text:
# The Coulomb Luttinger liquid

\[

## Abstract

Accurate expressions, valid in experimentally relevant regimes, are presented for the effect of long-ranged Coulomb interaction on the low energy properties (momentum distribution function, density of states, electron spectral function, and $`4k_F`$ correlation function) of one-dimensional electron systems. The importance of plasmon dispersion (as opposed to exponent) effects in the spectral function is demonstrated.

\]

The low energy behavior of one-dimensional (1D) electron systems is known not to be consistent with Fermi liquid theory . However, the theoretically well established  and extensively studied  Luttinger liquid model of one-dimensional physics  is, strictly speaking, not applicable to electronically conducting one-dimensional systems such as quantum wires (QWR) , carbon nanotubes , organic conductors  and doped chain or ladder compounds , because the electrons in these compounds interact via the Coulomb force, which is long-ranged, whereas the standard Luttinger model assumes short-ranged interaction. The long range of the Coulomb interaction leads to a scale dependence of the Luttinger exponents and velocities , which have been studied by several authors  on the assumption that it is well approximated by its leading ($`\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}`$) divergence. As we show, this approximation is not accurate in any physically relevant regime. One exception is a very interesting recent renormalization group treatment  which found an effective exponent very similar to ours but did not discuss the implications for physical quantities. Some numerical results have also appeared , but a general understanding of the experimental implications of the Coulomb interaction is lacking.

In the present paper we use direct analytical and numerical evaluation of the relevant bosonization expressions to determine the momentum distribution function, tunneling density of states, and spectral function for 1D electron systems interacting via the physically relevant Coulomb interaction at zero temperature. We define an important but previously overlooked energy scale, present an accurate expression for the scale dependent exponent, show how the scale dependent velocity affects the spectral function, and qualitatively discuss the $`4k_F`$ correlation function. Our results should apply directly to 1D QWRs  and nanotubes .

We consider a 1D electron system with a noninteracting dispersion $`\epsilon _p`$ which we linearize near the Fermi point, defining a bare velocity $`v_F.`$ We here assume the only important interaction is the Coulomb interaction in the forward scattering channel, and neglect Umklapp scattering and other interactions. This is a good approximation for QWR and nanotube systems. (For the organic and doped spin chain materials a modification, discussed below Eq. (2), is needed.) The Hamiltonian is (here we do not write the spin index explicitly),

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,p}{}}v_F(prp_F)c_{r,p}^{}c_{r,p}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{r,q}{}}V_c(q)\left(\rho _r(q)\rho _r(q)+\rho _r(q)\rho _r(q)\right),`$
where $`c_{r,p}^{}`$ is the electron creation operator and $`\rho _r(q)`$ is the density operator describing density fluctuations at momentum $`q`$ and branch $`r=\pm 1`$ for the right(left) movers. For 1D systems $`V_c\left(q\right)\mathrm{ln}(1/q)`$ as $`q0`$, and becomes $`1/q`$ for $`q`$ larger than some scale $`q_0`$ set by the geometry and the wave function size. A reasonable approximate form, which we will use in our subsequent analysis, is

$$V_c(q)=\frac{\pi v_FV_0}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{q_0+q}{q}\right],$$
(3)
where $`V_0`$ is a dimensionless measure of the interaction strength and $`q_0^1`$ is the length scale parameter. $`V_0`$ and $`q_0`$ are system dependent factors. For a cylindrical quantum wire of radius $`a`$, $`V_0=4e^2/\pi \epsilon _0v_F`$ and $`q_02.5/a`$, where $`e`$ is the electron charge, and $`\epsilon _0`$ is the background dielectric constant, about 10 for GaAs. These values give the correct long wavelength limit and are within 10$`\%`$ of the correct $`1/q`$ coefficient at large momentum. In carbon nanotubes $`V_0`$ is of the same form as in QWR but $`\epsilon _01.4`$  and $`q_02.97/R`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the tube. For organics or doped spin chains, additional short-ranged exchange interactions may be important. The usual arguments  show that these interactions lead, at low energies, to an additive constant term in $`V_c(q)`$.

Eq. (1) may be bosonized as usual ; the charge excitations are plasmons with dispersion $`\omega _q=qv_q`$, and velocity $`v_qv_F\sqrt{1+2V_c(q)/\pi v_F}`$ is

$$v_q=v_F\sqrt{1+V_0\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{q_0+q}{q}\right]}.$$
(4)
(Note that we have $`lim_q\mathrm{}\omega _qqv_F+V_0q_0/2qv_F`$ for Coulomb interaction). The electron Green function $`G_r(x,t)\psi _r(xt)\psi _r^{}(00)`$ is

$$G_r(x,t)=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{e^{irk_Fx}}{2\pi }\frac{i\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_r(x,t)\right]}{xrv_Ft+iϵ},$$
(5)
where the phase function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r(x,t)`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_r(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{p}}e^{ϵp}\left(e^{ip(xrv_Ft)}e^{ip(xrv_pt)}\right)`$ (7)
$`+2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta _p)\left(1\mathrm{cos}(px)e^{irpv_pt}\right).`$
The exponent parameter $`\theta _p`$ is defined by

$$e^{2\theta _q}=\sqrt{1+V_0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{q_0+q}{q}\right)}\sqrt{V_0}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(\frac{q_s}{q}\right),$$
(8)
where $`q_sq_0e^{1/V_0}`$ and the last approximation is good at long wavelengths, $`qq_0`$.

We now use Eqs. (4)-(6) to study electronic quantities. We begin with the momentum distribution function

$$n_r(\delta p)=\frac{i}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{e^{i\delta px}}{rxiϵ}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_r(x,0)\right],$$
(9)
where $`\delta pprk_F`$. In a noninteracting Fermi gas, $`n_r(\delta p)=\theta (r\delta p)`$. For a short-ranged LL, the generally accepted result  is that in the vicinity of the Fermi momentum, $`0.5n_r(\delta p)\mathrm{sgn}(r\delta p)\times \{C_1|\delta p|+C_2|\delta p|^\gamma \}`$ with $`\gamma `$ a LL exponent and $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ two constants. The first term is the non-critical background coming from high energies, while the second (critical) term comes from low energies where LL physics is important. For the long-ranged interacting model we now consider, attention to the singularity structure of the noninteracting electron Green function leads to (let $`\delta p>0`$ and $`r=+1`$)

$`n(\delta p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\delta px\right)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Phi }(x,0)]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+C_1^{}\delta p+C_2^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta p}{q_0}}\right)^{\gamma _q(\delta p)}+\text{higher orders},`$ (11)
where again the non-singular $`C_1^{}`$ term is from the integration over small $`x`$, while the singular $`C_2^{}`$ term comes from integration over large $`x`$ and is a weak function of $`\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(1/\delta p)`$. The scale dependent exponent $`\gamma _q(\delta p)`$ is found to be

$`\gamma _q(q)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{2\theta _q}+e^{2\theta _q}1\right)`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{6}}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_s}{q}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(q_s/q\right)}{2\sqrt{V_0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (13)
Fig. 1 shows results obtained by numerically evaluating Eq (8) for typical QWR parameters. An enhanced curvature near the Fermi momentum is evident. The inset to Fig. 1 shows the logarithmic derivative $`\alpha _q(p)d\mathrm{log}|n(p)1/2|/d\mathrm{log}(p)`$, which shows that for small $`\delta p`$ the behavior may be described in terms of a slowly changing effective exponent. We note $`\alpha _q(p)`$ is always less than 1, because when the scale dependent exponent $`\gamma _q(p)`$ of Eq. (9) is greater than 1, the background term dominates.

We now turn to the tunneling density of states,

$$N(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{r}{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\left[G_r(0,t)+G_r(0,t)\right],$$
(14)
for $`\omega `$ measured from the chemical potential.

We first show that $`N(\omega )`$ vanishes faster than any power of $`\omega `$ as $`\omega 0.`$ We observe that if $`V_c(p)0,`$ $`G`$ vanishes faster than any power of $`t`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$ . Therefore the integral obtained by taking any number of $`\omega `$-derivatives of $`N(\omega )`$ is absolutely convergent at long times, and may be evaluated straightforwardly by contour methods even at $`\omega =0`$ . We further note that $`G_r(0,t)`$ has no singularities in the lower (upper) half plane for $`r=+1(1)`$; thus by deforming the contours appropriately we find that $`d^nN(\omega )/d\omega ^n|_{\omega =0}=0`$ for any $`n`$. This argument does not apply to $`n(p)`$ because of the different analytic structure of the $`x`$-dependence. Thus the non-critical contributions which obscured the behavior of $`n(p)`$ do not occur in $`N(\omega )`$. By evaluating Eq. (10) we obtain

$$N(\omega )\left(\frac{\omega }{\omega _s}\right)^{\gamma _\omega (\omega )},$$
(15)
where the scale dependent density of states exponent $`\gamma _\omega (\omega )`$ is

$$\gamma _\omega (\omega )\frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{6}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega _s}{\omega }\right)+\frac{\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(\omega _s/\omega \right)}{2\sqrt{V_0}}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(16)
the same form as that of Eq. (9) with $`q_s`$ replaced by a characteristic energy scale $`\omega _s`$. From Eqs. (3) and (6) we expect $`\omega _s=Aq_sv_F\sqrt{V_0}`$ with the numerical constant $`A`$ determined by subleading corrections to the asymptotic analysis of Eq. (5). $`A`$ may in principle have a weak scale and system-parameter dependence, but our numerical results show that for a wide range of energies ($`10^3<\omega /E_F<0.1`$) and interactions ($`1<V_0<5`$) it is very well approximated by the constant value $`A=20`$. Fig. 2 shows the results of a numerical calculation of $`N(\omega )`$ from Eq. (10) for three different interaction strengths; the inset compares the numerically calculated effective exponent, $`\alpha _\omega (\omega )d\mathrm{log}(N(\omega ))/d\mathrm{log}(\omega )`$, with the analytical result obtained from Eqs. (11) and (12):

$$\alpha _\omega (\omega )=\frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{4}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega _s}{\omega }\right)+\frac{\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\left(\omega _s/\omega \right)}{4\sqrt{V_0}}\frac{1}{2}.$$
(17)
One sees that the fit is very good (the small differences appearing at $`\omega /E_f0.01`$ arise from noise in the numerical calculation).

