation obtained from this condition, the moment of inertia is uniquely determined (as a function of angular momentum) in each case. The collection of energy levels occuring by using in the energy formula the appropriate value of the moment of inertia for each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ forms the ground state band of the nucleus.

Some comparison of the variational procedure used here with the standard Ritz variational method used in quantum mechanics (, for example) is in place. In the (simplest version of the) Ritz variational method a trial wave function containing a parameter is chosen and subsequently the energy is minimized with respect to this parameter, thus determining the parameter value and, after the relevant substitution, the energy value. In the present case a trial potential containing a parameter is chosen and subsequently the rate of change of the physical quantity (here the rate of change of the energy ratios) is maximized with respect to this parameter, thus determining the parameter value and, after the relevant calculation, the value of the physical quantity (here the energy ratios). The main similarity between the two methods is the use of a parameter-dependent trial wave function/trial potential respectively. The main difference between the two methods is that in the former the relevant physical quantity (the energy) is minimized with respect to the parameter, while in the latter the rate of change of the physical quantity (the energy ratios) is maximized with respect to the parameter.

3. Davidson potentials in the X(5) framework

Starting again from the original Bohr Hamiltonian of Eq. (2), one seeks solutions of the relevant Schrödinger equation having the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\beta ,\gamma ,\theta _i)=\varphi _K^L(\beta ,\gamma )𝒟_{M,K}^L(\theta _i)`$, where $`\theta _i`$ ($`i=1`$, 2, 3) are the Euler angles, $`𝒟(\theta _i)`$ denote Wigner functions of them, $`L`$ are the eigenvalues of angular momentum, while $`M`$ and $`K`$ are the eigenvalues of the projections of angular momentum on the laboratory-fixed $`z`$-axis and the body-fixed $`z^{}`$-axis respectively.

As pointed out in Ref. , in the case in which the potential has a minimum around $`\gamma =0`$ one can write the last term of Eq. (2) in the form

$$\underset{k=1,2,3}{}\frac{Q_k^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\gamma \frac{2\pi }{3}k\right)}\frac{4}{3}(Q_1^2+Q_2^2+Q_3^2)+Q_3^2\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }\frac{4}{3}\right).$$
(13)
Using this result in the Schrödinger equation corresponding to the Hamiltonian of Eq. (2), introducing reduced energies $`ϵ=2BE/\mathrm{}^2`$ and reduced potentials $`u=2BV/\mathrm{}^2`$, and assuming that the reduced potential can be separated into two terms, one depending on $`\beta `$ and the other depending on $`\gamma `$, i.e. $`u(\beta ,\gamma )=u(\beta )+u(\gamma )`$, the Schrödinger equation can be separated into two equations , the “radial” one being

$$\left[\frac{1}{\beta ^4}\frac{}{\beta }\beta ^4\frac{}{\beta }+\frac{1}{4\beta ^2}\frac{4}{3}L(L+1)+u(\beta )\right]\xi _L(\beta )=ϵ_\beta \xi _L(\beta ).$$
(14)
When plugging the Davidson potentials of Eq. (1) in this equation, the $`\beta _0^4/\beta ^2`$ term of the potential is combined with the $`L(L+1)/3\beta ^2`$ term appearing there and the equation is solved exactly, the eigenfunctions being Laguerre polynomials of the form

$$F_n^L(\beta )=\left[\frac{2n!}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+a+\frac{5}{2}\right)}\right]^{1/2}\beta ^aL_n^{a+\frac{3}{2}}(\beta ^2)e^{\beta ^2/2}$$
(15)
where $`a`$ is given by

$$a=\frac{3}{2}+\left[\frac{1}{3}L(L+1)+\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}.$$
(16)
The energy eigenvalues are then (in $`\mathrm{}\omega =1`$ units)

$$E_{n,L}=2n+a+\frac{5}{2}=2n+1+\left[\frac{1}{3}L(L+1)+\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}.$$
(17)
The levels of the ground state band are characterized by $`n=0`$. Then the excitation energies relative to the ground state are given by

$$E_{0,L,exc}=\left[\frac{1}{3}L(L+1)+\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}\left[\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2},$$
(18)
which can easily be put into the form

