text:
# Generalized parton distributions of the pion

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Structure functions are useful tools to understand the structure of hadrons. At large $`Q^2`$, they are related to parton distributions. Although their $`Q^2`$-evolution is consistent with perturbative QCD, their bulk properties come from nonperturbative effects. The latter are often treated by low-energy models, such as NJL, which establish a connection whith the low $`Q^2`$ physics. An extensive work has been done during the last years along these lines .

The interest has turned to off-diagonal structure functions. The latter appear as convolutions of generalized parton distributions, which, in some way, carry information about correlations between partons. They can be related to the off-forward $`\gamma ^{}`$-hadron amplitude. In order to illustrate the properties of these quantities, we undertook to calculate them in the simple case of the pion. In Ref. , we first calculated the forward amplitude and the quark distribution in a simple model. We considered that the pion field is coupled to (constituent) quark fields through a simple $`\gamma ^5`$ vertex. Furthermore, we introduced the effects of the pion size through a gauge-invariant procedure by requiring that the squared relative momentum of the quarks inside the pion is smaller than a cut-off value. The most remarkable result of this investigation is that the momentum fraction carried by the quarks is smaller than one, although gluonic degrees of freedom are not included. Here, we report on the extension of our model to the off-diagonal case.

## 2 TENSORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE $`\gamma ^{}\pi \gamma ^{}\pi `$ AMPLITUDE

We adopt the kinematics shown in Fig. 1. We will use the Lorentz invariants $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, $`Q^2=q^2`$, $`x=Q^2/2pq`$ and $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }q/2pq`$. The diagonal limit is characterised by $`\xi =t=0`$ and the elastic limit by $`\xi =0`$.

The hadronic tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }(q,p,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ can be written, for a scalar or pseudoscalar target, as

$`T_{\mu \nu }(q,p,\mathrm{\Delta })=𝒫_{\mu \sigma }g^{\sigma \tau }𝒫_{\tau \nu }F_1+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{\mu \sigma }p^\sigma p^\tau 𝒫_{\tau \nu }}{pq}}F_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{\mu \sigma }(p^\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }^\tau 2\xi p^\tau )+(\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma 2\xi p^\sigma )p^\tau )𝒫_{\tau \nu }}{2pq}}F_3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{\mu \sigma }(p^\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }^\tau 2\xi p^\tau )(\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma 2\xi p^\sigma )p^\tau )𝒫_{\tau \nu }}{2pq}}F_4`$
$`+𝒫_{\mu \sigma }(\mathrm{\Delta }^\sigma 2\xi p^\sigma )(\mathrm{\Delta }^\tau 2\xi p^\tau )𝒫_{\tau \nu }F_5.`$ (1)
Current conservation is guarenteed by means of the projector

$$𝒫_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }q_{2\mu }q_{1\nu }/q_1q_2,$$
(2)
where $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ are the momenta of the incoming and outgoing photons, respectively. The structure functions $`F_i`$ are functions of the invariant quantities $`x`$, $`\xi `$ and $`t`$. They are all even functions of $`\xi `$, except for $`F_3`$, which is odd.

## 3 THE MODEL

The model introduced in our previous work  includes massive pion and massive quark fields and a pion-quark coupling described by the following Lagrangian interaction density

$$_{int}=ig(\overline{\psi }\text{ }\stackrel{}{\tau }\gamma _5\psi ).\text{ }\stackrel{}{\pi },$$
(3)
where $`\psi `$ is the quark field, $`\stackrel{}{\pi }=(\pi ^+,\pi ^0,\pi ^{})`$ is the pion field and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ is the isospin operator.

At leading order in the loop expansion, four diagrams contribute. They are displayed in Fig. 1. We have evaluated their imaginary part, using the integration variables $`\tau =k^2`$, $`k_\rho =|\stackrel{}{k}|`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$, the polar angles of $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ with respect to the direction of the incoming photon. Actually, due to the discontinuity of the diagrams, indicated in Fig. 1, the integration bears on $`\tau `$ and $`\varphi `$ only. We do not give the expressions here. They can be found in Ref.  . However, we can sketch our procedure for imposing a finite size to the pion. The relative four-momentum squared of the quarks inside the pion is given by

$`O^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left(2kp\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\right)^2`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`2\tau +2m_q^2m_\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2}}\pm 2k\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (5)
for pion-quark vertices like the ones in the first diagram of Fig. 1. Note that this can be rewritten as

$$O^\pm =\left(k\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^2+2m_q^2m_\pi ^2.$$
(6)
The first quantity in the r.h.s. being nothing but the squared momentum transfer for the $`\gamma ^{}\pi q\overline{q}`$ process, $`O^\pm `$ can be written as function of the external variables for this process and of the masses. Similar expressions hold for other vertices. Generalizing the procedure of Ref. , we require $`|O^\pm |<\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ either for one or the other vertex of each diagram. Gauge invariance is therefore preserved by this cut-off, as it can be thought of as a constraint on the intermediate state cut lines. In practice, this is equivalent to requiring one of the two following conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau >\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}+\frac{m_\pi ^2}{2}m_q^2\frac{t}{4}+\left|k\mathrm{\Delta }\right|,\hfill \\ \\ \tau <\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2}\frac{m_\pi ^2}{2}+3m_q^2+\frac{t}{4}\frac{Q^2}{x}\left|\frac{\xi Q^2}{x}+k\mathrm{\Delta }\right|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
As explained in Ref. , owing to these conditions and for small $`t`$, the crossed diagrams are suppressed by a power $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/Q^2`$, compared to the box diagrams.

We keep the coupling constant $`g`$ as in the diagonal case, where it was determined by imposing that there are only two constituent quarks in the pion, or equivalently that the following relation

$$_0^1F_1𝑑x=\frac{5}{18}$$
(8)
holds, which makes $`g`$ dependent upon $`Q^2`$. It turns out that, with the cut-off, $`g`$ reaches an asymptotic value for $`Q^2`$ above 2 GeV2. We will use this value below.

## 4 RESULTS

We investigated the main properties of the structure functions $`F_i`$ in many different domains of the parameters. We cannot give an overview of the results here. We will instead concentrate on two particular results, namely the behaviour at high $`Q^2`$ and the momentum sum rule. The results presented below pertain to the chiral limit ($`m_\pi `$=0). They have been obtained with the same cut-off value as in Ref. , namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$= 0.75 GeV, a value consistent with the hard core radius of the pion in the chiral bag model .

### 4.1 High $`Q^2`$ limit: generalised Callan-Gross relations

Expanding the ratios $`\frac{F_2}{F_1}`$,$`\frac{F_3}{F_1}`$,$`\frac{F_4}{F_1}`$,$`\frac{F_5}{F_1}`$, we obtain the following asymptotic behaviours:

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`2xF_1+𝒪(1/Q^2),`$ (9)
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2x\xi }{\xi ^21}}F_1+𝒪(1/Q^2)`$ (10)
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{\xi ^21}}F_1+𝒪(1/Q^2)`$ (11)
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(1/Q^2),`$ (12)
The first relation is similar (at leading order in $`1/Q^2`$ and with the replacement of $`x`$ by $`x_B`$) to the Callan-Gross relation between the diagonal structure functions $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$. Except for $`F_5`$, which is small at large $`Q^2`$, these relations show that $`F_2`$, $`F_3`$ and $`F_4`$ are simply related to $`F_1`$ at leading order. They are consistent with the parity of these functions with respect to $`\xi `$. They constitute a remarkable result of our model. Furthermore, we checked that the term $`𝒪(1/Q^2)`$ in Eq. (9) is numerically quite small, even for moderate $`Q^2`$. One may wonder whether these properties are typical of our model or more general.

### 4.2 The momentum sum rule

We recall that, for the diagonal case (elastic scattering in the forward direction), we found in Ref.  that the momentum fraction carried by the quarks

$$2<x>=\frac{_0^12xF_1𝑑x}{_0^1F_1𝑑x}$$
(13)
has a rather low value, $``$0.6, independently of $`Q^2`$ (as long as it is larger than $``$ 2 GeV2). The quantity 2$`<x>`$ moves slowly to unity when the cut-off is removed, showing that the low value mentioned above is due to finite size effects.

We investigated how this property evolves when going to the off-forward case. Some results are given in Fig. 2 for the elastic case ($`\xi `$=0). One can see that 2$`<x>`$ increases when $`|t|`$ increases: the quantity which measures the momentum fraction carried by the quarks in the diagonal case and probed by the process increases with the momentum transfer. Strictly speaking $`F_1`$ is not the quark momentum distribution for $`\xi `$0. By continuity, it is expected to keep this property for small values of this variable. This point however deserves further investigation.

### 4.3 Other results

We have also obtained many other results. It is not the place to discuss them in detail. Let us just mention that we analysed the twist decomposition of the $`F_i`$’s and worked out the twist-2 $``$ and twist-3 $`^3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}^3`$ contributions, as defined in Ref. . We found that the twist-3 contributions are not suppressed at large $`Q^2`$. This is a remarkable and somewhat unexpected result of our model.

## 5 CONCLUSION

We have extended our previous model for the pion to investigate the off-diagonal structure functions. We recall the two main results of our previous investigation. First, the introduction of a cut-off forces the crossed diagrams to behave as higher-twists and to relate the imaginary part of the forward amplitude with quark distributions. Second, the pion size effects, embodied by the cut-off, do not allow the fullfillment of the momentum sum rule ($`2x=1`$) at infinite $`Q^2`$. Physically, this corresponds to the fact that the quarks can never be considered as free.

We found that these characteristics are qualitatively preserved when going off-forward, at least for small or moderate excursions off the forward case. Our results rest on the analysis of the imaginary part of the amplitude only. However, in this regime at least, the introduction of the real part, which can be obtained via dispersion relations (up to a subtaction constant), is not expected to bring drastic changes.

Our investigation yields interesting and somehow unexpected results. In particular, we singled out generalized Callan-Gross relations (Eqs.9-11), which link the $`F_i`$’s in a simple manner at leading order in $`1/Q^2`$. More intriguing are the twist-three structure functions, that do not scale as a power of $`1/Q`$. At this point of our investigation, we are not able to state whether these properties are typical of our model or are more general. In particular, it would be interesting to know how these results are affected when turning to the full amplitude.


format: text

text:
# Hartman effect in presence of Aharanov Bohm flux

## I Introduction

The concept of tunneling in the realm of quantum mechanics has gained much attention over many years. The immense potentiality of this concept has led to the study of various time scales to understand a time the particle takes to tunnel through a barrier landauer ; hauge ; anantha . The group delay time associated with potential scattering is one of the important quantities related efficiently to the dynamical aspect of scattering in quantum mechanics. The time delay for scattering processes can be calculated by following the peak of a wavepacket wigner . The phase delay time ($`\tau `$) is expressed in terms of the derivative of the phase shift of the scattering matrix with respect to energy. Since its inception, Wigner phase delay time has been a quantity of interest from fundamental as well as technological point of view. The delay time statistics is intimately connected with the dynamic admittance of microstructures buttiker . This delay time is also directly related to the density of states buttiker2 . The universality of the delay time distributions in random and chaotic systems has been established earlier jayan .