The two crucial energy scales defined by $`N(\omega )`$ are $`\omega _s`$, and $`\omega _{}`$ at which $`\alpha _\omega (\omega _{})=1`$, corresponding to $`\omega _{}\omega _se^{34/V_0}\omega _s`$. In the high energy region, $`\omega >\omega _s`$, one has essentially non-interacting behavior. For $`\omega _{}<\omega <\omega _s`$, one has a LL with a scale dependent exponent. For $`\omega <\omega _{}`$, $`\alpha _\omega >1`$ and $`N(\omega )`$ is concave upwards at small $`\omega `$, suggesting a ”pseudo-gap” in the electronic density of states. For most real QWR systems, $`V_0`$ is about 1-5 depending on $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`v_F`$, and thus $`\omega _{}`$ is typically many orders of magnitude smaller than $`\omega _s`$. In our calculation, using QWR parameters from Ref. , we have $`\omega _s100`$ meV and $`\omega _{}10^4`$ meV. For extremely small $`\omega \omega _{}`$, Eq. (13) gives $`\alpha _\omega \frac{\sqrt{V_0}}{4}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(\omega _s/\omega )`$, an approximate form used earlier in the literature . However, as seen from the inset of Fig. 2, the leading logarithmic divergence is so weak that in all physically relevant regimes the other two terms in Eq. (12) are needed for quantitative accuracy. On the other hand, the constant (scale independent) exponent used in Ref.  for nanotubes is also not an adequate approximation for small energy region ($`\omega <0.05E_F`$) either. We therefore propose Eqs. (9) and (12) as widely applicable fitting formulae for the effective exponents in the Coulomb Luttinger liquid.

The scale dependent exponent also appears in the single particle spectral function, $`\rho (q,\omega )=(1/2\pi )[G(q,\omega )+G(q,\omega )]`$, however the scale dependent velocity in Eq. (5) is more important. To introduce our results, we briefly summarize known results for a short-ranged repulsive interaction in the spinless LL model . At fixed $`q`$, one defines three $`\omega `$-ranges: (i) $`\rho (q,\omega )=0`$ for $`|\omega |<\omega _q`$ (energy-momentum conservation), and (ii) power-law singularities as $`|\omega |\omega _q^+`$, and (iii) an exponential decay at scales larger than the Luttinger cut-off. For the long-ranged Coulomb interaction, $`\rho (q,\omega )=0`$ for $`|\omega |<\omega _q`$ due to the energy-momentum conservation, but the behavior in both regions (ii) and (iii) are strongly modified. For $`|\omega |>\omega _s`$ (region (iii)), $`\rho (q,\omega )\mathrm{exp}[|\omega |/E_c(\omega )]`$ with a scale dependent cut-off

$$E_c(\omega )=\frac{q_0v_FV_0}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a|\omega |}{v_F}\right),$$
(18)
because of the slow ($`1/q`$) decay of the Coulomb interaction in the large momentum region (Eq. (5)).

Near threshold ($`\omega _q<|\omega |\omega _s`$) there are two effects: the scale dependence of the effective Luttinger exponent and the curvature of the plasmon dispersion, which prevents the different boson modes from adding coherently. Thus as one decreases $`\omega `$ towards $`\omega _q`$ (consider $`\omega >0`$ part only) one obtains first a divergence $`\delta \omega ^{\gamma _\omega (\delta \omega )1}`$ (here $`\delta \omega \omega \omega _q`$). This divergence is cut off by curvature effects at a scale $`\omega _c(q)\text{Max}_{p<q}(\omega _pp\omega _q/q)(1/4)qv_F\sqrt{V_0}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(q_s/q)`$, the difference between the exact dispersion and a linear approximation. We find that for $`q`$ larger than $`q_{}Aq_se^{75/V_0}`$ (at which $`\gamma _\omega (\omega _c(q_{}))=1`$) the curvature effect is more important in cutting off the divergence, whereas for $`q<q_{}`$ the effective exponent is more important. As $`\delta \omega 0^+`$ the spectral function decreases rapidly, ultimately vanishing faster than any power of $`\delta \omega `$ due to the increase of the effective exponent. Thus the generic behavior is a spectral function which increases rapidly as $`\omega `$ is increased above threshold $`\omega _q`$, goes through a maximum at $`\omega _{peak}=\omega _q+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ set by the larger of $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _c(q)`$, and then decreases exponentially with a scale dependent cut-off $`E_c(\omega )`$ for $`\omega >\omega _{peak}`$. The suppressed spectral weight in the near threshold region is compensated by the slower decay at high energies, preserving the sum rule $`\rho (q,\omega )𝑑\omega =1`$. In Fig. 3 we show the results of direct numerical evaluation of the electron spectral function for the Coulomb Luttinger liquid (solid lines) and for a short-ranged-interaction (regular) Luttinger liquid with exponent $`\alpha =0.2`$, approximately equal to the effective exponent of the Coulomb case at $`\omega =0.3E_F`$ (dashed lines). Note that the partition theory techniques used in  to simplify the evaluation for the short-ranged case do not work in the Coulomb case. The shift of the peak away from the threshold is evident.

Finally, we briefly discuss the ”Wigner crystal” correlation. Schultz  observed that at long enough length scales the logarithm arising from the long-ranged Coulomb interaction causes the $`4k_F`$ component of the density-density correlation to decay more slowly than $`x^{4K_\rho }`$ and also more slowly than the $`2k_F`$ component, leaving a state best interpreted as Wigner crystal. Using the notations of this paper, we obtain for the $`4k_F`$ term in the structure factor,

$`S_{4k_F}(\delta p)\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_s}{\delta p}}\right)^{18V_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(q_s/\delta p)},`$ (19)
where $`\delta p|p4k_F|`$. Therefore we expect to see the $`4k_F`$ divergence when $`\sqrt{V_0}\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(q_s/\delta p)>8`$ or $`\delta p<q_se^{64/V_0}`$, or in term of temperature at $`T<T_{w.x}=\omega _se^{64/V_0}`$, which is sensitive to the electron density and experimental geometry, but is in general far too small to be experimentally relevant, and is also much less than the scale $`\omega _{}`$ at which $`N(\omega )`$ develops a pseudo-gap.

In conclusion, we have presented a systematic theoretical analysis of the low energy properties of electron systems subject to long-ranged Coulomb interactions, including a reliable estimate of the scale dependent Luttinger parameter and apparently the first calculation of Coulomb effects on the spectral function, and values for the (unfortunately extremely low) scales at which the divergent behavior associated with the Coulomb interaction becomes manifest.

This work is supported (DWW and SDS) by US-ONR, US-ARO, and DARPA, and by NSF-DMR-00081075 (AJM).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the 1960’s-1980’s high quality secondary beams became available at proton synchrotrons of increasing energies (PS, AGS, IHEP, FNAL, SPS). The secondary charged hadron beams contained the six stable or quasi stable charged particles $`\pi ^\pm `$, K±, $`p`$, $`\overline{p}`$. The main experimental lines of research were: i) total hadron–hadron ($`hh`$) cross section measurements at high energies ($`p_{lab}>20`$ GeV/c); ii) elastic $`hh`$ scattering measurements; iii) measurements of absorption cross sections of hadrons in nuclei (as byproducts of $`hh`$ total cross section measurements); iv) hadron production at forward angles in $`pnuclei`$ collisions, and v) inelastic $`hh`$ collisions \[1-5\]. In some high intensity beams many particle searches were made, which also lead to the study of $`\overline{d},\overline{t}`$ and $`\overline{He}_3`$ production .

In order to reach higher energies it became necessary to build hadron colliders. The first was the ISR $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ collider at CERN, which allowed to reach c.m. energies between 22 and 63 GeV; then the $`Sp\overline{p}S`$ collider at CERN allowed $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions from 600 to 900 GeV; finally the Fermilab Tevatron collider allowed $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions up to 1.8 TeV.

The first experiments performed at the ISR were relatively simple dedicated experiments, like those for total cross section and elastic scattering measurements, and single arm spectrometers for the study of inelastic collisions \[7-8\]. Then followed general purpose detectors: the SFM at the ISR , the general purpose detectors UA1 and UA2 and experiment UA4 at the $`Sp\overline{p}S`$ collider, and finally the general purpose detectors CDF, D0 and the specialized experiments E710, F8 at Fermilab .

The highest energies were and are still obtainable only with Cosmic Rays. We shall discuss total cross sections at high energies, the high energy low$`p_t`$ parameters and some features of inelastic collisions .

## 2 Hadron-hadron total cross-sections

At fixed target accelerators (AGS, IHEP, FNAL) the total cross sections were measured with the transmission method, with relative precisions smaller than $`1\%`$ and systematic scale errors of about $`2\%`$. The measurements of the total cross sections at the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ colliders required the development of new experimental techniques: the scattering of particles was measured at very small angles, with detectors positioned in reentrant containers (“Roman pots”) located very close to the circulating beams. The combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties are $`10\%`$. Fig 1 summarizes the present status of high energy total cross section measurements: for $`E_{cm}=\sqrt{s}>3.4`$ GeV all total $`hh`$ cross sections decrease, reach a minimum and then increase with increasing energy (the $`K^+p`$ total cross section was already increasing at Serpukhov energies ). Moreover the differences between the cross sections $`\overline{x}p`$ and $`xp`$ decrease with increasing energy .