$$E_{0,L,exc}^{}=\frac{E_{0,L,exc}}{\left[\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right]^{1/2}}=\left[1+\frac{L(L+1)}{3\left(\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right)}\right]^{1/2}1,$$
(19)
which is the same as the Holmberg–Lipas formula

$$E_H(L)=a_H\left(\sqrt{1+b_HL(L+1)}1\right),$$
(20)
with $`a_H=1`$

$$b_H=\frac{1}{3\left(\frac{9}{4}+\beta _0^4\right)}.$$
(21)
It is clear that the Holmberg–Lipas formula gives rotational spectra for small values of $`b_H`$, at which one can keep only the first $`L`$-dependent term in the Taylor expansion of the square root appearing in Eq. (20), leading to energies proportional to $`L(L+1)`$. From Eq. (21) it is then clear that rotational spectra are expected for large values of $`\beta _0`$. This can be seen in Table 3, where the $`R_L`$ ratios occuring for two different values of $`\beta _0`$ are shown, together with the predictions of the SU(3) limit of IBM, which correspond to the pure rotator with $`E(L)=AL(L+1)`$, where $`A`$ constant . The agreement to the SU(3) results is quite good already at $`\beta _0=5`$. On the other hand, the case $`\beta _0=0`$ corresponds to an exactly soluble model with $`R_4=2.646`$, which has been called the X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$ model .

It is worth remarking at this point that the Holmberg–Lipas formula can be derived  by assuming that the moment of inertia $`I`$ in the energy expression of the rigid rotator ($`E(L)=L(L+1)/2I`$) is a function of the excitation energy, i.e. $`I=\alpha +\beta E(L)`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants, the latter being proportional to $`b_H`$ and acquiring positive values. It is therefore clear that the Holmberg–Lipas formula, as well as the spectrum of the Davidson potentials derived in this section, have built-in the concept of the Variable Moment of Inertia (VMI) model , according to which the moment of inertia is an increasing function of the angular momentum.

For $`u(\beta )`$ being a 5-D infinite well potential (see Eq. (10) one obtains the X(5) model of Iachello , in which the eigenfunctions are Bessel functions $`J_\nu (k_{s,L}\beta )`$ with

$$\nu =\left(\frac{L(L+1)}{3}+\frac{9}{4}\right)^{1/2},$$
(22)
while the spectrum is determined by the zeros of the Bessel functions, the relevant eigenvalues being

$$ϵ_{\beta ;s,L}=(k_{s,L})^2,k_{s,L}=\frac{x_{s,L}}{\beta _W},$$
(23)
where $`x_{s,L}`$ is the $`s`$-th zero of the Bessel function $`J_\nu (k_{s,L}\beta )`$. The spectra of the X(5) and Davidson cases become directly comparable by establishing the formal correspondence $`n=s1`$.

It is useful to consider the ratios $`R_L`$, defined in the previous section, as a function of $`\beta _0`$. As seen in Fig. 3, these ratios again increase with $`\beta _0`$, the increase becoming very steep at some value $`\beta _{0,max}`$ of $`\beta _0`$, where the first derivative $`\frac{dR_L}{d\beta _0}`$ reaches a maximum value, while the second derivative $`\frac{d^2R_L}{d\beta _0^2}`$ vanishes. Numerical results for $`\beta _{0,max}`$ are shown in Table 4, together with the values of $`R_L`$ occuring at these points, which are compared to the $`R_L`$ ratios occuring in the ground state band of the X(5) model . Very close agreement of the values determined by the procedure described above with the X(5) values is observed.

The work performed here is reminiscent of a variational procedure, as in the previous section. Wishing to determine the critical point in the shape phase transition from U(5) to SU(3), one chooses a potential (the Davidson potential) with a free parameter ($`\beta _0`$), which serves in spanning the range of interest. For large values of $`\beta _0`$ the SU(3) limit is obtained, while for $`\beta _0=0`$ the X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$ picture is obtained , which is not the U(5) limit, but it is located between U(5) and X(5), on the way from U(5) to SU(3). Thus the region of interest around X(5) is covered from X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$ to SU(3). Then the values of $`\beta _0`$ at which the first derivative $`dR_L/d\beta _0`$ exhibits a sharp maximum are determined for each value of the angular momentum $`L`$ separately, the collection of $`R_L`$ ratios at these values of $`\beta _0`$ forming a band, which turns out to be in very good agreement with the ground state band of X(5), the model supposed to be appropriate for describing nuclei at the critical point in the transition from U(5) to SU(3), thus indicating that the choice of the infinite well potential used in the X(5) model is the optimum one. The results are depicted in Fig. 4, where in addition to the bands provided by the variational procedure and the X(5) model, the bands corrsponding to the U(5), X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$, and SU(3) cases are shown.