The explicit calculation of group delay time in the problem of a particle tunneling through a rectangular barrier becomes independent of the barrier width in the case of an opaque barrier hartman ; fletcher . This phenomenon, often referred as ‘Hartman effect’, implies that for sufficiently large barriers the effective group velocity of the particle inside the barrier can become arbitrarily large olkhovsky . In other words, the evanescent waves can travel with superluminal speeds.

Though experiments with electrons for verifying this prediction is yet to be done, the formal identity between the Schrödinger equation and the Helmholtz equation for electromagnetic wave correlates the results for electromagnetic and microwaves to that of electrons. Photonic experiments show that electromagnetic pulses travel with group velocities in excess of the speed of light in vacuum as they tunnel through a constriction in a waveguide nimtz . Other experiments with photonic band-gap structures also verified that ‘tunneling photons’ travel with superluminal group velocities steinberg . Thus all these experiments directly or indirectly confirmed the occurence of the Hartman effect without violating so called ‘Einstein causality’. Operationally, superluminal velocities have been measured in terms of delay time between the appearance of a pulse peak at the input and a pulse peak at the output of a barrier. It should also be noted that the method based on following the peak of the wavepacket looses its significance under strong distortion of wavepacket landauer . Moreover, there is no causal relationship between the peak of transmitted wavepacket and that of the incident wavepacket. This is due to the fact that peak of the transmitted wavepacket can leave the scattering region long before the peak of the incident wavepacket has arrived. However, Hartman effect and its origin is still considered as a poorly resolved problem. Very recently Winful winful2 ; winful3  argued that ‘the tunneling particle or wave packet is not really traveling with superluminal velocity but actually a standing wave, that just stand and waves!’. The incident wave simply modulates this standing wave. The output adiabatically follows the input with delay proportional to the stored energy. It is shown that the short time delay observed is due to energy storage and release and has nothing to do with real propagation and hence should not be linked with velocity. Thus the origin of the Hartman effect is traced to stored energy. Since the stored energy in the evanescent field decreases exponentially within the barrier after a certain decay distance it becomes independent of the width of the barrier.

All the studies on Hartman effect till date are restricted to one dimension only. Mostly single olkhovsky  or successive rectangular barriers recami  have been considered. A very simple semiclassical derivation of Hartman effect valid for potential barrier of general shape in one dimension has been presented in ref. bianchi . In our present work we verify Hartman effect beyond one dimension and in the presence of Aharonov-Bohm flux.

## II Description of the system

We study the scattering problem across a quantum ring geometry as schematized in Fig. 1. Such ring geometry systems have been extensively investigated in mesoscopic physics in analysing normal state Aharanov-Bohm effect which has been observed experimentally webb ; gefen . Our system of interest constitute a loop connected to two semi-infinite ideal wires in the presence of a magnetic flux as in Fig. 1. There is a finite quantum mechanical potential $`V`$ inside the loop while that in the connecting leads are set to be zero. We focus on a situation wherein the incident electrons have an energy $`E`$ less than $`V`$. The impinging electrons in this subbarrier regime travels as an evanescent mode throughout the circumference of the loop and the transmission or the conductance involves contributions from both the Aharanov-Bohm effect as well as quantum tunneling. We are interested in a single channel case where the Fermi energy lies in the lowest subband. To excite the evanescent modes in the ring we have to make the width of the ring much less than that of the connecting wires. The electrons occupying the lowest subband in the connecting wire on entering the ring experience a higher barrier (due to higher quantum zero point energy) and propagate in the loop as evanescent mode. The transmission or conductance across such systems has been studied in detail jayan3 ; gupta . In this work an analysis of the phase delay time or the group delay is carried out.

## III Theoretical treatment

We approach this scattering problem using the quantum wave guide theory xia ; jayan2 . The wave function in different region in absence of magnetic flux are given below

$`\psi _I(x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ikx_1}+re^{ikx_1},`$ (1)
$`\psi _{II}(x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{iqx_2}+Be^{iqx_2},`$ (2)
$`\psi _{III}(x_3)`$ $`=`$ $`Ce^{iqx_3}+De^{iqx_3},`$ (3)
$`\psi _{IV}(x_4)`$ $`=`$ $`te^{ikx_4},`$ (4)
with $`k=\sqrt{2mE/\mathrm{}^2}`$ being the wavevector of the incident propagating electrons in the leads and $`q=\sqrt{2m(EV)/\mathrm{}^2}`$ the wavevector in the ring. We have assumed the origin of the co-ordinates of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ to be at $`J_1`$ and that for $`x_3`$ and $`x_4`$ to be at $`J_2`$. At $`J_1`$, $`x_3=l_b`$ and at $`J_2`$, $`x_2=l_u`$ where $`l_u`$ and $`l_b`$ are the lengths of the upper and lower arms of the ring. Total circumference of the ring is $`L=l_u+l_b`$.

We use the Griffith boundary conditions griffith

$$\psi _I(0)=\psi _{II}(0)=\psi _{III}(l_b),$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\frac{\psi _i}{x_i}=0,$$
(6)
at the junction $`J_1`$. All the derivatives are either outward or inwards from the junction xia . Similar boundary conditions hold for $`J_2`$ as well. We choose a gauge for the vector potential in which the magnetic field appears only in the boundary conditions rather than explicitly in the Hamiltonian xia ; gefen . Thus the electrons propagating clockwise and anticlockwise will pick up opposite phases. The electrons propagating in the clockwise direction in the upper arm from $`J_1`$ will pick up a phase $`i\alpha `$ at $`J_2`$ and electrons propagating anticlockwise from $`J_2`$ to $`J_1`$ in the upper arm pick up a phase $`i\alpha `$ at $`J_1`$. Similarly, an electron picks up a phase $`i\beta `$ at $`J_1`$ moving in the clockwise direction from $`J_2`$ in the lower arm and $`i\beta `$ at $`J_2`$ moving anticlockwise from $`J_1`$ in the lower arm of the loop. The total phase around the loop is $`\alpha +\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi \varphi /\varphi _0`$, where $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are the magnetic flux and flux quantum, respectively. Hence from above mentioned boundary conditions we get for propagating waves jayan3 ; jayan2 ; gupta ; deo

$`1+r`$ $`=`$ $`A+Be^{i\alpha }`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`Ce^{iql_b}e^{i\beta }+De^{iql_b},`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{iql_u}e^{i\alpha }+Be^{iql_u}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`C+De^{i\beta },`$
$`ik(1r)`$ $`=`$ $`iqAiqBe^{i\alpha }`$ (9)
$``$ $`iqCe^{iql_b}e^{i\beta }+iqDe^{iql_b},`$
$`ikt`$ $`=`$ $`iqAe^{iql_u}e^{i\alpha }iqBe^{iql_u}`$ (10)
$``$ $`iqC+iqDe^{i\beta }.`$
## IV Results and Discussions

For the evanescent regime in our problem we replace the wavevector $`q`$ in the loop by $`i\kappa `$ ($`\kappa =\sqrt{2m(VE)/\mathrm{}^2}`$). Solving Eqns. (7) \- (10) we obtain an analytical expression for the transmission coefficient $`t`$ as

$$t=\frac{4ik\kappa e^{i\alpha }\left[Pe^{\kappa l_u}+Qe^{\kappa l_b}\right]}{PQk^2+2ik\kappa S_{}+4\kappa ^2\left[e^{\kappa (l_u+l_b)}\left(e^{2i(\alpha +\beta )}+1\right)S_+\right]}$$
(11)
where

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\alpha +\beta )}\left(e^{2\kappa l_b}1\right),`$
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^{2\kappa l_u}1\right),`$
$`S_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\alpha +\beta )}\left(e^{2\kappa (l_u+l_b)}\pm 1\right).`$
Next we evaluate the group delay time which is given by the energy derivative of the phase of the transmission coefficient

$$\tau =\mathrm{}\frac{arg[t]}{E}.$$
(12)
We have set units of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`2m`$ to be unity. All the physical quantities are taken in dimensionless units ($`EE/V`$, $`\tau V\tau `$ and $`LL\sqrt{V}`$). In Fig. (4) we plot phase time $`\tau `$ as a function of length $`L`$ of the ring for different values of incident energies in the absence of magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ for the case where two armlengths $`l_u`$ and $`l_b`$ are equal. From the figure we clearly see that $`\tau `$ evolves as a function of length $`L`$ and asymptotically saturates to a value ($`\tau _s`$) which is independent of $`L`$ thus confirming the Hartman effect. The saturation value increases with increasing incident energy and the corresponding values for $`E=0.2V`$, $`0.6V`$ and $`0.8V`$ are $`1.47,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.86}`$ and $`3.13`$ respectively. In one dimensional single barrier case in the tunneling region $`\tau `$ saturates to a constant value as a monotonic function of length. In our present case we observe depending on energy it is a monotonic or nonmonotonic function as seen from Fig. (4). Our system differs from the one dimensional case in such a way that electron entering the ring can traverse along different alternative paths before transmitting. The interference between these alternative paths is responsible for this behaviour in the small $`L`$ regime where contributions from both evanescent and anti-evanescent modes dominate. In Fig. (4) we plot the phase time versus $`L`$ for a particular energy, $`E=0.2`$, in the absence of magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ but for different length ratios of the upper and lower arms. We observe that the saturation value of the phase time is independent of the arm length ratios for a given energy as one can anticipate. In the inset of Fig. (4) we plot $`\tau _s`$ versus $`E/V`$ for $`\varphi =0`$, $`L=30`$ with equal upper and lower arm lengths. Plots with different armlength ratios ($`l_u:l_b`$) with different $`\varphi `$ in the asymptotic limit were found to overlap with the above curve in the entire energy regime. Moreover, it is given by an analytical expression, $`\tau _s=(4\kappa ^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}k^2\kappa +(k^4/\kappa ))/(2k((2\kappa ^2(k^2/2))^2+4k^2\kappa ^2))`$ which agrees perfectly well with the numerical results.