There is not a unique interpretation for this rise, though in many QCD inspired models it seems to be connected with the increase of the number of minijets and thus to semi-hard gluon interactions.

Most of the high energy elastic and total cross section data have been usually interpreted in terms of Regge Poles, and thus in terms of Pomeron exchange. Even if the Pomeron was introduced long time ago we do not have a consensus on its exact definition and on its detailed substructure. Some authors view it as a ”gluon ladder”.

Future experiments on hadron-hadron total cross sections remain centered at the Fermilab Collider (for $`p\overline{p}`$). The near future will rely on the BNL-RICH Collider, and later, on the LHC proton-proton and heavy ion Collider at CERN. Large area cosmic ray experiments may be able to improve the data in the ultra high energy region .

## 3  Hadron-hadron elastic scattering

The differential cross section for the elastic scattering of unpolarized particles from unpolarized targets has a simple structure in the high energy region. It depends on two variables: the energy and an angular variable, which is usually chosen to be the square of the four momentum transfer $`t`$. The energy dependence is of the $`lns`$ type. The angular distribution may be divided in four regions: i) The Coulomb region for $`|t|<0.001`$ (GeV/c)2; ii) The Coulomb-nuclear interference region for $`0.001<|t|<0.01`$ (GeV/c)2; measurements in this region yield information on the ratio $`\rho `$ of the real to the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude. iii) The nuclear diffraction region proper for $`0.01<|t|<0.5`$ (GeV/c)2; here the most important parameter is the slope B, or the slopes $`b_i`$, of the diffraction pattern. iv) The large angle region for $`|t|>0.5`$ (GeV/c)2: for $`E_{cm}100`$ GeV it is characterized by a dip-bump structure which resembles that from diffraction from an opaque disc. Most of these features are observed in the $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering angular distributions at $`E_{cm}=53`$, 546 and 1400 GeV, see Fig. 2.

One usually defines the following high energy scattering parameters: i) the total cross section, $`\sigma _t`$; ii) the slope $`B`$ of the differential elastic nuclear cross section $`d\sigma /dt=Ae^{Bt}`$, at $`|t|0.1`$ (GeV/c)2; iii) the ratio $`\rho =(ReA/ImA)_{t=0}`$; iv) the opacity $`O=2\sigma _{el}/\sigma _t`$. At very high energies $`\sigma _t`$, $`B`$ and $`O`$ rise with energy, while $`\rho `$ is slightly positive. From the behaviour of these parameters emerges the picture of a proton which becomes bigger (larger $`B`$) and more opaque (larger $`O`$) as the energy increases. At the highest energy $`O0.48`$, which is still smaller than the black disk value of 1.

## 4 Hadron-hadron inelastic processes

Fig. 3 shows pictorially various inelastic processes at low $`p_t`$: single and double diffraction dissociation and inelastic processes; these are the dominant processes with the largest cross sections, concentrated in particular in the very forward angular region: this is the region which is most important for cosmic ray experiments.

At high energies the total $`\overline{p}p`$ cross section may be written as

$$\sigma _t=\sigma _{el}+\sigma _{inel}=\sigma _{el}+\sigma _{sd}+\overline{\sigma }_{sd}+\sigma _{dd}+\sigma _{nd}$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\sigma _{el}`$ is the elastic cross section, $`\sigma _{sd}`$ is the single diffractive cross section when the incoming proton fragments into a number of particles, $`\overline{\sigma }_{sd}`$ is the single diffractive cross section for the fragmentation of the antiproton (at high energies $`\sigma _{sd}=\overline{\sigma }_{sd}`$). $`\sigma _{dd}`$ is the double diffractive cross section, $`\sigma _{nd}`$ is the non-diffractive part of the inelastic cross section (Fig. 3). The elastic, single diffractive and double diffractive processes give rise to low multiplicity events with particles emitted in the very forward region in the c.m. system. The non-diffractive cross section is the main part of the inelastic cross section; it gives rise to high multipliciy events and to particles emitted at all angles. Most of the non-diffractive cross section concerns particles emitted with low transverse momentum (low $`p_t`$ physics) with properties which change slowly with c.m. energy ($`lns`$ physics). A small part of the non-diffractive cross section is due to central collisions among the colliding particles and gives rise to high $`p_t`$ jets of particles emitted at relatively large angles (large $`p_t`$ physics). The contribution of jet physics increases with c.m. energy.

In Fig. 4a are shown, vs $`\sqrt{s}`$, the average charged multiplicities in $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ collisions. The data may be fitted to a power law of $`lns`$:

$$\overline{n}=A+Blns+Cln^2s3.60.45lns+0.20ln^2s$$
$`(2)`$
At $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV are produced on average 40 charged and 20 neutral particles. Fig. 4b shows the average number of $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ produced in $`pp`$ collisions up to $`\sqrt{s}`$ $`100`$ GeV. Pions are the dominantly produced hadrons.

Hadrons are mainly produced at low transverse momenta. The average $`p_t`$ increases slowly with $`\sqrt{s}`$: it is $`p_t0.36`$ GeV/c in $`20<\sqrt{s}<100`$ GeV; then it increases slowly up to $`0.46`$ GeV/c at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV. The simplest interpretation of these features is in terms of thermodynamic models: hadrons are emitted from a region with a temperature $`T130200`$ MeV. QCD, at present cannot be used to calculate the data at low $`p_t`$, because the strong coupling constant is large and perturbative methods cannot be used. Therefore one has to use models. Hard collisions can instead be calculated by perturbative QCD.

## 5 Hadron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions

Usually, as byproducts of $`hh`$ total cross section measurements, the absorption cross sections of $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ on various nuclei (Li, C, Al, Cu, Sn, and Pb) were measured at incident lab momenta up to 280 GeV/c . Most absorption cross sections decrease slowly for plab up to $``$ 50 GeV/c; for higher plab they are almost constant.

The data at each energy were fitted to the simple expression

$$\sigma _a(A)=\sigma _0A^\alpha $$
$`(3)`$
where $`A`$ is the atomic weight of the target nucleus. Examples are shown in Fig. 5a at three lab momenta for three different incoming hadrons. For all incident particles except antiprotons, the value of $`\sigma _0`$ increases by up to 10% as the incident plab increases from 60 to 280 GeV/c, with the largest increase for $`K^+`$. For $`\overline{p}`$, $`\sigma _0`$ decreases with increasing plab. Fig. 5b shows the parameters $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\alpha `$ vs the corresponding $`hp`$ total cross section: $`\sigma _0`$ rises monotonically with $`\sigma _{hp}`$; the values of $`\alpha `$ are consistent with $`\alpha `$ approaching 0.67 for large values of $`\sigma _{hp}`$ as would be expected for an opaque nucleus.

The fragmentation cross sections of various nuclei were measured at many energies using nuclear track detectors, which yield high resolution measurements of the restricted energy loss. This arises from the relatively low energy required to break the polymeric bonds of the detectors and because fluctuations due to energetic $`\delta `$-electrons do not contribute to the latent track formation. The radiation damage along the path of an incoming nucleus may be developed to microscope-visible cones by chemical etching. Fig. 6a shows the charge distribution obtained with 200 GeV/nucleon S16+ ions and their fragments produced in a Cu target : notice the good charge resolution and the absence of nuclei with fractional charges. The cross sections in Fig. 6b are relative to fragments of 158 GeV/nucleon Pb82+ ions in a target with $`\overline{A}=11.5`$ with a variation of atomic number $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z=17`$ with respect to the $`Z=82`$ of the incoming ions.

## 6 Conclusions. Perspectives

A wealth of experimental information has been obtained since the early 1960’s on high-energy hadron-hadron and hadron-nucleus cross sections, starting with simple equipments and proceeding to more complex apparata and better beams.

The higher energy data coming from collider experiments have large systematic uncertainties, mainly connected to the poor knowledge of the collider luminosity, the difficulty of measuring with some precision the single and double diffraction cross sections, etc.

Most of the information on hadron-hadron collisions was interpreted in terms of phenomenological models. Much more work is needed to interpret and systemize the available data, since only the small part of the cross section corresponding to large transverse momenta may be interpreted in terms of QCD.

Few and not too precise data are available at very low $`p_t`$ and very small angles, which is the region where more interest lies for cosmic rays. The information is here codified in Monte Carlos, which are becoming progressively more complicated. The Monte Carlos include hadron-nucleus collisions \[for which the data are much less abundant than for $`hh`$ collisions\]; hadron-nucleus effects are mainly interpreted in the context of the Gluber model .

Nucleus-nucleus data are even less abundant, and the Monte Carlos have extra complications coming from the used models .

In the near future the RICH collider at BNL should provide data on nucleus-nucleus collisions. In the future the different experiments at the LHC collider should provide data on $`hh`$, hadron-nuclei and nuclei-nuclei collisions at much higher energies.

We thank many colleagues for their collaboration, for many discussions and for explanations of Cosmic Ray Monte Carlos. We thank Ms L. De Angelis for typing the manuscript.