4. Discussion

The main results and conclusions obtained in the present work are listed here:

1) A variational procedure for determining the values of physical quantities at the point of shape phase transitions in nuclei has been suggested. Using one-parameter potentials spanning the region between the two limiting symmetries of interest, the parameter values at which the rate of change of the physical quantity becomes maximum are determined for each value of the angular momentum separately and the corresponding values of the physical quantity at these parameter values are calculated. The values of the physical quantity collected in this way represent its behaviour at the critical point.

2) The method has been applied in the shape phase transition from U(5) to O(6), using one-parameter Davidson potentials  and considering the energy ratios $`R_L=E(L)/E(2)`$ within the ground state band as the relevant physical quantity, leading to a band which practically coincides with the ground state band of the E(5) model . It has also been applied in the same way in the shape phase transition from U(5) to SU(3), leading to a band which practically coincides with the ground state band of the X(5) model .

3) It should be emphasized that the application of the method was possible because the Davidson potentials correctly reproduce the U(5) and O(6) symmetries in the former case (for small and large parameter values respectively), as well as the relevant X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$  and SU(3) symmetries in the latter case (for small and large parameter values respectively).

4) As a by-product, a derivation of the Holmberg–Lipas formula  has been achieved using Davidson potentials in the X(5) framework.

It is clearly of interest to apply the variational procedure introduced here to physical quantities other than the energy ratios in the ground state band. Energy ratios involving levels of excited bands, ratios of B(E2) transition rates (both intraband and interband), and ratios of quadrupole moments are obvious choices. Work in these directions is in progress, using the Davidson potentials, since they possess the appropriate limiting behaviour for small and large parameter values. However, any other potential/Hamiltonian bridging the relevant pairs of symmetries (U(5)-O(6) and U(5)-SU(3)) should be equally appropriate.

Acknowledgements

Partial support through the NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant PST.CLG 978799 is gratefully acknowledged.

Figure captions

Fig. 1 The $`R_L`$ ratios (defined in Eq. (12)) for $`L=4`$, 12, 20 and their derivatives $`dR_L/d\beta _0`$ vs. the parameter $`\beta _0`$, calculated using Davidson potentials (Eq. (1)) in the E(5) framework. The $`R_L`$ curves also demonstrate the evolution from the U(5) symmetry (on the left) to the O(6) limit (on the right). See section 2 for further details.

Fig. 2 Values of the ratio $`R_L`$ (defined in Eq. (12)) obtained through the variational procedure (labeled by “var”) using Davidson potentials in the E(5) framework, compared to the values provided by the U(5), O(6), and E(5) models. See section 2 for further details.

Fig. 3 The $`R_L`$ ratios (defined in Eq. (12)) for $`L=4`$, 12, 20 and their derivatives $`dR_L/d\beta _0`$ vs. the parameter $`\beta _0`$, calculated using Davidson potentials (Eq. (1)) in the X(5) framework. The $`R_L`$ curves also demonstrate the evolution from the X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$ symmetry (on the left) to the SU(3) limit (on the right). See section 3 for further details.

Fig. 4 Values of the ratio $`R_L`$ (defined in Eq. (12)) obtained through the variational procedure (labeled by “var”) using Davidson potentials in the X(5) framework, compared to the values provided by the U(5), SU(3), X(5), and X(5)-$`\beta ^2`$ models. See section 3 for further details.


text:
# On Sensitivity of Cherenkov Radiation to the Dynamics of High Energy Cosmic Ray Interactions

## 1 Introduction

One possible way to investigate rare ultra–energetic collisions of cosmic ray primaries with the air is to investigate the Cherenkov light emitted in atmospheric showers. Charged daughter particles produced along a hadronic cascade have mostly very high velocities and therefore emit in the air Cherenkov photons which in principle carry an information about longitudinal shower development including an information on the characteristics of the primary collision, e.g. particle multiplicity. As optical photons suffer relatively smaller absorption in the atmosphere, their density on the ground is higher than that of charged particles and their lateral distribution is broader. The Cherenkov light highlights differences in the mechanism of hadronic collisions that are expected to occur in the first stage of the shower development and that can propagate further during development of the cascade.