In Fig. (4) we have plotted group delay time as a function of flux $`\varphi `$ for various values of circumference of the ring. In this case $`l_u=l_b`$ and $`E=0.2V`$. We observe that $`\tau `$ is flux periodic with periodicity $`\varphi _0`$. This is consistent with the fact that all the physical properties in presence of Aharonov-Bohm flux across the ring must be periodic function of flux with a period $`\varphi _0`$ buttiker2 ; webb ; datta-bk . However, we observe that as we increase the length of the ring the visibility or the magnitude of Aharonov-Bohm oscillations decreases. Consequently in the large length limit the visibility of Aharonov-Bohm oscillations vanishes as can be seen from Fig. (4). The constant value of $`\tau `$ thus obtained in the presence of flux is identical to $`\tau _s`$ in the absence of the flux (see Fig. (4)) in the large length regime. This result clearly indicates that the delay time in the presence of opaque barrier becomes not only independent of length of the circumference but also it is independent of the Aharonov-Bohm flux thereby observing the Hartman effect in the presence of Aharonov-Bohm flux. We also find that the behaviour of reflection delay time is same as transmission delay time as anticipated from general symmetry laws from the simple geometric structure considered in the present case.

## V Conclusions

We have verified the Hartman effect in a quantum ring geometry in the presence of Aharanov-Bohm flux. Our studies show that the group delay time for a given incident energy becomes independent of the barrier thickness as well as the magnitude of the flux for the case of opaque barrier. We have also obtained similar results on different geometric structures by including a potential well between two adjacent barriers. These results which will be reported elsewhere swarnali  were found to agree with the interesting observations made in Ref. recami .

## VI Acknowledgements

One of us (SB) thanks Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar for the local hospitality, where the present work was carried out.


text:
# Comparison of Radiation Damage in Lead Tungstate Crystals under Pion and Gamma Irradiation

## 1 Introduction

Lead tungstate ($`PbWO_4`$) crystals are planned for use in as the absorptive media in the electromagnetic calorimeters in some collider experiments. The crystals will be irradiated by high energy particles and accumulate significant absorbed doses, up to a several Mrad. The radiation hardness of PbWO4 crystals has been studied by the CMS group using radioactive sources and electron beams  and by the BTeV group using both high energy pion and electron beams. A mixture of pion and electron beams provides a particle environment similar to that expected when running the BTeV experiment .

The goal of this study is to compare the radiation damage of crystals using two types of irradiation, either a high energy pion beam or a 137Cs radioactive source. If the effects of these two types of radiation are similar, we could use source measurements to classify the radiation resistance of each crystal in the BTeV like environment. This would be considerably easier than using particle beams for this measurement. Assessing the radiation resistance, is a crucial aspect of crystal quality assurance needed before assembling the electromagnetic calorimeter. However, until now, there has not been a comparative study of PbWO4 crystal radiation damage under hadron beam and gamma source irradiation.

The expected dose distribution in the BTeV crystals is shown in Table 1 for a collider luminosity of $`2\times 10^{32}`$ cm-2s-1 and a running time of $`10^7`$ s.

Since the BTeV calorimeter starts close to the beam-line, about 15 cm away, and extends to a radius of 160 cm, the amount of radiation varies greatly. Near the beam-line a small fraction of the crystals, $``$1% have doses of about $`10^4`$ Gy (1 Mrad), while 90% of the crystals have doses less than 0.1 Mrad. The latter corresponds to a dose rate of 36 rad/h. About 70% of the crystals have dose rates $`<`$ 4 rad/h.

We used three crystals produced by the Bogoroditsk Techno-Chemical Plant in Russia (denoted as CMS-2442, CMS-2443, Bogo-2313 ) and three more crystals produced by the Shanghai Institute of Ceramics in China (denoted as Shan-T16, Shan-T19, Shan-T20 ). All the crystals except those which are marked as CMS were produced at the end of 2000. The CMS crystals were produced in 2001. The dimensions of the crystals were $`27\times 27`$ mm2 in cross section and $`220`$ mm in length. The CMS crystals had the same length but were tapered; the dimension at the back is $`29\times 29`$ mm2. Each crystal was wrapped using 170 $`\mu `$m thick Tyvek.

The crystals were irradiated by a 40 GeV $`\pi ^{}`$ beam, four of them in April 2001 and the other two, the CMS crystals, in April 2002. After the recovery process at room temperature the crystals were irradiated by 137Cs $`\gamma `$-source in May and June 2003. We provided very similar irradiation conditions, in terms of dose rates and absorbed doses, for both cases. Two types of measurements were done on each crystal both before and after the gamma irradiation: a) light output (LO) measurements using a radioactive source for crystal excitation, and b) crystal transparency measurements using a spectrophotometer.

## 2 Irradiation by pions

Pion irradiation was carried out at the IHEP (Protvino) 70 GeV accelerator. The size of the 40 GeV $`\pi ^{}`$ beam was 8 cm horizontally and 6 cm vertically, $`i.e.`$ 90% of the beam was contained within these dimensions. The beam was present in 1.2 second interval of the full accelerator cycle of 9 sec. Six crystals were irradiated with a dose rate ranging from 30 to 60 rad/h. The crystals light output signals were monitored using the minimum ionizing particles (MIP) in pion beam running and from separate low-intensity calibration runs in electron beam running. LeCroy 2285 15-bit integrating ADC’s were used to measure the signal using a 150 ns integration time. The Protvino testbeam setup is described in detail elsewhere .

## 3 Irradiation using a 137Cs source

We used a radioactive source 137Cs, that emits 661 KeV photons and had an activity of $`510^{12}`$ Bq to irradiate the crystals. The geometrical setup for each crystal position is shown in Fig. 1. Each crystal was irradiated separately. A commercial dosimeter, DKS-AT1123, was used to measure the dose rate (in air) in proximity to the crystals. The accuracy is better than 25% .

To modify the spatial dose distribution from the source in order to make it as similar as possible to pion beam, we used a lead screen placed between the source and the crystals and also rotated the crystals along their longitudinal axes at a rate of 2 turns per minute. The lead screen was made using four lead plates with varying dimensions . The dose rate distributions along the length of crystal are compared for both the pion and source irradiation in Fig. 2 using the lead screen and rotating the crystals. We see that the profiles are quite similar. The rotation is even more important for insuring a uniform irradiation transverse to the crystal axis when using the source. In Fig. 3 we show the transverse radiation profiles for case (a) where the crystal was not rotated and for case (b) where it was rotated. Since pion irradiation uniformly illuminates the crystals in transverse direction, we use the crystal rotation for all the source results in this paper. The MARS and ROZ-6 codes were used for simulations of the dose profiles in crystal under pion and gamma irradiation respectively .

Two sets of gamma irradiation were carried out. One of them was done using dose rates of (30-60) rad/h, and the second one at the dose rate of 110 rad/h for each crystal. The crystals were allowed to recover during two weeks, at room temperature, between the first and the second sets of irradiation. After each exposition the crystal was removed from the place of irradiation to dedicated test stands for light output and transmittance measurements. This procedure usually took about 1 to 1.5 hours.

## 4 Light output and transmittance measurements

A stand with a radioactive source was used to study changes in the crystal light output due to radiation damage. Scintillation light was detected by a XP2020Q photomultiplier tube (PMT). The PMT output was connected to a 20 kOhm load. The mean current through this load was measured by a 11-bit ADC read out by a computer. The PMT high voltage value was of 1.5 kV. The PMT nonlinearity in the direct current mode was less than 1% in the range of 1.2 kV to 2 kV. The dark current was $`210^3`$ relative to the average signal level. The background current, mostly due to direct PMT irradiation by the source was $`510^3`$ of the average signal in the worst instance. A 137Cs source ($`710^8`$ Bq) was installed inside a cylindrical lead collimator, 30 mm in diameter and 40 mm in height with aperture diameter of 5.3 mm. The crystals were wrapped by a Tyvek, except for one end which was attached to the PMT without optical grease. The source was moved longitudinally parallel to the central line of the crystal with steps of 2 cm. The distance between the source and the crystal surface was 5 mm. The measurements of the average direct current were provided in the same way for each of the 9 position along the crystal. The mean value over these 9 measurements gives us a value of a light output signal of each crystal. The light output measurements were monitored using a non-irradiated reference crystal. Performing measurements on non-irradiated crystals, we estimate the systematic error to be at most 3% of the relative light output degradation. The temperature was measured during irradiation and during light output monitoring. The temperature variations were $``$ 1 degree on average, and up to 2 degrees in the worst case. There were no corrections for the temperature variations. The full systematic errors of the monitoring measurements include the effects of the temperature differences.

To measure the light transmittance of each crystal, a commercial spectrophotometer SF-26 was used in the wave length region from 340 up to 700 nm with a steps of 10 nm. The spectrophotometer light spot was 5 mm in diameter with a negligible angular dispersion. The measurement accuracy at each point was 1%.

## 5 Results and discussion

The dependence of a signal loss on the accumulated dose (at a fixed dose rate) for six crystals irradiated by 137Cs source is shown in Fig. 4. Two crystals lost 10% of their signal or less under the source irradiation and four other crystals lost (15-25)%. The light loss in transmittance curves at wavelengths of (420-550) nm measured with the use of the spectrophotometer is one order of magnitude less. For example crystal CMS-2442 showed losses between 2-2.5% (see Fig. 5). This difference might be due to different optical paths in crystal taken by the injected spectrophotometer light as compared with the scintillation light. From now on we will show only the results from the radioactive source measurements which are more sensitive than the spectrophotometer measurements in showing the effects of radiation.

It has been shown that PbWO4 transmission damage occurs in the crystal when valence electrons are trapped in metastable states around crystal defects. Thus, the irradiation of PbWO4 crystals creates so called color centers which reduce the light attenuation length. When the rate of color centers production (proportional to the dose rate) equals the natural recovery rate, the crystal light output will reach a saturation level . Fig. 4 shows that the signal degrades relatively rapidly with the absorbed dose up to (100-200) rad and then degrades at a significantly slower rate until the saturation level is reached. The light loss has a tendency to exhibit saturation when the dose rate is kept at a constant level. Each crystal demonstrates a different level of light loss in the saturated state. We found that the saturation level is reliably reached after $``$10 hours of continuous irradiation at the fixed dose rate. We did not observe a significant difference in radiation hardness of the crystals from different manufacturers.