## 7 References

1. J. V. Allaby et al., Phys. Lett. 30B (1969) 500; S. P. Denisov et al. Phys. Lett. 36B (1971) 415; Yad Fis 14 (1971) 998.
2. F. Binon et al., Phys. Lett. 31B (1970) 230.
3. W. F. Baker et al., Nucl. Phys. B51 (1974) 303; A. S. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 928; Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 932; Phys. Lett. 61B (1976) 303; Phys. Lett. 80B (1979) 423.
4. A. S. Carroll et al., Phys. Lett. 80B (1979) 319.
5. G. Giacomelli, Progress in Nuclear Physics 12 (1970) 77.
6. W. Bozzoli et al., Nucl. Phys. B140 (1978) 271; Nucl. Phys. B144 (1978) 317; Nucl. Phys. B159 (1979) 363; A. Bussiere et al., Nucl. Phys. B174 (1980) 1.
7. U. Amaldi et al., Phys. Lett. 44B (1973) 112; S. R. Amendolia et al., Phys. Lett. 44B (1973) 119; G. Carboni et al., Nucl. Phys. B254 (1985)69; G. Giacomelli and M. Jacob, Phys. Rep. 55 (1979) 1.
8. A. Bertin et al., Phys. Lett. 38B (1972) 260; Phys. Lett. 42B (1972) 493; M. Antinucci et al., Nuovo Cimento Lett. 6 (1973) 121; P. Capiluppi et al., Nucl. Phys. B70 (1974) 1; Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 189; E. Albini et al., Nuovo Cimento 32 (1976) 101.
9. A. Breakstone et al., Phys. Lett. 132B (1983) 458; Nucl. Phys. B248 (1984) 253; Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 2180.
10. N. A. Amos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 2784; Phys. Lett. B247 (1990 127; Phys. Lett. B243 (1990)158.
11. W. F. Baker et al., (Production of $`\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm ,p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ by 400 GeV/c protons) Fermilab-78/79-EXP (1978).
12. G. Giacomelli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A5 (1990) 223; Hadron-hadron and hadron-nuclei interactions at intermediate and high energies 1994 Marshak Memorial, DFUB 9/94 (1994); Total cross sections, Kycia Memorial Symposium, 19/5/2000, BNL, hep-ex/0006038; Progress in Nuclear Physic s 12 (1970) 77.
13. S. Cecchini et al., Astrop. Phys. 1 (1993) 369; G. Giacomelli et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A411 (1998) 41; H. Dekhissi et al., Nucl. Phys. A662 (2000) 207.
14. A. Capella et al., Phys. Rep. 236 (1994); J. J. Glauber et al., Nucl. Phys. B21 (1970) 135; J. Ranft, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 64.


text:
# A Water Čerenkov Calorimeter as the Next Generation Neutrino Detector

## 1 Introduction

Neutrino factories and conventional beams have been discussed extensively in the literature as the main facility of neutrino physics for the next decade. The main physics objectives include the measurements of $`sin\theta _{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2`$, the leptonic CP phase $`\delta `$ and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$. All of these quantities can be obtained through the disappearance probability $`\mathrm{P}(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ and the appearance probability $`\mathrm{P}(\nu _\mu (\nu _e)\nu _e(\nu _\mu ))`$ and $`\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\mu (\overline{\nu }_e)\overline{\nu }_e(\overline{\nu }_\mu ))`$. To measure these quantities, a detector should: 1) be able to identify leptons: e, $`\mu `$ and if possible $`\tau `$; 2) have good pattern recognition capabilities for background rejection; 3) have good energy resolution for event selection and to determine $`\mathrm{P}_{\alpha \beta }(E)`$; 4) be able to measure the charge for $`\mu ^\pm `$ in the case of $`\nu `$ factories; and 5) be able to have a large mass(100-1000 kt) at an affordable price.

Currently there are four types of detectors proposed, as listed in table 1. These detectors are either too expensive to be very large, or too large to have a magnet for charge identification. In this talk, I propose a new type of detector – a water Čerenkov calorimeter – which fulfills all the above requirements.

## 2 Water Čerenkov Calorimeter

Water Čerenkov ring image detectors have been successfully employed in large scale, for obvious economic reasons, by the IMB and the Super-Kamiokande experiments. However a substantial growth in size beyond these detectors appears problematic because of the cost of excavation and photon detection. To overcome these problems, we propose here a water Čerenkov calorimeter with a modular structure, as shown in Fig. 1.

Each tank has dimensions $`1\times 1\times 10m^3`$, holding a total of 10 t of water. The exact segmentation of water tanks is to be optimized based on the neutrino beam energy, the experimental hall, the cost, etc. For simplicity, we discuss in the following 1 m thick tank, corresponding to 2.77 X0 and 1.5 $`\lambda _0`$. The water tank is made of PVC with Aluminum lining. Čerenkov light is reflected by Aluminum and transported towards the two ends of the tank, which are covered by wavelength shifter(WLS) plates. Light from the WLS is guided to a 5” photon-multiplier tube(PMT), as shown in Fig. 2. The modular structure of such a detector allows it to be placed at a shallow depth in a cavern of any shape(or possibly even at surface), therefore reducing the excavation cost. The photon collection area is also reduced dramatically, making it possible to build a large detector at a moderate cost.

A through-going charged particle emits about 20,000 Čerenkov photons per meter. Assuming a light attenuation length in water of 20m and a reflection coefficient of the Aluminum lining of 90%, we obtain a light collection efficiency of about 20%. Combined with the quantum efficiency of the PMT(20%), the WLS collection efficiency(25%) and an additional safety factor of 50%, the total light collection efficiency is about 0.5%. This corresponds to 100 photoelectrons per meter, which can be translated to a resolution of $`4.5\%/\sqrt{E}`$. This is slightly worse than the Super-Kamiokande detector and liquid Argon TPC but much better than iron calorimeters.

If this detector is built for a $`\nu `$ factory, a tracking device, such as Resistive Plate Chambers (RPC) will be needed between water tanks to identify the sign of charge. RPCs can also be helpful for pattern recognition, to determine precisely muon directions, and to identify cosmic-muons for either veto or calibration. The RPC strips will run in both X- and Y-directions with a width of 4 cm. A total of $`10^5m^2`$ is needed for a 100 kt detector, which is more than an order of magnitude larger than the current scale. R&D efforts would be needed to reduce costs.

The magnet system for such a detector can be segmented in order to minimize dead materials between water tanks. If the desired minimum muon momentum is 5 GeV/c, the magnet must be segmented every 20 m. Detailed magnet design still needs to be worked out; here we just present a preliminary idea to start the discussion. A toroid magnet similar to that of Minos, as shown in Fig. 3, can produce a magnetic field $`\mathrm{B}>1.5\mathrm{T}`$, for a current $`\mathrm{I}>10^4`$ A. The thickness of the magnet needed is determined by the error from the multiple scattering: $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P=0.0136\sqrt{X/X_0}/0.3BL`$, where L is the thickness of magnet. For L=50 cm, we obtain an error of 32%. The measurement error is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P\delta \alpha /\alpha =\sigma P/0.3rBL`$, where r is the track length before or after the magnet and $`\sigma `$ is the pitch size of the RPC. For P=5 GeV/c, $`\sigma =4`$ cm and r=10 m, the measurement error is 9%, much smaller than that from multiple scattering. It should be noted that $`\mathrm{P}_\mu `$ is also measured from the range. By requiring that both $`\mathrm{P}_\mu `$ measurements are consistent, we can eliminate most of the fake wrong sign muons. The iron needed for such a magnet is about 20% of the total mass of the water.

The cost of such a detector is moderate compared to other types of detectors, enabeling us to build a detector as large as 100 - 1000 kt. The combination of size, excellent energy resolution and pattern recognition capabilities makes this detector very attractive. An incomplete but rich physics program can be listed as follows: 1) neutrino physics from $`\nu `$ factories or $`\nu `$ beams; 2) improved measurements of atmospheric neutrinos; 3) observation of supernovae at distances up to hundreds of kpc; 4) determination of primary cosmic-ray composition by measuring multiple muons; 5) searches for WIMP’s looking at muons from the core of the earth or the sun with a sensitivity covering DAMA’s allowed region; 6) searches for monopoles looking at slow moving particles with high dE/dx; 7) searches for muons from point sources; 8) searches for exotic particles such as fractionally charged particles. Depending on the location of the detector, other topics on cosmic-ray physics can be explored.

## 3 Performance of Water Čerenkov Calorimeter

To study the performance of such a detector, we consider in the following two possible applications in the near future: JHF neutrino beam to Beijing with a baseline of 2100 km and NuMi beam from Fermilab to Minos with a baseline of 735 km. The energy spectra of visible $`\nu _\mu `$ CC events are shown in Fig. 4.

We use a full GEANT Monte Carlo simulation program and the Minos neutrino event generator. A CC $`\nu `$ signal event is identified by its accompanying lepton, reconstructed as a jet. Fig. 5 shows the jet energy normalized by the energy of the lepton. It can be seen from the plot that leptons from CC events can indeed be identified and the jet reconstruction algorithm works properly. It is also shown in the figure that the energy resolution of the neutrino CC events is about 10% in both cases.

The neutrino CC events are identified by the following 5 variables: $`\mathrm{E}_{max}/\mathrm{E}_{jet}`$, $`\mathrm{L}_{shower}/\mathrm{E}_{jet}`$, $`\mathrm{N}_{tank}/\mathrm{E}_{jet}`$, $`\mathrm{R}_{xy}/\mathrm{E}_{tot}`$, and $`\mathrm{R}_{xy}^{max}/\mathrm{E}_{tot}`$, where $`\mathrm{E}_{jet}`$ is the jet energy, $`\mathrm{E}_{tot}`$ the total visible energy, $`\mathrm{E}_{max}`$ the maximum energy in a cell, $`\mathrm{L}_{shower}`$ the longitudinal length of the jet, $`\mathrm{N}_{tank}`$ the number of cells with energy more than 10 MeV, $`\mathrm{R}_{xy}`$ the transverse event size and $`\mathrm{R}_{xy}^{max}`$ the transverse event size at the shower maxima. Fig. 6 shows $`\mathrm{R}_{xy}^{max}/\mathrm{E}_{tot}`$ for all different neutrino flavors. It can be seen that $`\nu _e`$ CC events can be selected with reasonable efficiency and moderate backgrounds. Table 2 shows the final results from this pilot Monte Carlo study. For $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ events, $`\nu _\tau `$ CC events are dominant backgrounds, while for $`\nu _\tau `$, the main background is $`\nu _e`$. It is interesting to see that this detector can identify $`\nu _\tau `$ in a statistical way. Similar results are obtained for a detector with 0.5m water tanks without RPCs. These results are similar to or better than those from water Čerenkov image detectors and iron calorimeters.