## 2 Primary Interaction

Since available experimental data do not contradict to the fact that the abundance of 56Fe nuclei in the primary flux may be above $`10\%`$ , a non–negligible portion of iron–nitrogen or iron–oxygen nucleus–nucleus collisions can be observed in upper atmosphere. The number of nucleons participating in such collisions may well grow up to a few tens and a fireball of hot and dense elementary matter of quarks and gluons (QGP) can be created. Its thermal equilibrium is achieved in rapid statistical energy distribution among partons. As a result an almost ideally thermalized system of nucleons, pions and kaons (heavier baryons and mesons are neglected in our approach) is produced in the primary collision.

The energy density of the fireball can be estimated from the Bjørken formula , $`ϵ=\frac{1}{\pi R^2\tau }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\mathrm{\Delta }y}`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the smaller nucleus, the formation time was chosen as $`\tau 1\text{ fm/c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is c.m.s. energy of produced particles in the unit rapidity interval in the vicinity of its c.m.s. value. Energy densities and corresponding upper bounds of the transition temperatures achieved in our simulations of the primary interaction of the cosmic iron nucleus with the air nitrogen are shown in Fig.1 as functions of the Fermi energy variable $`F(s_{NN})^{\frac{1}{4}}`$, where $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ is an invariant mass of a pair of interacting nucleons .

When the number of wounded nucleons $`N_{\text{Int}}`$ in the first collision is greater than a certain value (typically $`N_{\text{Int}}20`$), we assume that several nucleons melt down into the QGP phase and a certain part of the total mass of the fireball $`E_{\text{hot}}\eta \sqrt{s_\text{F}}`$ is released. The model parameter $`\eta `$ ($`\eta =0.10.4`$) is assumed to be independent of the collision energy and the system size. A portion of released energy is channeled to nucleons with momenta generated according to the relativistic Boltzmann distribution isotropically with respect to the fireball center of mass system. The remaining energy is then used to create a number of $`\pi `$ and $`K`$ mesons with isotropic and relativistic Boltzmann distributed momenta in fireball system. Thermalized hadronic species are produced with probabilities $`N:\pi :K10:85:5`$ and with approximately equal abundances of different charges. Chemical freeze–out is controlled by a constant temperature ($`kT=170,340\text{ MeV}`$) and zero chemical potentials. Multiplicities of light mesons produced in the initial interaction, as calculated in our model, are shown in Fig.2.

## 3 Shower Simulations

To achieve the quantitative results, the CORSIKA simulation code  has been adapted to calculate the contributions of the Cherenkov photon intensity stemming from the quark–gluon equilibration in primary collisions of the cosmic iron nuclei with the air. The QGSJET01 model of high energy interactions has been employed; the GEISHA procedure has been used to treat hadronic collisions at energies $`E<80\text{ GeV}`$. It is worth to note that the uncertainty related to the modelling of standard hadronic interactions turns out to be of minor influence, as the present investigation of QGP effects relies upon comparative characteristics of the detectable photons.

We analyze the contributions of Cherenkov light to the lateral ground level distribution functions of iron–induced showers for a given primary energy ($`E_{\text{Fe}}=100\text{ TeV}10\text{ EeV}`$) averaged over 100 showers. The primary zenith angle was fixed at zero degrees; the altitude of the initial interaction was left free. The kinetic energy cutoffs for hadrons and muons have been set to $`0.3\text{ GeV}`$; for electrons/positrons and photons we use cutoffs of $`20\text{ MeV}`$ and $`2\text{ MeV}`$, respectively. In all calculations a thinning level $`10^7`$ has been adopted. The Cherenkov light has been collected by a row of 100 ideal detectors with detection area $`3\times 3\text{ m}^2`$ and spacing $`10\text{ m}`$ located in north–south direction at a height of $`1\text{ km}`$ above the sea level ($`813\text{ g}\text{cm}\text{-2}`$). In all simulations the standard U.S. atmosphere has been used; propagation of the Cherenkov light has been corrected for attenuation in the air.