The second round of gamma irradiation was done at a dose rate of 110 rad/h for each crystal, after two weeks of recovery at room temperature. Because we irradiated the crystals with 110 rad/h gamma-source for a long time, $``$(60-70) hours, we believe that we reached the signal loss saturation level for each crystal at this high dose rate. The dependence of the normalized signal loss (in state of saturation) on the dose rate for the six crystals under gamma irradiation is shown in Fig. 6.

The normalized signal loss versus of the absorbed dose under 40 GeV pion irradiation for the same crystals is presented in Fig. 7. The points on the plot represent the level of signal loss after saturation was reached at the specified fixed dose rates. The rate of the signal degradation is practically the same for both irradiation procedures up to the dose rates of 60 rad/h. Using gamma irradiation at a dose rate of 110 rad/h does not lower the saturation level of some of the crystals, while others are affected (see Fig. 6). This is an indication that the relative difference of the crystal signal losses demonstrated at dose rates of 30-60 rad/h might change at larger dose rates.

Ratios of pion/gamma signal losses at saturation, caused by irradiation at the same dose rates, for the six crystals are shown in Fig. 8. We see that these ratios are close to each other and are in the region between 0.8 and 1. Thus we can conclude that pion and gamma irradiation at the same dose rates affect lead tungstate crystals in a similar fashion.

We intend to continue our studies; we want to carry out crystal radiation studies for significantly larger numbers of crystals while making continuous light output measurements during the gamma irradiation process.

## 6 Summary

We have observed that the relative signal loss using 40 GeV pion irradiation and using 137Cs radioactive source irradiation looks similar at the dose rate of (30-60) rad/h.

We have shown that the gamma-source can be used to evaluate the radiation tolerance of PbWO4 crystals. It takes approximately 10 hours of irradiation at fixed dose rates to reach a saturation plateau for each crystal. The dose rate can be chosen in the range of (60-100) rad/h because the most of the crystals will be suffering from the lower dose rates at the BTeV experiment.

## 7 Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy as well as The Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 02-02-39008. We would like to thank the management of IHEP Radiation Research Department for providing us a 137Cs radioactive source for our gamma irradiation studies, as well as the PHENIX group at IHEP (Protvino) for providing us both hardware and software needed for light-output measurements. We thank O. Sumaneev for calculation of the dose profiles in the crystals using gamma irradiation.


text:
# On the Maximum Binary Fraction in Globular Cluster Cores

## 1. Introduction

Binary stars play a fundamental role in the dynamical evolution of globular clusters, providing (through inelastic collisions) the source of energy that supports them against gravothermal collapse (Goodman & Hut, 1989; Gao et al., 1991; Fregeau et al., 2003b). In the “binary burning” phase, a cluster can remain in quasi-thermal equilibrium with nearly constant core density and velocity dispersion for many relaxation times, in much the same way that a star can maintain itself in thermal equilibrium for many Kelvin-Helmholtz times by burning hydrogen in its core.

At present, there are very few direct measurements of binary fractions in clusters. However, even early observations showed that binary fractions in globular cluster cores are smaller than in the solar neighborhood (e.g., Cote et al. (1996)). Recent Hubble Space Telescope observations have provided further constraints on the binary fractions in many globular clusters (Bellazzini et al., 2002; Rubenstein & Bailyn, 1997). The measured binary fractions in dense cluster cores are found to be very small. As an example, the upper limit on the core binary fraction of NGC 6397 is only 5-7% (Cool & Bolton, 2002).

All dynamical interactions in dense cluster cores tend to destroy binaries (with the possible exception of tidal captures, which may form binaries, but turn out to play a negligible role; see § 3). Soft binaries can be disrupted by any tidal interaction with another passing star or binary. Even hard binaries can be destroyed in resonant binary–binary encounters, which typically eject two single stars and leave only one binary remaining (Mikkola, 1983), or produce physical stellar collisions and mergers (Bacon et al., 1996; Fregeau et al., 2003a).

In addition, many binary stellar evolution processes can lead to disruptions (e.g., following a supernova explosion of one of the stars) or mergers (e.g., following a common envelope phase). These evolutionary destruction processes can also be enhanced by dynamics (e.g., more common envelope systems form as a result of exchange interactions; see Rasio, Pfahl, & Rappaport 2000).

It is therefore natural to ask whether the small binary fractions measured in old globular clusters today result from these many destruction processes, and what the initial binary fraction must have been to explain the current numbers. We address these questions in this paper, by performing calculations that combine binary star evolution with a treatment of dynamical interactions in dense cluster cores.

## 2. Methods and Assumptions

Our initial conditions are described by the following parameters: total number of stars (single or in a binary), $`N`$, initial mass function (IMF), binary fraction, $`f_b`$, distribution of binary parameters (period, $`P`$, eccentricity, $`e`$, and mass ratio, $`q`$). We typically adopt standard choices used in population synthesis studies, which are based on available observations for stars in the field and in young star clusters (Sills et al. 2003). For the calculations reported here, we use the following initial conditions. We adopt the IMF of Kroupa (2002), which can be written as a broken power law $`dNm^\alpha dm`$, where $`\alpha =0.3`$ for $`0.01m/M_{}<0.08`$, $`\alpha =1.3`$ for $`0.08m/M_{}<0.50`$, $`\alpha =2.3`$ for $`m/M_{}0.5`$ We consider the mass range $`0.05M_{}`$ to $`100M_{}`$. The initial average stellar mass is then $`m=0.48M_{}`$. The binary mass ratio, $`q`$, is assumed to be distributed uniformly in the range $`0<q<1`$. This is in agreement with observations for $`q0.2`$ (Woitas et al., 2001). The binary period, $`P`$, is taken from a uniform distribution in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}P`$ over the range $`P=0.1`$$`10^7`$d. The binary eccentricity, $`e`$, follows a thermal distribution truncated such that there is no contact binary.

We evolve all stars (single and binary) using the population synthesis code StarTrack (Belczynski et al., 2002). The evolution of single stars is based on the analytic fits provided by Hurley et al. (2000), but includes a more realistic determination of compact object masses (Fryer & Kalogera, 2001). All our calculations use metallicity $`Z=0.001`$, appropriate for a cluster such as 47 Tuc. We treat the evolution of stellar collision and binary merger products following the prescription of Hurley et al. (2002). To evolve the cluster population, we consider two timesteps. One is associated with the evolutionary changes in the stellar population, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{ev}}`$, and the other with the rate of encounters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ (see §3). $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{\mathrm{ev}}`$ is defined so that no more than 2% of all stars change their properties (mass and radius) by more than 5%. The global timestep for the cluster evolution is taken to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{min}[t_{\mathrm{ev}},t_{\mathrm{coll}}]`$

Our modeling of the cluster dynamics is highly simplified. We assume that the core number density, $`n_\mathrm{c}`$, and one-dimensional velocity dispersion, $`\sigma `$, remain strictly constant throughout the evolution. These quantities are input parameters used to calculate dynamical interaction rates in the cluster core (see below). While all globular clusters have $`\sigma 10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the core density can vary by several orders of magnitude. Here we set $`n_\mathrm{c}=10^5\mathrm{pc}^3`$ for most calculations, representative of a fairly dense cluster like 47 Tuc. In general, $`n_\mathrm{c}`$ is the main “knob” that we can turn to increase or decrease the importance of dynamics. Setting $`n_\mathrm{c}=0`$ corresponds to a traditional population synthesis simulation, where all binaries and single stars evolve in isolation after a single initial burst of star formation. To model a specific cluster, we match its observed core luminosity volume density $`\rho _L^\mathrm{o}`$, central velocity dispersion, and half-mass relaxation time.

The escape speed from the cluster core can be estimated from observations as $`v_\mathrm{e}=2.5\sigma _3`$(Webbink, 1985), where $`\sigma _3`$ is the three-dimensional core velocity dispersion. Following an interaction or a supernova explosion, any object that has acquired a recoil speed exceeding $`v_\mathrm{e}`$ is removed from the simulation. For computing interactions in the core, the velocities of all objects are assumed to be distributed according to a lowered Maxwellian (King, 1965), with $`f(v)=v^2/\sigma (m)^2(\mathrm{exp}(1.5v^2/\sigma (m)^2)\mathrm{exp}(1.5v_e^2/\sigma (m)^2))`$ with parameters $`\sigma (m)=(m/m)^{1/2}\sigma _3`$ (assuming energy equipartition in the core) and $`v_\mathrm{e}`$. In addition, we use $`\sigma `$ to impose a cut-off for soft binaries entering the core. Any binary with maximum orbital speed $`<0.1\sigma _3`$ is immediately broken into two single stars (Hills, 1990).

In the presence of a broad mass spectrum, the cluster core is always dominated by the most massive objects in the cluster, which tend to concentrate there via mass segregation. As stars evolve, the composition of the core will therefore change significantly over time. To model mass segregation in our simulations, we assume that the probability for an object of mass $`m`$ to enter the core after a time $`t_s`$ follows a Poisson distribution, $`p(t_s)=(1/t_{sc})\mathrm{exp}(t_s/t_{sc})`$, where the characteristic mass-segregation timescale is given by $`t_{sc}=10\left(m/m\right)t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ (Fregeau et al., 2002). Here $`t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ is the half-mass relaxation time, which we assume to be constant for a given cluster. We fix $`m=2M_{}`$, as this value gives, in our model, the best fit for the ratio of core mass to total cluster mass in 47 Tuc.

All objects are allowed to have dynamical interactions after they have entered the cluster core. We use a simple Monte-Carlo prescription to decide which pair of objects actually have an interaction during each timestep. We considerer separately binary–binary and binary–single interactions, as well as single–single encounters (tidal captures and collisions). Tidal captures are treated using the approach described in Portegies Zwart & Meinen (1993). If the pericenter distance is less than twice the sum of the stellar radii, the encounter is treated as a physical collision and assumed to lead to a merger. Each dynamical interaction involving a binary is calculated using Fewbody, a new numerical toolkit for simulating small-$`N`$ gravitational dynamics that is particularly suited to performing 3-body and 4-body integrations (Fregeau et al., 2003a; Fregeau & Rappaport, 2003). A more detailed description of our Monte-Carlo procedure will be given in (Ivanova et al., 2004).

Initial conditions for all our reference models are given in Table 1. All models have central velocity dispersion $`\sigma _1=10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1`$, and initial primordial binary fraction $`f_{b,0}=1`$, except for Model B05, which has $`f_{b,0}=0.5`$. Our assumed period distribution implies that about 60% of primordial binaries are hard. The initial number of stars is $`N=2.5\times 10^5`$, with the cluster core containing about 1% of the stars initially.