## 4 Summary

In summary, the water Čerenkov calorimeter is a cheap and effective detector for $`\nu `$ factories and $`\nu `$ beams. The performance is excellent for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance and $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance from a Monte Carlo simulation. Such a detector is also very desirable for cosmic-ray physics and astrophysics. There are no major technical difficulties although R&D and detector optimization are needed.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank G. Gratta, S. Wojcicki, L. Wai and H.S. Chen for many useful discussions.


text:
# Bounds on Extra Dimensions from Binary Pulsars

## I Introduction

It is widely known that confined systems have a ground state energy that increases as the confining dimensions are reduced. The presence of this ground state energy means that there will be an energy gap between the vacuum, or zero particle state, and the single particle state. This gap is the minimum energy that is required to produce a single quanta. Long wavelength, low frequency radiation of light or gravity is a probe of the presence of any confining dimensions. A bound on these dimensions follows from the minimum energy needed to create a quanta. Quanta with energies less than the gap energy can not be excited. Dissipationless motion will occur for orbital periods with $`T>h/E_{gap}`$.

## II Particle in a Box

A particle rigidly confined to a region of size L has a ground state momentum associated with this confinement of $`p=\frac{h}{2L}`$. A component of momentum, of this order or greater is associated with each of the confining dimensions. Even with only one confining dimension, this puts a lower bound of $`E>\frac{hc}{2L}`$ for massless particles. A contribution to the energy is associated with each of the confining dimensions.

It has been suggested that the extra dimensions associated with string theory might be compactified on a distance scale large compared to the Planck length,. For a single extra dimension of size $`L`$ the lowest momentum associated with confinement in this dimension is a standing wave of length $`2L`$ with a momentum of $`\frac{h}{2L}`$ and an energy $`\frac{hc}{2L}`$. If the confinement is not “rigid” lower energies are possible. If the confining region is not “flat” higher energies are needed. A minimum energy means that radiation of lower energy (long wavelength) is suppressed.

## III Gravitational Radiation from a Binary Pulsar

The inference of gravitational radiation from the rotational period of a binary pulsar places a lower limit on the size of any extra dimensions that are accessible to forces in our 4 dimensional world. In particular the long wavelength gravitational radiation probes extra dimensions accessible to gravity. Similar bounds can be established for electromagnetic radiation, but photons may not be sensitive to these extra dimensions.

The period of gravitational radiation has been reported  to be about $`T=`$36351.70270(3) seconds for PSR 1534+2. The quanta associated with this radiation have energies of about $`1.8228\times 10^{38}`$ Joules, or $`1.1377\times 10^{19}`$ eV.

$`E=pc={\displaystyle \frac{hc}{\lambda }}`$

$`\lambda <2L`$where L is the confining dimension.

$`L>{\displaystyle \frac{hc}{2E}}={\displaystyle \frac{cT}{2}}`$

Which yields a a bound of $`L>5.489\times 10^{12}`$ meters. This distance is about 37 times 1 AU, the distance from the Earth to the Sun. To avoid suppression of the gravitational radiation, the additional dimensions must be large compared to this scale.

To evade this bound would require profound modifications to our concepts of space-time or quantum mechanics. Alternatively, one might argue that the evidence for gravitational radiation is indirect. The pulsar orbital period is decreasing. This change can be explained by gravitational radiation, with a period equal to the orbital period. General relativity and the observations seem to agree but the gravitational radiation itself has not been detected.

## IV Acknowledgements

I would like to thank G. Domokos and J. Hewett for useful comments. N. Uraltsev and C. Kolda have kindly commented on an earlier version of this manuscript. Correspondence with Bogdan Dobrescu is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# The ATESP radio survey

## 1 Introduction

The statistical study of radio sources allows us to address a number of astrophysical and cosmological problems, ranging from the evolution of classical radio galaxies and quasars to the properties of starburst galaxies as a function of cosmic time. The radio source counts are the most immediate product which can be derived from a radio survey and reflect the statistical properties of the radio source populations. The slope of the counts is determined essentially by the relative contribution of different types of sources at every flux, which is the result of their luminosity functions at various redshifts. The source counts therefore represent the most immediate observational constraint to evolutionary models of radio sources. An accurate determination of the source counts, their slope and normalization, is however necessary in order to make this constraint really useful. The source counts, together with measured local radio luminosity functions, can then be used to make predictions (about the redshift distribution, for instance) which can be verified once an extensive program of optical identification and spectroscopy has been completed in some specific flux range.
Normalized differential source counts derived from deep 1.4 GHz surveys show a flattening below a few mJy. This change in slope is usually interpreted as the result of the emergence of a new population which does not appear at higher flux densities, where the counts are dominated by the classical powerful radio galaxies and quasars ($`99\%`$ above 60 mJy, Windhorst et al. 1990). This new population is thought to be a mixture of several different types of objects (faint AGNs, normal spirals and ellipticals, starburst galaxies, etc.) whose relative importance changes as a function of the flux itself. Unfortunately the existing samples of faint radio sources are confined to regions of relatively small angular sizes and no complete optical follow–up of such samples has been carried out yet (see e.g. Gregorini & Prandoni 2000 for a review). It follows that conclusions about the composition of the faint radio sources are based on small and only partially identified samples, biased by the fact that only the brightest optical counterparts have spectral information. Many questions are therefore still open about the true nature and evolution of the faint radio source population and very little is known about the luminosity properties and redshift distribution of such sources.
The ATESP 1.4 GHz survey (Prandoni et al. 2000a, paper I) - carried out with the Australia Telescope Compact Array in the past years - consists of 16 radio mosaics with $`8\mathrm{}\times 14\mathrm{}`$ resolution and uniform sensitivity ($`1\sigma `$ noise level ranging from 69 $`\mu `$ Jy to 88 $`\mu `$Jy depending on the radio mosaic) covering a narrow strip of $`26\mathrm{°}\times 1\mathrm{°}`$ at $`\delta 40\mathrm{°}`$. The ATESP survey has produced a catalogue of 3172 radio components, corresponding to 2960 distinct radio sources, down to a flux limit ($`6\sigma `$) of $`0.5`$ mJy (Prandoni et al. 2000b, Paper II). The ATESP sample represents the largest sample (26 sq. degr.) sensitive to sub–mJy fluxes available so far. It offers a unique opportunity to investigate the nature and evolution of the mJy and sub-mJy populations and provides a very accurate determination of the radio source counts down to sub-mJy fluxes (the most accurate in the range $`0.72`$ mJy). In this respect the ATESP survey fully complements the FIRST (White et al. 1997), which provides the most accurate determination of the source counts between 2 and 30 mJy.

This paper is organized as follows. The catalogue completeness is discussed in Sect. 2. The ATESP number counts are derived in Sect. 3 and the possible effect of clustering on the faint end of the counts is discussed in Sect. 4. Results are summarized in Sect. 5.

## 2 Catalogue Completeness

The detection of a source depends on the ratio of the measured peak flux density111Peak flux density is always intended as brightness in units of mJy per beam solid angle. over the local noise level. In order to use the ATESP source catalogue for statistical purposes (like the derivation of the source number counts), the possible causes of incompleteness in the catalogue have to be recognized and taken into account.

### 2.1 Visibility Area

Radio mosaics usually have a varying sensitivity over the region surveyed. This means that the area over which a source can be detected (visibility area, Katgert et al. 1973) increases with the source peak flux. The ATESP survey is characterized by a noise distribution which is fairly uniform within each mosaic and from mosaic to mosaic ($`<10\%`$ variations). Average mosaic noise values vary from $`69`$ $`\mu `$Jy to $`88`$ $`\mu `$Jy (see Table B1 in paper II) with an average value of $`79`$ $`\mu `$Jy ($`1\sigma `$). Also, the noise can generally be considered Gaussian, with only a few exceptions around strong sources ($`S_{\mathrm{peak}}>50100`$ mJy) where higher noise levels ($`100`$ $`\mu `$Jy) can be occasionally found (see Paper I and II for more details).
The visibility area of the ATESP survey is shown in Fig. 1. As expected, the fraction of the total area over which an ATESP source of a given peak flux density can be detected, increases very rapidly between 0.4 and 0.5 mJy and becomes equal to 1 at $`S_{\mathrm{peak}}0.8`$ mJy. This is a consequence of the ATESP observing strategy (uniform sensitivity in the whole region surveyed) and of the fact that high noise regions around bright sources do not affect the source detection above $`0.8`$ mJy.