## 4 Effects of QGP formation

In our simple model, more secondary particles are created in the first interaction when QGP is formed (QGP shower) compared to the ordinary Fe–N collisions (Fe shower). Air showers following QGP production have their maxima higher in the atmosphere and produce noticeably more Cherenkov light at higher altitudes; this effect grows with increasing incident energy.

In Fig.3 the average ground level densities and ratios of total numbers of Cherenkov photons produced along the QGP and Fe showers are depicted as functions of the slant depth of their birth.

Average ratios of the ground level Cherenkov photon lateral densities from the QGP and Fe air cascades are depicted in Fig.4. The photon core densities of the QGP showers are typically by a factor of 1.2 smaller than the core densities of the Fe showers of the same primary energy. At very high primary energies, $`E_{\text{Fe}}1\text{ EeV}`$, the relative fraction of photons at outer parts of the QGP shower increases. Thus the QGP effects could be visible comparing the number of Cherenkov photons reaching the detector level relatively far from the shower core with all detected photons.

Any influence of the transverse momenta of the direct hadrons in the first interaction becomes negligible as in the case of very energetic primary the lateral profile of shower is dominated by interactions of particles at lower energies in the later part of the shower development. The QGP showers behave similarly as ordinary hadronic showers initiated by the iron primary of somewhat lower energy. However, the lateral spread of Cherenkov photons caused by the equilibrated QGP products is larger. All these effects depend on both the primary energy and the distance between detector and shower maximum; the latter observable is also energy dependent.

## 5 Conclusions

The lateral ground level Cherenkov photon densities of the extended air showers can be used to identify showers that follow the QGP transformation in the first interaction. It is worth noting that similar QGP related effects can be observed in lateral distributions of high momenta muons detected underground .

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under contracts Nos. LN134 and LN00A006.


text:
# 1 Problem

## 1 Problem

When an electron (or positronium atom) is injected into liquid helium with nearly zero energy, a bubble quickly forms around it. This phenomenon (which also occurs in liquid hydrogen, liquid neon and possibly in solid helium) lowers the mobility of the electron to a value similar to that for a positive ion.

Estimate the radius of the bubble at zero pressure and temperature.

If the liquid is held in a state of negative pressure, the bubble will expand beyond the radius at zero pressure. Estimate the negative pressure such that a bubble once formed will grow without limit.

## 2 Solution

### 2.1 Bubble Radius at Zero Pressure

For a simple estimate, we follow the original paper by R.A. Ferrell . We assume the bubble to be spherical with radius $`a`$.

Our estimate is based on an energy argument. The bubble is kept from collapsing by the pressure due to the collisions of the electron with the wall. At zero temperature, the motion of the electron inside the bubble is due to zero-point energy. We relate this to the zero-point momentum, which we estimate via the uncertainty principle:

$$\delta x\delta p_x\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}.$$
(1)
For an electron inside a bubble of radius $`a`$, the uncertainty in coordinate $`x`$ is about $`2a/3`$, so we estimate that

$$p_x^2^{1/2}\delta p_x\frac{3\mathrm{}}{4a}.$$
(2)
The zero-point energy is therefore estimated as

$$U_{\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{point}}\frac{p^2}{2m}\frac{3p_x^2}{2m}\frac{27\mathrm{}^2}{32a^2m}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{a^2m}.$$
(3)
\[The formal result for the zero point energy for a particle of mass $`m`$ inside an infinite spherical potential well of radius $`a`$ is $`\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2/2a^2m`$.\]