## 3. Results

First consider our results for a typical dense cluster, in Model 1. Starting with 100% binaries initially, the final core binary fraction (at 14 Gyr), $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$, is only 8%. This is strikingly low, given that the cluster started with all binaries. Decreasing the initial binary fraction, $`f_{b,0}`$, to a more reasonable (but still large) 50% reduces $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ further to 5%, as shown in Model B05. The dependence of $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ on $`f_{b,0}`$ is not linear. This is mainly due to mass segregation: decreasing $`f_{b,0}`$ also increases the ratio of mean binary mass to mean stellar mass in the cluster, thereby resulting in a higher concentration of binaries in the core. The majority (about 75%) of destroyed binaries were disrupted by close dynamical encounters (or, rarely, following a supernova explosion). Note that some binaries that are initially hard eventually become soft after undergoing significant mass loss due to stellar evolution. About 20% of the destroyed binaries experienced mergers, typically after significant hardening through interactions. The rate of binary destruction by mergers is about an order of magnitude higher in this model (Model 1) than for the corresponding field population (Model ND). A few percent of the binaries lost were actually not destroyed but instead were ejected from the cluster as the result of strong encounters. Tidal capture did not play a significant role; the total number of tidal capture binaries formed during the cluster lifetime is less than 1% of the final number of binaries in the core. While the final core binary fraction is extremely low, the overall cluster binary fraction remains high, about 65%, even after 14 Gyr (Fig. 1). Note, however, that the surviving binaries include mainly low-mass systems which never entered the core (about 70% of the initial binaries never entered the core and therefore never had a chance to interact). The average primary mass among binaries remaining outside the core at 14 Gyr is 0.2 $`M_{}`$.

Let us now compare results for different central densities, in Models 1, D3, D4 and D6. The evolution of $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ for these models is shown in Figure 1. For comparison, the binary fraction for the field case (Model ND) is also presented. As expected, the core binary fraction decreases as $`n_c`$ increases. However, if one consider the binary fraction for only non-degenerate stars, its behavior is different. In particular, the final binary fraction for non-degenerate stars more massive than $`0.5M_{}`$, $`f_{0.5}`$, is higher than $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ for the low-density Model D3. Thus $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ is decreased partially through a lower binary fraction of degenerate objects. Degenerate objects, compared to non-degenerate $`0.50.9M_{}`$ stars, evolved from initially more-massive stars and are more likely to have a more massive companion initially. Their binary destruction rate is much higher, enchanced both by stellar evolution (mass loss and mass transfer at more advanced evolutionary stages, SN explosions in a binary), and by dynamical interactions (large cross-section for encounters).

Next we examine how the half-mass relaxation time affects binary fractions (Models T8 and T10). We see that, surprisingly, the model with shorter relaxation time has a higher core binary fraction. There are two competing mechanisms that play a role here: mass segregation, which brings binaries into the core, and dynamical interactions, which destroy binaries in the core. A shorter segregation time increases the rate at which binaries enter the core but also allows less massive binaries to interact. Therefore, the average mass of a binary in the core will be smaller. However, the average time spent by a binary in the core also increases, so more can be destroyed, and the more massive binaries tend to be destroyed first as they have a larger interaction cross section. As a result, in Model T8 $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ is higher than in T10, although the binary fraction of more massive binaries is smaller.

## 4. Discussion and Comparison with Observations

We performed several simulations with parameters that attempt to match those of specific globular clusters in the Galaxy (Table 2). In all cases the initial binary fraction is 100%, so our results for final core binary fractions represent upper limits. As before we obtain very low values for $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$. For example, in the 47 Tuc model, $`f_{\mathrm{b},\mathrm{c}}`$ is only 5%. At first glance, this may seem to conflict with observations. In particular, Albrow et al. (2001) derive a binary fraction for the core of 47 Tuc of about 13%, from observations of eclipsing binaries with periods in the range $`P4`$$`16`$d. This estimate was based on an extrapolation assuming a period distribution flat in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}P`$ from about $`2`$d to $`50`$yr. In Figure 2 we show the period distribution of core binaries in our simulation. Note that the period range of eclipsing binaries corresponds to the peak of the distribution, while for larger $`P`$ it drops rapidly. In particular, for binaries with components more massive than 0.25 $`M_{}`$, the number of systems with periods in the range $`2`$d to $`50`$yr is about 7 times smaller than would be predicted by a distribution flat in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}P`$. Using the observed number of eclipsing binaries and those from our simulation, the adjusted core binary fraction from Albrow et al. (2001) is about 4%, which is consistent with our results. Figure 2 also shows the period distributions for models that represent the clusters NGC 3201 and NGC 6397. For denser clusters, such as NGC 6397, the peak of the distribution shifts toward shorter periods, while for less dense clusters, such as NGC 3201, the distribution peaks at longer periods and is flatter. We performed 3 additional simulations for 47 Tuc, with $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}=0.25,0.5\mathrm{and}0.75`$. We found that with decreasing $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}`$, the adjusted core binary fraction decreases and reaches, e.g., 2.5% for $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}=0.5`$.

An alternative estimate of the binary fraction in the core of 47 Tuc is based on observations of BY Dra stars (Albrow et al., 2001). Their estimated core binary fraction, which can be considered a lower limit, is approximately 0.8%, 18 times lower than the estimate based on eclipsing binaries. This estimate was based on 31 BY Dra binaries and 5 eclipsing binaries oberved in the period range 4-10 d. We analyzed the core binary population in our model in order to identify BY Dra binaries. We adopted the standard definition for a BY Dra binary: primary mass in the range $`0.3`$$`0.7M_{}`$ (see, e.g., Bopp & Fekel (1977)) and period in the range $`4`$$`10`$d (as for the observed sample in 47 Tuc). The ratio between the total number of binaries and the number of BY Dra systems is found to be 38, 42 and 45 for models with $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}=1.0,0.75`$ and 0.5, respectivly. With 36 binaries observed in this period range, the total core binary fraction is 2.9%, 3.3% and 3.5% for $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}=1.0,0.75`$ and 0.5, respectively. Based on these results, we estimate that the initial binary fraction should be at least 0.5, and more likely in the range $`f_{\mathrm{b},0}0.751`$.

Even more extreme results are obtained for NGC 6397. This cluster is classified observationally as “core collapsed” and therefore may not be well described by our simplified dynamical model. Nevertheless, it is useful to study how the binary fraction in the cluster would have evolved if the very high central density had been constant throughout the evolution. We find that the binary fraction for stars more massive than $`0.5M_{}`$ is extremely low: 2% in the core at 14 Gyr with 100% binaries initially. For this cluster, there is a firm upper limit of 3% on the core binary fraction for stars in the mass range $`0.450.8M_{}`$ and for binary mass ratios $`q>0.45`$ (Cool & Bolton, 2002). For the same ranges in our model we find 2%, in surprisingly good agreement with the observations.

In addition to their implications for the interpretation of observed binary fractions in cluster cores, our results also have important consequences for the theoretical modeling of globular clusters. Indeed, it is clear that “realistic” dynamical simulations of globular cluster evolution should include large populations of primordial binaries, with initial binary fractions in the range $`50\%`$$`100\%`$ (similar to what is usually assumed for the field; see, e.g., Duquennoy & Mayor (1991)). This poses a particular challenge for direct $`N`$-body simulations, where the treatment of even relatively small numbers of binaries can add enormous computational costs. For this reason, current direct $`N`$-body simulations of star clusters with large initial binary fractions typically have $`N`$ too small to be considered representative of globular clusters (see, e.g., Portegies Zwart et al. 2003; Wilkinson et al. 2003). However, approximate methods, such as Monte-Carlo, do not suffer from the same limitations, and routinely simulate clusters with reasonably large $`N`$ ($`3\times 10^5`$) and binary fraction ($`30\%`$), yet have not yet included advanced treatments of binary star evolution (see, e.g., Fregeau et al., 2003b, and references therein).


text:
# Comment on ”Constraining a possible dependence of Newton’s constant on the Earth’s magnetic field”

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , A. Rathke has expressed some criticisms on the KK$`\psi `$ model  \-  by performing a rough estimate of the metric perturbation of a single nucleus and the effective contribution to the gravitational mass it may involve. The author claimed that such analysis can be applied to generic theories with gravielectric coupling. Thus, he concluded that the bounds of WEP violations put by the Eötvös experiments rule out the explanation of the discrepant measurements of Newton’s constant by such couplings by several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, Rathke argued that the very structure of the action of the KK$`\psi `$ model is inconsistent in the sense that it would yield a negative energy of the electromagnetic field. Consequently, according to him, the action of the KK$`\psi `$ model is just a mixture of contributions written in different conventions leading to the misinterpretation that the Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory is classically unstable. However, both claims, as stated yet, are incorrect in many respects. In the next section we recall the major arguments we have put forward to conclude the instability of the genuine KK theory. In Sec. 3, we discuss the validity of the procedure used by Rathke to make a conclusion on WEP violation by the KK$`\psi `$ model. In Sec. 4, we present a new opportunity to prevent KK-like theories or scalar-tensor theories from any significant WEP violation. A proof is given in the appendix.

## 2 Instability of the genuine 5D KK theory

Rathke argues that our claim of the instability of the genuine 5D KK theory at the classical level is a misconception due to the conventions we have employed. Further, he suggests to us to refer to Ref.  for a didactic derivation and discussion of the KK action in various frames. In this respect, I reiterate that we have shown the instability of the genuine KK theory independently of the frame (see ). In particular, this is obvious in Einstein frame (one passes from the Jordan frame to Einstein frame by the conformal transformation $`\widehat{g}_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/3}\widehat{g}_{AB}`$, $`A,B=0,1,2,3,4`$ are 5D labels, whereas $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,3`$ are 4D labels), as can be seen in the literature  \-  and displayed below :

$$S_{KK}=\sqrt{g}(\frac{R}{\kappa ^2}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{6\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })d^4x$$
(1)
to be compared to

$$S=\sqrt{g}(\frac{R}{\kappa ^2}+\frac{1}{4}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}^\alpha \varphi _\alpha \varphi +U(\varphi )+J\varphi )d^4x,$$
(2)
in the case of a classical real scalar field, $`\varphi `$, minimally coupled to gravity with the potential $`U=U(\varphi )`$ and the source term $`J=J(x^\alpha )`$, where we have set $`\kappa ^2=16\pi G/c^4`$. As regards the featuring of a kinetic term for the 5D KK scalar field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is usually absent in the Jordan frame, the reader may refer, e. g., to  (Sec. 3.3, Eq.(9)) for opposing views. In any case, the absence of a kinetic term just makes the 5D KK theory with zero electromagnetic field equivalent to a Brans-Dicke theory with parameter $`\omega =0`$. Now, as shown by Noerdlinger , stability of the Brans-Dicke action requires $`\omega >0`$. The limiting case $`\omega =0`$ leads to an unstable vacuum . Thus, our conclusion on the instability of the genuine KK theory still holds both in the Einstein frame (whose action meets a common consensus) and in the Jordan frame even if the KK scalar field kinetic term is removed from the action.