### 2.2 Systematic Effects

Two additional effects could be responsible of partial incompleteness at low signal-to-noise ratios: the clean bias and the bandwidth smearing. The clean bias has been extensively discussed in paper I of this series. It is responsible for both total and peak flux density under–estimations of the order of 10–20% at the lowest flux levels ($`S_{\mathrm{peak}}<10\sigma `$) and gradually disappears going to higher fluxes (no effect for $`S_{\mathrm{peak}}50100\sigma `$). The bandwidth smearing, extensively discussed in paper II, could allow for an extra 5% under–estimation of the peak flux densities only.
In paper II (Appendix B) we gave a formula (Eq. (B1)) to correct the measured (peak and total) fluxes for the clean bias and bandwidth smearing. Such a correction varies from source to source depending on the radio mosaic and on the source signal-to-noise ratio. However, peak flux densities are at most underestimated by a factor of $`25\%`$ due to the combined effects of clean bias and smearing (see paper I and II). It follows that at most $`S_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{meas}}0.75S_{\mathrm{peak}}^{\mathrm{corr}}`$. This means that any source with corrected peak flux density $`6\sigma /0.75`$ will have effective measured peak flux densities still above the detection threshold of the ATESP survey. In other words, incompleteness due to clean bias and bandwidth smearing does not affect the ATESP catalogue at corrected peak fluxes $`>0.550.70`$ mJy, the precise value depending on the radio mosaic.

### 2.3 Resolution Bias

In deriving the source number counts, the completeness of the catalogue in terms of total flux density is very important. Such a completeness depends on the source angular size and its component flux ratio. A resolved source of given $`S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ will drop below the $`6\sigma `$ peak flux density cut–off more easily than a point source of same $`S_{\mathrm{total}}`$. This is the so–called resolution bias.
Eq. (1) of Paper II can be used to give an approximate estimate of the maximum size ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$) a source of given $`S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ can have before dropping below the $`6\sigma `$ limit of the ATESP catalogue. In Fig. 2 (left panel) we plot the angular size ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$) of the ATESP radio sources (or source components) as a function of the measured total flux density. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is defined as the geometric mean of the (Gaussian) major and minor deconvolved axes of the ATESP sources as listed in the ATESP catalogue (see Paper II). We notice that for unresolved sources (dots at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$) we assume $`S_{\mathrm{total}}=S_{\mathrm{peak}}`$. As expected, the angular sizes of the largest ATESP sources are in good agreement with the estimated $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (dotted line).
The $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ constraint is complemented by a second one which is a function of the peak flux and takes into account, through the so–called visibility function, the maximum scale at which the ATESP survey is sensitive due to the lack of baselines shorter than 500 m (see paper I, Sect. 4, for more details). This latter constraint ($`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$) is indicated by the dotted line in the right panel of Fig. 2 and, as expected, follows the angular size distribution of the largest ATESP sources as a function of their measured peak fluxes. The $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}S_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ relation is important at high fluxes ($`20`$ mJy), where it provides a more stringent constraint than the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ relation.
A third constraint on source angular sizes should be considered when dealing with resolution incompleteness effects. As discussed in Paper II, the deconvolution efficiency depends on the size of the ATESP survey synthesized beam ($`8\mathrm{}\times 14\mathrm{}`$) and increases with the source signal-to-noise ratio: at the lowest peak flux levels only sources with $`\mathrm{\Theta }8\mathrm{}10\mathrm{}`$ are reliably resolved; on the contrary, at the highest peak flux densities, sources with angular sizes as small as $`\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{}`$ can be resolved. Eqs. (1) and (2) of Paper II can be used to derive an approximate estimate of the minimum angular size ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$) that is reliably resolved as a function of the source peak flux. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is indicated by the solid lines in Fig. 2 (since $`S_{\mathrm{total}}=S_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ for unresolved sources, we have plotted it in both panels). The $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ constraint is important at low flux levels where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ become both unphysical (i.e. $`0`$).
The three constraints discussed above ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$) have been used to define an overall angular size upper limit, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}`$, as a function of the ATESP source flux density:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}=\text{max}[\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}},\text{min}(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}},\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}})].$$
(1)
In order to estimate the incompleteness in the ATESP catalogue due to resolution bias, we need to make an assumption about the true angular size distribution of radio sources as a function of flux. Following Windhorst et al. (1990), we have assumed $`h(>\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}})=e^{ln2(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}/\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{med}})^{0.62}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{med}}=2\mathrm{}S_{1.4\mathrm{GHz}}^{0.30}`$ ($`S`$ in mJy). $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{med}}`$ represents the estimated source median angular size at a given flux density. The Windhorst et al. equations together with Eq. (1) allowed us to estimate the fraction of sources of given $`S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ with angular sizes larger than $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ and thus lost by the ATESP survey (solid line in Fig. 3). The rising slope of the curve at high flux densities is due to the constraint provided by $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$. On the other hand, the decreasing trend at low fluxes is a consequence of the looser constraint provided by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$. In fact, introducing $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the equation takes into account the effect of having a finite synthesized beam size (that is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}>>0`$ at the survey limit) and a deconvolution efficiency which varies with the source peak flux.
In determining the resolution bias effect, a correct definition of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is very important. The dashed and the dotted curves in Fig. 3 demonstrate how critical is the determination of the resolution bias effect at low signal-to-noise ratios. Slightly changing the definition of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ can in fact produce very different results. The dashed line shows the effect on $`h(>\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}})`$ when a fixed value for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in Eq. (1) in assumed. In this case $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ was set equal to $`2\mathrm{}`$, that is the minimum angular size that is reliably deconvolved at the highest flux densities, in the case of the ATESP survey. The dotted line shows, on the contrary, the effect of letting $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}0`$ for $`S6\sigma `$, by defining $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ (we also neglect the effect of $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{max}}`$). The fraction of lost sources will approach 1 at the survey limit (dotted line), while it monotonically decreases going to higher fluxes.
We have also investigated the effect of assuming a constant value $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{med}}=2\mathrm{}`$ for sources with $`S1`$ mJy, as suggested by recent studies (e.g. Windhorst et al. 1993, Richards 2000). The corresponding $`h(>\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}})`$ is indicated by the dot-dashed line in Fig. 3. As shown in the figure, this more realistic assumption results in a larger fraction of lost sources at $`S<1`$ mJy ($`10\%`$ instead of $`6\%`$ at the survey limit). The uncertainty in the form of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{med}}`$ at sub-mJy fluxes obviously translates in an uncertainty in the form of the resolution bias correction ($`c=1/[1h(>\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{lim}})]`$) to be applied to the source counts (see inner panel of Fig. 3). At sub-mJy fluxes, this upward systematic uncertainty ($`4\%`$) has to be (quadratically) added to a more general 10% uncertainty in the resolution bias correction (as indicatively quantified by Windhorst et al. 1990).

## 3 The ATESP Source Counts

We used the $`6\sigma `$ ATESP catalogue (Paper II) to derive the differential ATESP source counts down to 0.41 mJy. In computing the counts we have used the integrated flux for extended sources and the peak flux for point-like sources. Each source has been weighted for the reciprocal of its visibility area ($`\mathrm{\Omega }(S_{\mathrm{peak}})/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}`$, see Fig. 1), that is the area over which the source could be detected. We notice that for $`S_{\mathrm{peak}}>0.8`$ mJy a source can be counted over the whole survey area.
In Fig. 4 we present the ATESP counts derived from the 3172 ATESP components (empty circles) and from the 2960 distinct radio sources defined from them, that is counting any multi–component source as one (filled circles). In this figure no corrections were applied to take into account either the systematic under–estimations of the flux densities (see Sect. 2.2) or the resolution bias (see Sect. 2.3). Horizontal bars represent $`1\sigma `$ errors in the measured flux ($`\sigma (S^{\mathrm{meas}})`$), calculated as discussed in Paper II. Vertical bars represent Poissonian errors (calculated following Regener 1951).
In the ATESP catalogue a source is defined as multiple whenever two or more components are found closer than $`45\mathrm{}`$ (even though some exceptions are present, see Paper II for more details). Applying this distance constraint we expect $`20\%`$ contamination by random superpositions. Fig. 4 shows how possible spurious multiple sources could affect the ATESP source counts.
In Fig. 5 we show the effect of the flux and resolution bias corrections on the ATESP source counts (multiple sources are again counted as one). Filled circles and triangles indicate the counts respectively before and after correcting the flux densities for both the clean bias and the bandwidth smearing (fluxes are corrected as proposed in Paper II). In the latter case horizontal bars represent $`\sigma (S^{\mathrm{corr}})`$, obtained by propagating the errors of the measured quantities $`S^{meas}`$, $`k`$, $`a`$ and $`b`$ which appear in Eq. (B1) of Paper II. We note that the plotted values of $`\sigma (S^{corr})`$ have to be considered as average estimates since they have been derived in the case of intermediate clean bias correction parameters ($`a=0.13\pm 0.03`$ and $`b=0.75\pm 0.06`$, see discussion in Sect. 5.3 of Paper I). We also notice that $`\sigma (k)=0.006`$. Filled squares in Fig. 5 show the effect of adding the resolution bias correction (computed following Windhorst et al. 1990, as discussed in Sect. 2.3). In the estimation of the vertical bars we have here included the errors due to the uncertainty in the resolution bias correction (see Sect. 2.3). We notice that the ATESP counts presented in this figure are derived down to a limit of 0.70 mJy (instead of 0.41 mJy) in order to prevent the corrected counts to suffer from incompleteness (see discussion in Sect. 2).