The bubble tends to collapse to zero due to the force of surface tension. We characterize surface tension by a coefficient $`\gamma `$ which is a force per unit length = energy per unit area. A bubble of radius $`a`$ has a surface energy given by

$$U_{\mathrm{surface}}=4\pi a^2\gamma .$$
(4)
The physical radius of the bubble minimizes the total energy, so we solve

$$0=\frac{dU_{\mathrm{total}}}{da}=\frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{a^3m}+8\pi a\gamma ,$$
(5)
which yields

$$a_{\mathrm{bubble}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4\pi \gamma m}\right)^{1/4}=\left(\frac{(\mathrm{}c)^2}{4\pi \gamma mc^2}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(6)
To estimate the surface tension coefficient $`\gamma `$ for liquid helium, we recall that it liquifies at 4K where the kinetic energy per atom is about 1/4000 eV. So, we suppose that the binding of a helium atom to its neighbors on the surface is about 1/4000 eV, and that the distance between atoms is about one Angstrom. Hence,

$$\gamma \frac{2.5\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}}{(10^8\mathrm{cm})^2}=2.5\times 10^{12}\mathrm{eV}/\mathrm{cm}^2=4\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}^2.$$
(7)
\[Apparently, this estimate is about a factor of ten high.\]

We also recall that the electron rest energy is $`mc^25\times 10^5`$ eV, and that $`\mathrm{}c200`$ MeV-fermi $`=2\times 10^5`$ eV-cm. Hence, we estimate that

$$a_{\mathrm{bubble}}\left(\frac{(2\times 10^5)^2}{4\pi 2.5\times 10^{12}5\times 10^5}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{cm}\left(\frac{10^{28}}{4}\right)^{1/4}\mathrm{cm}7\mathrm{\AA }.$$
(8)
The experimental value for the bubble radius $`a`$ is about 17 Å. \[Noting that our estimate for $`U_{\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{point}}`$ is a factor of five low and that for $`\gamma `$ is a factor of ten high, the estimate (8) should be multiplied by $`\sqrt[4]{50}`$ to yield a prediction that $`a_{\mathrm{bubble}}19`$ Å.\]

### 2.2 Negative Pressure

When a bubble is formed in a liquid at positive pressure $`P`$, additional work $`PV`$ must be done. We consider this work to be stored in the bubble in the form of an energy, and so the total energy of a bubble of radius $`a`$ is

$$U=U_{\mathrm{zero}\mathrm{point}}+U_{\mathrm{surface}}+PV\frac{C\mathrm{}^2}{a^2m}+4\pi a^2\gamma +\frac{4\pi a^3P}{3},$$
(9)
where $`C=1`$ in our approximate model, and $`C=\pi ^2/2`$ from a calculation based on a deep spherical potential well.

If the bubble is to grow indefinitely we must have $`U/a<0`$ for all $`a`$. The zero-point energy term decreases monotonically with radius $`a`$, while the surface energy term increases with radius. Together, the first two terms have a single minimum at the radius found in sec. 2.1.

For negative pressures, the pressure term decreases with radius more rapidly than the surface term increases with radius. So at large radii the negative pressure term dominates, and $`U/a`$ becomes negative. For small negative pressures there is a maximum of $`U`$ at a radius larger than that of the minimum of $`U`$, and between these two extrema the slope is positive. As the magnitude of the negative pressure increases, the two extrema approach one another, until at the desired critical pressure they coalesce, and there is a radius for which both $`U/a=0`$ and $`^2U/a^2=0`$, as illustrated in Fig. 1

From eq. (9), the critical pressure and radius are related by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`0={\displaystyle \frac{2C\mathrm{}^2}{a^3m}}+8\pi a\gamma +4\pi a^2P,`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2U}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0={\displaystyle \frac{6C\mathrm{}^2}{a^4m}}+8\pi \gamma +8\pi aP.`$ (11)
We quickly find that

$$a=\left(\frac{5C\mathrm{}^2}{4\pi \gamma m}\right)^{1/4}=5^{1/4}a_{\mathrm{bubble}}(P=0)10C^{1/4}\mathrm{\AA }.$$
(12)
and

$$P=\frac{8\gamma }{5a}$$
(13)
Using our estimate (7) that $`\gamma 0.004`$ N/m and taking $`C=1`$, we find the critical pressure to be $`P=64`$ bar. This is about 40 times the reported value of -1.6 bars . Since the result (13) varies as $`\gamma ^{5/4}`$, it is more sensitive to the value of surface tension than is the bubble radius. If we use $`\gamma =0.0004`$ N/m and $`C=\pi ^2/2`$, then our estimate for the critical negative pressure would be -2.4 bars.