## 3 A proof of WEP violation ?

First, the definition of the (effective) gravitational mass given in  is wrong and quite confusing. The author is manifestly dealing with the gravitational self-energy of a nucleus and not the gravitational mass itself, this inconsistency appearing clearly in the lack of a second mass density and a double integral in Eqs.(41), (42) of  in contrast with Eq.(2) of ref.  (Sec. 2). Rathke does not seem to realise that the WEP violation occurs in scalar-tensor theories only because of the spatial variation of the binding energies of composit particles. Moreover, in the spirit of Eötvös experiments, generally one considers a WEP violation in the external gravitational field of a macroscopic body by comparing accelerations of two test bodies of various composition (e. g., the Earth and the Moon in the gravitational field of the Sun . A reason for that is the weakness of gravity as compared to the strength of other fundamental interactions like the electromagnetic interaction. In fact, it seems that Rathke just tried to evaluate the effective gravitational self-force of a nucleus and its influence on the WEP violation. However, it is not so simple to compute the gravitational self-force since one should deal with gauge and regularization problems which are by far out of reach of a simple phenomenological approach (see ). Furthermore, referring to the recent approach known as the ”chameleon” cosmology, scalar fields like those of the KK$`\psi `$ model can acquire a huge mass in region of high mean density, as it is indeed the case within a nucleus in contrast with the atmospheric density or vacuum in usual laboratory experiments  (see also  for stability considerations).

## 4 A possibility of compensating WEP violation

Like any physical model, the KK$`\psi `$ model may finally turn out not to be viable. However, it is worth noticing that the problem raised by the discrepant G measurements still remains. Moreover, the correlation that we have established from experimental data between the geomagnetic field and the laboratory measurements of G at different locations on Earth is still unchallenged. On the other hand, we agree with Rathke that Eötvös-like experiment put very strong constraints on any violation of the universality of free fall (UFF). Nevertheless, this does not necessarily imply that large gravielectric couplings are inconsistent with known experimental bounds on the WEP, as we show below. Actually, the claim that KK-like theories and scalar-tensor theories in general should violate the WEP is not new at all. It goes back to Jordan and Dicke themselves . Nevertheless, there still remains a possibility of a mechanism that could help such models or variants of such models to conciliate a large gravielectric coupling with the WEP. Thus, in the framework of his version of varying fine structure constant (which too couples the Maxwell invariant $`F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$ to a scalar field), Bekenstein has suggested a cancellation mechanism in order to escape any WEP violation due to the different internal constitutions of objects . However, his proposal was soon after strongly criticized by Damour . Let us recall that there was a time when the quark model was thought to be ruled out by the Pauli principle (which is at least as fundamental as the WEP) because of the existence of the resonance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$. In that case, a symmetry, the color, was a solution. Keeping this in mind, let us explore in what follows a new possibility which may conciliate the experimental bounds on WEP violation with the KK-like models (see ). Following Nordtvedt , a body whose mass depends on some parameter $`\alpha `$ which varies in space will be subject to a body-dependent acceleration

$$\stackrel{}{\delta a}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}M}{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }c^2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\alpha $$
(3)
which accounts for UFF violation. Hence, two different bodies, labelled $`i`$ and $`j`$, of different composition will fall in the Earth’s gravitational field $`\stackrel{}{g}`$ with a difference in accelerations whose magnitude equals

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{a}_j}{\stackrel{}{g}}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(M_i/M_j)}{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }c^2\frac{\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{ln}\alpha }{g}$$
(4)
Consequently, although the mass $`M=M(\alpha )`$ of a given body will depend on the variable parameter $`\alpha =\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}),\psi (\stackrel{}{r}))`$, there will be no observed UFF violation for $`M=M_0K(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )`$, where $`M_0`$ is a positive constant and $`K(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )`$ is a universal function which reduces to unity when the scalar fields are not excited. We show in what follows that the Higgs mechanism of dynamical generation of elementary particles’mass may also allow the latter possibility. Indeed, let us consider the mass $`M`$ of a given atom on account of its composition, namely, $`Z`$ protons and $`N`$ neutrons in the nucleus, plus $`Z`$ surrounding electrons. It is written in the general form :

$$M=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}Z+N)m_u+(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}N+Z)m_d+Zm_e\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{c^2}$$
(5)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\alpha _{eff}^2F_{em}(Z,N)+\alpha _{seff}^{n_s}F_s(Z,N)+\alpha _{weff}^{n_w}F_w(Z,N)$$
(6)
is the internal binding energy which includes the electromagnetic interaction, the strong interaction and the weak interaction binding energies contributions, respectively. The subscripts $`em`$, $`s`$ and $`w`$ stand for the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions, respectively; the quantities $`\alpha _{eff},\alpha _{seff},\alpha _{weff}`$ are the corresponding relevant effective coupling constants. The exponents $`n_s`$ and $`n_w`$ need not to be specified for our purpose. Now, the masses $`m_u`$, $`m_d`$ and $`m_e`$ result dynamically from the Yukawa coupling of the $`u`$quark, the $`d`$quark and the electron to the Higgs field. Now, in our framework, the Yukawa coupling constants $`\{g^{(u)},g^{(d)},g^{(e)}\}`$ of these elementary particles should be replaced with the effective quantities $`\{g_{eff}^{(u)},g_{eff}^{(d)},g_{eff}^{(e)}\}`$ which all depend on both scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\psi `$ (see Appendix). Clearly, the only way to get rid of a composition-dependent ratio $`M/M_0`$ consists in relating the effective coupling constants to each other so that

$$\frac{g_{eff}^{(u)}}{g^{(u)}}=\frac{g_{eff}^{(d)}}{g^{(d)}}=\frac{g_{eff}^{(e)}}{g^{(e)}}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{weff}}{\alpha _w}\right)^{n_w}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{seff}}{\alpha _s}\right)^{n_s}=\left(\frac{\alpha _{eff}}{\alpha }\right)^2=K(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi ),$$
(7)
where the sets of quantities $`\{g^{(u)},g^{(d)},g^{(e)}\}`$ and $`\{\alpha _w,\alpha _s,\alpha \}`$ denote the Yukawa coupling constants and the fundamental interaction coupling constants, respectively, when both scalar fields are not excited. A connection between the ratios $`\alpha _{weff}/\alpha _w`$, $`\alpha _{seff}/\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _{eff}/\alpha `$ has already been put foreward in  (see the discussion), on the basis of the fundamental interactions unification scheme. Usually, the phenomenological formula given in the textbooks reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=a_vAa_sA^{2/3}a_c\frac{Z^2}{A^{1/3}}a_a\frac{(NZ)^2}{4A}\delta A^{1/2},$$
(8)
where $`A=Z+N`$ and the values of the parameters $`a_v`$, $`a_s`$, $`a_c`$, $`a_a`$ and $`\delta `$ depend on the range of masses for which they are optimized (see, e. g.). Hence, according to our analysis, the parameters $`a_v`$, $`a_s`$, $`a_c`$, $`a_a`$, $`\delta `$ should be considered as effective parameters that scale as $`K(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )`$. This is still consistent with the natural expectation that these parameters should depend on the fundamendal interactions coupling constants.

## 5 Conclusion

The Kaluza-Klein theory is unstable even in the Jordan frame, irrespective of whether or not the kinetic term of the KK scalar field is included in the action functional. A. Rathke’s claims that the KK$`\psi `$ model is already ruled out because of its gravielectric coupling is not yet founded, based solely on the naive model he has sketched. The definition of the gravitational energy which he has used is also incorrect. Hence, his conclusions are not based on serious proofs. Instead, it seems still possible to accommodate a gravielectric coupling with the UFF on account of the Higgs mechanism of dynamical mass generation.

## 6 Appendix

The Lagrangian density of a fermion (quark or lepton) of mass $`m`$ whose wave function is the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ reads

$$L=\frac{i}{2}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }(D_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }})\gamma ^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }]mc\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(9)
where $`D_\alpha `$ stands for the covariant derivative and hereafter $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Noether’s theorem yields the energy-momentum density (see, e. g., Sec. I. 7, p. 49 and Sec. I. 8, p. 60)

$$T^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{i}{2}[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\alpha D^\beta \mathrm{\Psi }(D^\beta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }})\gamma ^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }]+mc\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }g^{\alpha \beta },$$
(10)
on account of the Dirac equation. Then, it follows

$$T_\alpha ^\alpha =4mc\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(11)
In the KK$`\psi `$ models (see , Sec. $`2.2`$), fermions will generate the $`\psi `$-field through a source term of the form

$$J=\frac{8\pi G}{3c^4}g(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )T_\alpha ^\alpha =\frac{32\pi G}{3c^4}g(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )mc\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(12)
The total action reads

$$S=S_{KK,4}+\frac{c^4}{4\pi G}\sqrt{g}\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \psi ^\alpha \psi UJ\psi \right]d^4x+\sqrt{g}Ld^4x,$$
(13)
where $`S_{KK,4}`$ denotes the genuine 5D KK action after dimensional reduction. As can be seen, the relation (12) provides the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with an effective mass $`m_{eff}=mK(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )`$ which is expressed as

$$m_{eff}=m\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{8}{3}g(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )\psi \mathrm{\Phi }\right].$$
(14)
As one knows, the mass of an elementary fermion is derived from the Yukawa coupling of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to the Higgs field, $`\varphi `$, by replacing the mechanical mass $`m`$ in Eq. (9) with $`g^{(\mathrm{\Psi })}\varphi `$ (see , Sec. VIII. 3 and ), where $`g^{(\mathrm{\Psi })}`$ is the Yukawa coupling constant of the fermion. Thus, Eq. (14) involves an effective Yukawa coupling constant given by

$$g_{eff}^{(\mathrm{\Psi })}=g^{(\mathrm{\Psi })}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{8}{3}g(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi )\psi \mathrm{\Phi }\right].$$
(15)


text:
# Semiclassical approximation for a nonlinear oscillator with dissipation

## Abstract

An $`S`$–matrix approach is developed for the chaotic dynamics of a nonlinear oscillator with dissipation. The quantum–classical crossover is studied in the framework of the semiclassical expansion for the $`S`$–matrix. Analytical expressions for the braking time and the $`S`$–matrix are obtained.