The final ATESP source counts (those corrected for all the effects and indicated by filled squares in Fig. 5) are also listed in Table 1, where, for each flux interval ($`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$), the flux geometric mean ($`<S>`$), the number of sources detected ($`N_S`$) and the weighted normalized differential counts ($`nS^{2.5}`$) are given. Also listed are the errors associated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ and to the normalized counts (computed as discussed above). In this table fluxes are intended as total corrected flux densities. The final ATESP source counts have then been compared with the most updated previous determinations at 1.4 GHz (see Fig. 6). Also shown is the interpolation determined by Windhorst et al. (1990) from a collection of $`10,575`$ radio sources belonging to 24 different surveys at 1.4 GHz, representing the state of the art at that time (solid line). As illustrated in Fig. 6 there is consistency between the ATESP counts and those obtained by other recent surveys, with the exception of the Phoenix Deep Survey (PDF and PDFS, Hopkins et al. 1998), whose counts at $`S0.7`$ mJy are systematically higher than the ATESP counts (and also higher than the counts derived from the other surveys presented in the figure).
We notice that according to the ATESP determination the upturn in the source counts should show up at lower fluxes ($`S1`$ mJy) than indicated by the Windhorst et al. (1990) fit ($`S5`$ mJy). The ATESP counts are in very good agreement with the FIRST counts (White et al. 1997, triangles in Fig. 6), which are the most accurate available today over the flux range 2–30 mJy. Our survey, on the other hand, provides the best determination of the counts at fainter fluxes ($`0.7<S<2`$ mJy), where the FIRST becomes incomplete. The ATESP counts can thus provide an useful observational constraint on the evolutionary models for the mJy and sub–mJy populations.
Below a few mJy the number counts presented in Fig. 6 show a large spread. Such a spread can be due to technical reasons, like different corrections for resolution bias applied by different surveys (e.g. Hubble Deep Field, Phoenix Deep Survey, ATESP) or no correction at all (e.g. ELAIS, Marano Field). Note, however, that discrepancies are found even within the same survey: the deeper PDFS counts, for instance, are not consistent with the PDF counts in the overlapping flux range. This example suggests that the effect of field-to-field anisotropies and/or clustering could be very important, since the faintest samples typically cover very small regions of sky ($`<<1`$ sq. degree). This latter effect does not apply to the ATESP sample which covers 26 sq. degrees.

## 4 Clustering Effects on Deep Radio Counts

The ATESP survey allows us to test whether field-to-field anisotropies and/or clustering effects could explain, at least in part, the existing spread in source counts at low fluxes ($`S1`$ mJy). The largest sub–mJy surveys cover areas of the order of a few square degrees (typically 3 sq. degr.), while the deepest sub–mJy surveys cover only a fraction of square degree (typically 0.33 sq. degr.). We have therefore tested these two typical scales for sub–mJy radio surveys. The larger scale has been tested by deriving the counts for each of the 16 ATESP mosaics separately (mosaic areas range from 1.3 to 2 sq. degrees, see paper I). The smaller scale, on the other hand, has been tested by splitting the ATESP survey in $`40\mathrm{}\times 30\mathrm{}`$ (0.33 sq. degrees) sub–regions. Note that no correction for clean bias, bandwidth smearing and resolution bias has been applied in this analysis in order to derive the ATESP counts down to the detection limit of the survey ($`6\sigma `$) and to have a more meaningful comparison with the fainter surveys.
The results are reported in Figs. 7 and 8 (dotted error bars). For consistency, the ATESP counts obtained on these two scales have been compared only to surveys covering areas of the same order of magnitudes: the ELAIS and PDF for the larger scale (see Fig. 7) ; the MF, LH, PDFS and HDF+HFF for the smaller scale (see Fig. 8). In either case the ATESP counts are in good agreement with the ones derived from the comparison samples, at least down to the fluxes probed by the ATESP. This is particularly true if we consider that no corrections for clean bias, bandwidth smearing or resolution bias have been applied to the ATESP counts. It is therefore probable that field-to-field anisotropies do not play an important role in these samples. The only exception is represented by the PDF counts (circled dots in Fig. 7), which remain systematically in excess (in particular at fluxes $`0.5S1`$ mJy). On the other hand, the excess shown by the PDFS counts (circled dots in Fig. 8) cannot be directly probed by the ATESP survey. From the analysis of Fig. 7 it seems very hard to explain the PDF counts in terms of Poissonian fluctuations. We have applied the Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2-sample test to the PDF and the ATESP counts shown if Fig. 7 (we have considered the counts derived from the 16 ATESP mosaics as a unique larger sample) and we found that the probability of the two samples being drawn from the same parent population is 0.2%. This leads us to conclude that either the PDF sample has a significant excess of sources or some other unknown systematic effect is present. It is however worth to notice that in general systematic discrepancies like the ones shown by the counts derived from the Phoenix Deep Survey cannot be explained in terms of different assumptions for resolution bias, because such an effect does strongly affect the counts only at low signal-to-noise ratios (see discussion in Sect. 2.3).

## 5 Summary

We have presented the $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}S`$ relation derived from the ATESP catalogue. Particular emphasis has been given to the possible causes of incompleteness at the faint end of the source counts. In particular we have discussed the effect of systematic under-estimations in the measured flux densities due to clean bias and bandwidth smearing and we have quantified the incompleteness of the catalogue in terms of total flux density (the so–called resolution bias). Once corrected for such effects, the ATESP counts are consistent with the counts derived from other recent surveys. The only discrepant counts are those obtained from the Phoenix Deep Survey (Hopkins et al. 1998), which are systematically higher. It is worth to notice that the ATESP counts point towards lower fluxes ($`S1`$ mJy) for the upturn than those ($`S5`$ mJy) indicated by the Windhorst et al. (1990) best fit.
At fluxes below 1 mJy, the 1.4 GHz number counts derived from different surveys show a large spread. Such a spread can be due to technical reasons, like different corrections for resolution bias or no correction at all. The effect of field-to-field anisotropies and/or clustering could also play an important role, since the faintest samples typically cover very small regions of sky ($`<<1`$ sq. degree). This latter effect does not apply to the ATESP sample which covers 26 sq. degrees. We have investigated such a possibility by splitting the ATESP catalogue in smaller sub–samples. In particular we have tested two typical scales for sub–mJy radio surveys: a few sq. degrees for the largest surveys ($`12`$ sq. degr. in this case) and $`0.33`$ sq. degrees for the deepest surveys. As a result we have found that on both scales the spread in the counts can be simply explained in terms of Poissonian fluctuations, at least down to the flux densities probed by the ATESP. The only exception is represented by the Phoenix Deep Survey whose counts remain systematically higher than the ATESP counts. Such a discrepancy is statistically relevant and draws us to conclude that clustering and/or some other unknown systematic effect should play an important role in the case of the PDF sample.
The ATESP survey provides the best determination of the 1.4 GHz source counts in the flux range 0.7–2 mJy, and in this respect it complements the FIRST (White et al. 1997) which provides the most accurate counts available at higher fluxes (2–30 mJy). The ATESP source counts can thus be used to set observational constraints on the evolutionary models for the mJy and sub–mJy populations.

###### Acknowledgements.

The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. The authors acknowledge R. Fanti for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this manuscript.


text:
# Phase Transition in Hot Pion Matter

## Abstract

The equation of state for the pion gas is analyzed within the third virial approximation. The second virial coefficient is found from the $`\pi \pi `$-scattering data, while the third one is considered as a free parameter. The proposed model leads to a first-order phase transition from the pion gas to a more dense phase at the temperature $`T_{pt}<136`$ MeV. Due to relatively low temperature this phase transition cannot be related to the deconfinement. This suggests that a new phase of hadron matter — ’hot pion liquid’ — may exist.

The widely used thermal models of the hadron gas (HG) are mostly based on the ideal gas approach. To take into account attractive interactions between hadrons, the hadron resonances are included in the ideal gas picture . This method, describing quite satisfactory the gaseous phase, does not lead to a phase transition (PT). In phenomenological models, PT is usually introduced ‘by hand’: it is postulated from the very beginning that two different phases, for instance HG and quark gluon plasma, exist; each phase has its own equation of state and Gibbs criterion is used to find the PT point.

It is interesting to study whether a PT can naturally follow from the equation of state of real HG without any ad hoc assumptions. This would allow us to describe, at least at a qualitative level, both phases within a unique approach and to estimate the PT parameters using available hadron data.

In the present letter we make the first step in this direction: we study the equation of state of the pion matter, i.e. we ignore (anti-)nucleons and strange particles.

Our starting point is the equation of state for a gas of interacting particles in the form of virial expansion :

$$p(T,n)=T\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_i(T)n^i.$$
(1)
It allows to calculate the gas pressure $`p`$ at given temperature $`T`$ and particle density $`n`$, provided that the virial coefficients $`a_i(T)`$ are known.

In the case of a relativistic system, like a hot pion gas, the particle number is not conserved, hence it is inconvenient to choose $`n`$ as an independent variable. On the other hand, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ for pions in isotopically symmetric systems at chemical equilibrium is equal to zero. Therefore, it is more convenient to choose $`T`$ and $`\mu `$ as independent variables: $`n=n(T,\mu =0)`$ should be found from Eq.(1) in thermodynamically consistent way.