We consider here a semiclassical dynamics of a nonlinear oscillator with dissipation. The main objective is to find the breaking time of the quantum–classical crossover for the dissipative system. In the absence of dissipation, the breaking time, namely, the Ehrenfest time has been found bz  to scale logarithmically with respect to the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$: $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}=(1/\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{ln}(I_0/\mathrm{})`$, where $`I_0`$ is a characteristic action, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Lyapunov exponent. It characterizes the exact classical–to–quantum correspondence between the Hamiltonian equation of motion and the Ehrenfest ones bz ; zasl ; biz81 ; bz82 . The renewed interest to this time is related to the extensive studies of the chaotic scattering in cavities silvestr , the Loschmidt echo benenti  and observation of essential deviation from the logarithmic scaling for systems with phase space structures izpre01 ; izpre03 . The nonlinear oscillator since the first observation of the Ehrenfest time bz  is explored to study the quantum–classical correspondence zasl ; biz81 ; bz82 ; sok ; angelo . This time specifies a fast (exponential) growth of quantum corrections to the classical dynamics due to chaos. In the presence of dissipation the breaking time differs from the $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}`$ since the classical dissipation changes the local instability of trajectories. The breaking time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}`$ for a dissipative web map has been obtained izpre03  by the $`c`$-number projection of the Heisenberg equations on the coherent states basis. At the time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}`$, the quantum corrections is of the order of 1 and destroy the (semi)classical behavior of the system. The subject of quantum dissipative chaos grew out of the the pioneering work on dissipative quantum maps graham , and various aspects of the extensive studies on quantum dissipative chaos are reflected in the recent reviews haake  as well.

We show here in the framework of a $`S`$–matrix approach for chaotic dynamics of the nonlinear oscillator with a dissipation rate $`\gamma `$, that the breaking time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}`$ depends essentially on the ration between the dissipation rate $`\gamma `$ and the local instability characteristics the Lyapunov exponent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The Hamiltonian of the system can be written in the following non-Hermitian form

$$=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Omega }i\gamma /2)a^{}a+\mathrm{}^2\mu (a^{}a)^2\mathrm{}ϵ(a^{}+a)\delta _T(t).$$
(1)
Creation and annihilation operators has the commutation rule $`[a,a^{}]=1`$. The complex frequency $`\omega _\gamma =\mathrm{\Omega }i\gamma /2`$ determines the effective frequency $`\omega =\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\gamma ^2/4\right]^{1/2}`$ in the presence of a finite width of the levels $`\gamma /2`$, and $`\mu `$ is the nonlinearity. The perturbation is a train of $`\delta `$-functions: $`\delta _T(t)=_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (tnT)`$, characterized by the amplitude $`ϵ`$ and the period $`T`$. Evolution of the wave function is governed by the quantum map

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t+T)=𝒰(T)\mathrm{\Psi }(t),$$
(2)
where the evolution operator $`𝒰(T)`$ over the period $`T`$ corresponds to a free dissipative motion and then a kick. In our case it is a product of the unitary evolution operator $`U(T)`$ and the decay operator $`B`$

$$𝒰(T)𝒰=UB=e^{iϵ(a^{}+a)}e^{i[\mathrm{\Omega }Ta^{}a+\stackrel{~}{h}(a^{}a)^2]}e^{\gamma Ta^{}a/2}.$$
(3)
Here the dimensionless semiclassical parameter $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\mathrm{}\mu T`$ is introduced. In what follows this parameter is small: $`\stackrel{~}{h}1`$. To describe chaotic dynamics of the open system it is necessary to construct an $`S`$–matrix. To this end we close the system by means of the complementary conditions with an incident wave $`\varphi _{}(t)`$ and an outgoing wave $`\varphi _+(t)`$. Therefore, the quantum map (2) takes the following new form yan ; livsic

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Psi }(t+T)}{\varphi _+(t)}\right)=𝒱\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}{\varphi _{}(t)}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒰& 𝒰W_1\\ W_2& S_0\end{array}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Psi }(t)}{\varphi _{}(t)}\right),$$
(4)
where $`𝒱`$ is unitary: $`𝒱^{}𝒱=\text{1}`$. Operators $`W_1,W_2`$ and $`S_0`$ are determined from dissipation by solving the Schrödinger equation on the period $`T`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t+T)=𝒰\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}_{t+0}^{t+T+0}𝒰(st)\stackrel{~}{W}_1(sT)\varphi _{}(sT)𝑑s.$$
(5)
Taking the closure of the system in the form $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1(t)=W_1_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta (tnT)`$, we obtain after the Fourier transform respect to time that the quantum map (4) takes the following form

$`e^{iET}\psi (E)=𝒰\psi (E){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}𝒰W_1\varphi _{}(E)`$
$`\varphi _+(E)=W_2\psi (E)+S_0\varphi _{}(E).`$ (6)
Relation between the incident and outgoing waves is determined by the following expression $`\varphi _+(E)=S(E)\varphi _{}(E)`$, where $`S(E)`$ is called the $`S`$–matrix yan . From this definition and Eq. (Semiclassical approximation for a nonlinear oscillator with dissipation) the $`S`$–matrix reads

$$S(E)=S_0\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}W_2\frac{1}{e^{iET}𝒰}𝒰W_1.$$
(7)
It is known mello  (see also yan ) that the matrix $`𝒱`$ can be parameterized as follows

$$𝒱=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U\sqrt{1𝒯𝒯^+}& U𝒯\\ 𝒯^+& \sqrt{1𝒯^+𝒯}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where $`𝒯=i\sqrt{1B^2}`$, and $`W_1=i\mathrm{}B^1𝒯,W_2=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}W_1^{}B=𝒯^{},S_0=B`$. After the parametrization (8), the $`S`$–matrix reads

$$S(E)=B\sqrt{1B^2}\frac{1}{e^{iET}𝒰}𝒰\sqrt{(1B^2)/B^2}.$$
(9)
Now, we consider the following autocorrelation function

$$R()=\overline{\text{tr}\left(S^{}(E+/2T)S(E/2T)\right)}\overline{\text{tr}\left(S^{}(E)S(E)\right)}.$$
(10)
The over-line means an average over the quasienergy $`ET`$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. It corresponds to the averaged cross–section blumel . The treatment of this form is analytically tractable, and in what follows we perform the semiclassical analysis for the correlation function. After simple calculations, we obtain

$$R()=\underset{t}{}e^{it}\text{tr}\left((𝒰^{})^t𝒰^t2(𝒰^{})^{t+1}𝒰^{t+1}+(𝒰^{})^{t+2}𝒰^{t+2}\right).$$
(11)
The evolution operator $`𝒰(T)`$ in the power $`T`$ could be formally considered as the evolution operator for an arbitrary time $`T`$ corresponding to the power, namely $`𝒰^t(T)𝒰(t)`$.

For the trace we take the following integration over the coherent states basis considered in the initial moment $`t=0`$: $`\text{tr}(\mathrm{})=\frac{d^2\alpha }{2\pi }\alpha |\mathrm{}|\alpha `$. The action of the evolution operator

$$𝒰(t)=\widehat{\mathrm{exp}}\left\{i_0^t𝑑\tau \left[\omega _\gamma a^{}a+\mathrm{}\mu (a^{}a)^2ϵ\delta _T(\tau )(a^{}+a)\right]\right\},$$
(12)
on the basis $`|\alpha `$ can be calculated analytically in the framework of the semiclassical approximation bz82 ; sok . Here $`\widehat{\mathrm{exp}}`$ means $`T`$–ordering. Applying the Stratonovich–Hubbard transformation habbard  under the $`T`$–ordering, one obtains

$$\widehat{\mathrm{exp}}\left[i\mathrm{}\mu T_0^t𝑑\tau (a^{}a)^2/T\right]=\underset{\tau }{}\frac{d\lambda (\tau )}{\sqrt{4\pi i\stackrel{~}{h}}}e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau \lambda ^2(\tau )/4\stackrel{~}{h}}e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau \lambda (\tau )a^{}a},$$
(13)
where we use that $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\mathrm{}\mu T`$ and $`t/Tt`$ is a number of kicks represented in the continuous form. We take into account that the harmonic oscillator, acting on the coherent state, changes its phase only, and the perturbation acts as a shift operator. Therefore, the wave function in the moment $`t`$ has the form of the following functional integral

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=U(t)|\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{\tau }{}\left(d\lambda (\tau )/\sqrt{4\pi i\stackrel{~}{h}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[i_0^t𝑑\tau \lambda ^2(\tau )/4\stackrel{~}{h}\right]}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[iϵ{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \delta _1(\tau )(\alpha _\lambda ^{}(\tau )+\alpha _\lambda (\tau ))/2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[(1e^{\gamma T}){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \delta _1(\tau )|\alpha _\lambda (\tau )|^2\right]|\alpha _\lambda (t),`$ (14)
where

$$\alpha (t)=e^{i\varphi _\lambda (t)}a(t)=e^{i\varphi _\lambda (t)}\left[\alpha +iϵ_0^t𝑑\tau \delta _1(\tau )e^{i\varphi _\lambda (\tau )}\right],$$
(15)
$$\varphi _\lambda (t)=_0^t𝑑\tau [\omega _\gamma T+\lambda (\tau )]=_0^t𝑑\tau [\mathrm{\Omega }Ti\gamma T+\lambda (\tau )].$$
(16)
Denoting by $`\beta _\lambda =i_0^t𝑑\tau \delta _1(\tau )\alpha _\lambda (\tau )`$, we obtain the following expression for the trace

$`(t)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\alpha }{2\pi }\alpha |𝒰^{}(t)𝒰(t)|\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{d^2\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{\tau }{}\frac{d\lambda _1(\tau )d\lambda _2(\tau )}{4\pi \stackrel{~}{h}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{4\stackrel{~}{h}}_0^t𝑑\tau \left(\lambda _1^2(\tau )\lambda _2^2(\tau )\right)\right]}`$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i\text{Im}(\alpha _{\lambda _2}^{}\alpha _{\lambda _1}ϵ\beta _{\lambda _1}ϵ\beta _{\lambda _2}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\alpha _{\lambda _1}\alpha _{\lambda _2}|^2\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(1e^{\gamma T}){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau g(\tau )(|\alpha _{\lambda _1}(\tau )|^2+|\alpha _{\lambda _2}(\tau )|^2)/2\right].`$
The last exponential can be evaluated by the following crude but reasonable approximation for $`t1/\gamma T`$

$$_0^t𝑑\tau g(\tau )(|\alpha _{\lambda _1}(\tau )|^2+|\alpha _{\lambda _2}(\tau )|^2)/2|\alpha |^2\underset{\tau =0}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma T\tau )\frac{|\alpha |^2}{1e^{\gamma T}},$$

that essentially simplifies the follows semiclassical consideration. In the limit $`\stackrel{~}{h}1`$, the expression for the trace $`M(t)`$ is strongly simplified and evaluated analytically. Following sok , we perform the linear transform $`\lambda _1=2\mu +\stackrel{~}{h}\nu /2,\lambda _2=2\mu \stackrel{~}{h}\nu /2`$, with the Jacobian equals to $`2\stackrel{~}{h}`$. After the variables change, we obtain from (15) and (16) the following semiclassical expressions for the second exponential in (17)

$$\alpha _{\lambda _2}^{}(t)\alpha _{\lambda _1}(t)ϵ\beta _{\lambda _1}ϵ\beta _{\lambda _2}^{}_0^t𝑑\tau (i\stackrel{~}{h}\nu (\tau )+\gamma T)e^{\gamma T\tau }|a(\tau )|^2,$$
(18)
and

$$\left|\alpha _{\lambda _1}\alpha _{\lambda _2}\right|^2\left|_0^t𝑑\tau \stackrel{~}{h}\nu (\tau )e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )\right|^2.$$
(19)
Here $`e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )`$ is defined in Eq. (15) and (16) for $`\nu 0`$. Now we carry out integration over $`\nu (\tau )`$ and $`\mu (\tau )`$ in the classical limit, neglecting the term of the order of $`\stackrel{~}{h}^2`$ of Eq. (19) in the exponential. Integral over $`\nu `$ in this case gives $`_\tau 2\pi \delta \left(\mu \stackrel{~}{h}|e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )|^2\right)`$, and it leads to the exact integration over $`\mu `$ as well. Finely, we obtain for Eq. (17)

$$(t)\frac{d^2\alpha }{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[|\alpha |^2(\gamma T/\stackrel{~}{h})_0^t𝑑\tau I_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})\right].$$
(20)
This expression could be evaluated by different approximations. For example, we can take approximately in the following form $`(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\gamma TtI\right]`$, where $`I`$ is some classical action averaged over time with zero initial conditions. It corresponds to a chaotic attractor with a finite phase space volume for a specific choice of the parameters $`\mu ,\gamma ,ϵ`$ and $`T`$. Inserting this into Eq. (11), we obtain a finite expression for the correlation function in the form

$$R()=\frac{(1e^{\gamma T})^2}{1\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma TI)}.$$
(21)
It is interesting to admit that the autocorrelation function $`R()`$ related to an averaged cross section corresponds to the Ericson fluctuations (see i.g. blumel ). Considering that $`,\gamma TI`$ are small and taking into account only the first two terms in the expansion of the exponential in the denominator in (21), we obtain approximately, the following expression

$$\left|R()\right|^2\frac{1}{1+\left(/𝒢\right)^2},$$
(22)
where $`𝒢=\gamma TI`$. This Lorentzian corresponds to the Erickson distribution of fluctuations, see e.g. blumel .

The important point of the consideration is the neglecting of the term $`\stackrel{~}{h}^2\left|𝑑\tau \nu (\tau )a(\tau )\right|^2`$. Therefore, to specify the validity condition of the performed semiclassical approximation and the obtained result one needs to evaluate $`(t)`$ taking into account the omitting term $`O(\stackrel{~}{h}^2)`$. To this end, at performing the integration over $`\nu (\tau )`$, we use the following auxiliary expression

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}^2}{2}|_0^t𝑑\tau \nu (\tau )e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )|^2\right]=\frac{2}{\pi \stackrel{~}{h}}d^2\xi e^{2|\xi |^2/\stackrel{~}{h}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{h}}}{2}Re\xi ^{}_0^t𝑑\tau \nu (\tau )e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )\right]$$
(23)
Substituting (18), (19) and (23) into (17), one obtains the following expression for the trace

$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{h}\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\xi e^{2|\xi |^2/\stackrel{~}{h}}\underset{\tau }{}\frac{d\mu (\tau )d\nu (\tau )}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[i_0^t𝑑\tau \nu (\tau )\mu (\tau )\right]}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\stackrel{~}{h}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \nu (\tau )(\left|e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )+\xi \right|^2|\xi |^2)\right].`$ (24)
The functional integration over $`\nu (\tau )`$ is exact and gives the $`\delta `$–function in $`\mu `$. Hence the integration over $`\mu (\tau )`$ is also exact. After these integrations we obtain from (Semiclassical approximation for a nonlinear oscillator with dissipation)

$$=\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{h}\pi }d^2\xi e^{2|\xi |^2/\stackrel{~}{h}}\mathrm{exp}\left[|\alpha |^2\gamma T_0^t𝑑\tau \overline{I}_{cl}(\alpha ,\alpha ^{},\tau )\right],$$
(25)
where $`\overline{I}_{cl}(\alpha ,\alpha ^{},\tau )I_{cl}(\mathrm{\Omega }T2|\xi |^2,e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a(\tau )+\xi ,e^{\gamma T\tau /2}a^{}(\tau )+\xi ^{})`$, and $`\alpha (\tau ),\alpha ^{}(\tau )`$ are determined in Eqs. (15) and (16). Expanding the last exponential in (25) in the Taylor series in $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$, and taking into account that $`(2/\pi \stackrel{~}{h})d^2\xi e^{2|\xi |^2/\stackrel{~}{h}}\xi ^p\xi ^q=\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{h}/2)^{p+q}}\sqrt{p!q!}\delta _{p,q}`$, we obtain the trace of Eq. (25) in the form of the expansion in the semiclassical parameter $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$

$$=\underset{n,l}{}\frac{(n+l)!}{(n!)^2l!}\frac{^{2n}}{\xi ^n\xi ^n}\frac{^l}{(\mathrm{\Omega }T)^l}(2)^l(\stackrel{~}{h}/2)^{n+l}\mathrm{exp}\left[|\alpha |^2\gamma T_0^t𝑑\tau \overline{I}_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})\right]|_{\xi =0,\xi ^{}=0}.$$
(26)
The validity of Eq. (20), which is the zero approximation, is the neglecting of the all terms higher than zero order in Taylor’s series of Eq. (26). In the classical case, when $`\stackrel{~}{h}=0`$, the action $`\overline{I}_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})=I_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ for $`\xi =\xi ^{}=0`$ corresponds to a chaotic attractor under condition of strong chaos. A rough estimation of the classical chaotic attractor can be obtained from the stability condition e.g. of a limiting cycle with the minimum phase space volume of the order of $`ϵ^2`$. In this case, the criterion of the chaotic attractor is

$$K=4\mu ϵ^2T>e^{\gamma T}>1.$$
(27)
In the case, when a chaotic attractor exists, the strongest contribution to the sums in Eq. (26) is due to the derivatives over the initial conditions determined by the following term

$$D(I_{cl},I_{cl})=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{h}}\left(\frac{I_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}{\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{I_{cl}(\tau ,\alpha ,\alpha ^{})}{\alpha ^{}}\right)e^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma T)\tau }.$$
(28)
Therefore, the validity condition of the performed approximation is $`D(I_{cl},I_{cl})\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma T)t]<I_{cl}/\stackrel{~}{h}`$. Finely, we obtain the validity condition on time, which is a breaking time of the crossover between classical and quantum dynamics for the nonlinear kicked oscillator in the presence of dissipation:

$$\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}=\mathrm{ln}(I_{cl}/\stackrel{~}{h})/(\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma T).$$
(29)
It worth to underline that this result coincides with the breaking time obtained for a quantum chaotic attractor of a web map izpre03 , where an existence of the classical chaotic attractor, namely, “the dying attractor” ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma T0+`$) leads to the essential increasing of the applicability of the semiclassical approximation. Since the $`S`$-matrix corresponds to the quantum map of Eq. (4) considered on the period $`T`$, therefore, the conditions of the $`S`$–matrix approach application for studying the quantum chaotic attractor depends on the correlations between the Ehrenfest time $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}`$, the period $`T`$ and the relaxation time $`1/\gamma `$. There exist two important inequalities, that are important for the present analysis. The first one is $`T>1/\gamma `$, and it means that the relaxation process is fast and should not be taken into the consideration. The second inequality $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{(d)}>T`$ means that the semiclassical approximation is valid for the $`S`$–matrix construction. In particular, the Ericson distribution of fluctuations of the $`S`$-matrix (21) and (22) is valid. In the same time, a possible phase space structure of the chaotic attractor as a cantor set might be studied in the framework of the semiclassical $`S`$-matrix consideration on the finite time scale restricted by the breaking time (29).

To complete the consideration, the criterion of chaos (27) should be explained. By denoting $`\alpha (\tau )=\sqrt{I(\tau )}e^{i\theta (\tau )}`$ (see also Eqs. (15) and (16)), an approximated map for the action–angle $`(I,\varphi )`$ variables has the form

$$I_{\tau +1}=e^{\gamma T}[I_\tau +2ϵ\sqrt{I_\tau }\mathrm{sin}\theta _\tau +ϵ^2],\theta _{\tau +1}=\theta _\tau +\mathrm{\Omega }T+2\mu I_{\tau +1}.$$
(30)
In spite of the map is an approximation of the exact analysis of bz , it is detailed enough in order to obtain a crude criterion of chaos. Therefore we obtain for the local instability condition $`|\theta _{\tau +1}/\theta _\tau 1|4\mu ϵT\sqrt{I_\tau }e^{\gamma t}=Ke^{\gamma t}`$ The minimum action and correspondingly phase space volume in any moment $`\tau `$ is $`min(I_\tau )=inf\left[_0^\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}I(\tau ^{})\right]ϵ^2`$. Therefore the condition for chaotic attractor is $`K4\mu ϵ^2Te^{\gamma T}>1`$. It also follows that the condition for quantum chaos bz82  $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\mathrm{}\mu T1,\kappa =4ϵ^2/\mathrm{}1`$ reads now $`\stackrel{~}{h}\kappa =K>e^{\gamma T}`$.

I thank P. Gaspard and I. Guarneri for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Minerva Center for Nonlinear Physics of Complex Systems.