Let us express the thermodynamical quantity of the gas satisfying Eq.(1) via $`T`$ and $`\mu `$. The particle density is given by the formula

$$n(T,\mu )=\frac{p(T,\mu )}{\mu }.$$
(2)
Using the equation of state (1) leads to a differential equation for $`n(T,\mu )`$:

$$n(T,\mu )=\frac{p(T,n)}{n}\frac{n(T,\mu )}{\mu }=T\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ia_i(T)n^{i1}(T,\mu )\frac{n(T,\mu )}{\mu }.$$
(3)
Integration of this equation yields

$$\mu =T\left[a_1(T)\mathrm{log}\left[C(T)n(T,\mu )\right]+\underset{i=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i}{i1}a_i(T)n^{i1}(T,\mu )\right],$$
(4)
where $`C(T)`$ is the integration constant. In the low density limit $`n0`$ at fixed temperature (which is equivalent to $`\mu \mathrm{}`$) the equation (4) should reproduce the properties of the ideal classical gas, i.e. $`n(T,\mu )`$ should coincide with the absolute activity $`z(T,\mu )`$, which is given by the formula :

$$z(T,\mu )g\varphi (T;m)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu }{T}\right),$$
(5)
where $`g`$ is the (iso-)spin degeneracy factor ($`g=3`$ for the pion), $`m`$ is the pion mass, and $`\varphi (T;m)`$ can be expressed via the $`K_2`$ modified Bessel function

$$\varphi (T;m)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}p^2𝑑p\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{p^2+m^2}}{T}\right)=\frac{m^2T}{2\pi ^2}K_2\left(\frac{m}{T}\right).$$
(6)
This allows to fix the integration constant. Taking into account that $`a_1(T)1`$ one gets

$$C(T)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\mu }{T})}{z(T,\mu )}\frac{1}{g\varphi (T;m)},$$
(7)
Finally, one has the following transcendental equation for $`n(T,\mu )`$

$$z(T,\mu )=n(T,\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i+1}{i}a_{i+1}(T)n^i(T,\mu )\right].$$
(8)
To apply this equation to the pion gas it is necessary to know the values of the virial coefficients. The second virial coefficient is straightly related to the second Mayer’s cluster integral : $`a_2=b_2`$, which is given by

$$b_2=b_2^{(0)}+b_2^{(i)},$$
(9)
where the first term

$$b_2^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2g}\frac{\pi ^2}{2gm^2T}\frac{K_2(2m/T)}{[K_2(m/T)]^2}$$
(10)
appears due to Bose effects. It exists in an ideal Bose gas too. The second term

$$b_2^{(i)}=\frac{2\pi }{m^4T^2[gK_2(m/T)]^2}\underset{I=0}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{L}{}^{}(2I+1)(2L+1)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon \epsilon ^2\delta _{L,I}(\epsilon )K_1\left(\frac{\epsilon }{T}\right).$$
(11)
is related to the interactions between particles. The function $`\delta _{L,I}(\epsilon )`$ stands for the phase shift  of $`\pi \pi `$-scattering in the state with angular momentum $`L`$, isospin $`I`$ and center-of-mass energy $`\epsilon `$. The sum over $`L`$ runs over those values, which ensure symmetry of the total two pion wave function, i.e.

$$L=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0,2,4,6,\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & I=0,2\hfill \\ 1,3,5,7,\mathrm{}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & I=1.\hfill \end{array}.$$
(12)
The second cluster integral $`b_2`$ was calculated in . The dependence of $`a_2`$ on the temperature is shown in Fig.1 (see Ref. for details).

A model independent determination of all other virial coefficients $`a_i(T)`$, $`i>2`$ is hardly possible. The quantum theory is developed only for $`a_3(T)`$ , but lacking of detailed experimental information on the three-pion interaction makes it impossible to use this theory for the case of pion gas. For the higher virial coefficients, the problem looks even more hopeless.

A simple model will be adopted for the further consideration:

* The virial series is truncated after the third term: $`a_i(T)0`$, $`i>3`$;
* The third virial coefficient $`a_3(T)`$, at fixed $`T`$, is considered as a free parameter.

It is convenient to introduce the notation $`\xi (T)a_3(T)/[a_2(T)]^2`$ and treat the dimensionless quantity $`\xi (T)`$ as a free parameter. In this case, the equation of state (8) takes the form

$$p(T,n(T,\mu ))=Tn(T,\mu )\left\{1+a_2(T)n(T,\mu )+\xi (T)[a_2(T)n(T,\mu )]^2\right\},$$
(13)
where the value of $`n(T,\mu )`$ is found from the transcendental equation

$`z(T,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`n(T,\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left[2a_2(T)n(T,\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi (T)\left[a_2(T)n(T,\mu )\right]^2\right].`$ (14)
Let us analyze the behavior of the r.h.s. of Eq.(14) at some temperature $`T`$, as a function of $`n>0`$. For convenience we denote it by $`f(n)`$. Three distinct cases are possible (see Figs. 2 and 3):

1. $`\xi (T)0`$. The function $`f(n)`$ has a single extremum — a maximum at the point

$$n_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2|a_2|}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \xi (T)=0\hfill \\ \hfill & & \\ \frac{\sqrt{1+3|\xi (T)|}1}{3|\xi (T)||a_2|}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \xi (T)<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
2. $`\xi (T)1/3`$. The function $`f(n)`$ grows monotonically for all $`n>0`$.
3. $`0<\xi (T)<1/3`$. In this case the function $`f(n)`$ has two extrema: a maximum at the point

$$n_a=\frac{1\sqrt{13\xi (T)}}{3\xi (T)|a_2|}$$
(16)
and a minimum at the point

$$n_b=\frac{1+\sqrt{13\xi (T)}}{3\xi (T)|a_2|}.$$
(17)

In the first case, the values of $`f(n)`$ are bound from the above: $`f(n)f(n_a)`$. As $`z(T,\mu )`$ is a monotonically increasing function of the temperature, the equation (14) has no solution at high temperatures $`T>T_a`$, where the temperature $`T_a`$ is found from the equation

$$z(T_a,\mu )=f(n_a).$$
(18)
The numerical calculations give $`T_a128`$ MeV assuming chemical equilibrium ($`\mu =0`$). (The equality is reached at $`\xi (T_a)=0`$.) This means that if the third virial coefficient of the pion gas is negative at the temperatures $`T128`$ MeV, the model cannot describe the pion matter at these temperatures. Consideration of higher order terms of virial expansion would be necessary to obtain a satisfactory equation of state of the pion gas in this case.

At $`T<T_a`$ the equation (14) has two solutions: $`n_g`$ and $`n_x`$, $`n_g<n_a<n_x`$ (See Fig. 2). It is easy to check that the derivative of the pressure with respect to the density is negative at the point $`n_x`$:

$$\frac{p(T,n)}{n}|_{n=n_x}<0.$$
(19)
This means that the root $`n_x`$ corresponds to an unstable phase, which cannot exist, because any small fluctuations of the density would destroy it. The solution $`n_g`$ corresponds to a stable phase which can be obviously interpreted as a pion gas.

The interpretation of the second case is straightforward. The equation (14) has a unique solution at any temperature, which describes the gaseous phase of the pion matter. No PT takes place.

The third case is the most interesting. The equation (14) has solutions at any temperature. At low temperatures, $`T<T_b`$, where $`T_b`$ satisfies the condition $`z(T_b,\mu )=f(n_b)`$, the equation (14) has a single solution $`n_g`$ ($`n_g<n_a`$), which can be obviously interpreted as the density of gaseous phase. As it is shown in Fig. 3, at intermediate temperatures $`T_b<T<T_a`$, $`T_a`$ is given by Eq.(18), two more solutions appear: $`n_x`$ ($`n_a<n_x<n_b`$) and $`n_l`$ ($`n_l>n_b`$). Similar to the second case, the root $`n_x`$ corresponds to an unstable phase, which cannot exist. In contrast, the points $`n_g`$ and $`n_l`$ give a positive derivative of the pressure and correspond to (meta-)stable phases. The questions which of two phases is stable or metastable is resolved by the Gibbs criterion: the pressure of a stable phase is higher than that of metastable one. The point, when the two pressures are equal to each other

$$p(T_{pt},n_g(T_{pt},\mu ))=p(T_{pt},n_l(T_{pt},\mu ))$$
(20)
is a PT point. It is reminiscent of the first order gas-liquid PT. At high temperatures $`T>T_a`$ the equation (14) has an unique solution corresponding to this ‘liquid’ phase.

In spite of its similarity to the gas-liquid PT, which is well known from molecular physics , there is an essential difference. In molecular physics, the stable liquid exists at temperatures below the PT point ($`T<T_{pt}`$), while high temperatures ($`T>T_{pt}`$) correspond to the gaseous phase. Here we observe the opposite situation: at low temperatures ($`T<T_{pt}`$) the pion matter only slightly differs from the ideal classical pion gas. The dense ’liquid’ phase appears at high ($`T>T_{pt}`$) temperatures and thus can be called ‘hot pion liquid’.

There are two reasons that explain the qualitative difference in the behavior of the pion matter as compared with ordinary substances known from molecular physics:

* In contrast to the number of molecules, the number of pions is not conserved and rapidly decreases as temperature falls down. So that the density of isotopically symmetrical pion matter becomes so small at low temperatures that the interactions between the particles plays almost no role, which corresponds to a perfect gas.
* In molecular physics the dependence of the second virial coefficient on the temperature typically can be approximated by the formula  $`a_2(T)=\beta \frac{\alpha }{T}`$, where nonnegative constants $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ come, respectively, from attractive and repulsive parts of the intermolecular potential. It is easily seen that at high temperatures the repulsive part becomes dominating and the virial coefficient becomes positive. In contrast, the second virial coefficient of the pion gas remains negative at high temperatures (see Fig.1), which indicates the attractive nature of $`\pi \pi `$-interaction.

As was mentioned above, we study the pion matter at chemical equilibrium. Thus the dense phase of pion matter is distinct from multipion droplets considered in Ref.. They may exist only at $`\mu >0`$ at low temperature and evaporate if the temperature exceeds some critical value, similarly to ordinary liquid.

The dependence of the particle density on the temperature is shown in Fig. 4. The value of the free parameter $`\xi (T)0.21`$ was arbitrary chosen from the interval $`0<\xi (T)<1/3`$ to provide an example. As is seen from the figure, the density of the gaseous phase is only slightly different from the ideal gas density indicating that virial expansion can be safely applied in this region. On the other hand, the density of the ’liquid’ phase is about one order of magnitude higher than that of the pion gas, so one should not expect that the present model can provide quantitative description of the ’pion liquid’. It rather illustrates the features of PT at a qualitative level.

At the same time, to estimate the upper bound of the PT temperature it is sufficient to analyze the properties of the gaseous phase. In fact, $`T_{pt}`$ cannot exceed the maximum temperature of the overheated gas $`T_{pt}<T_a`$ (see Fig. 3). The upper bound for $`T_a`$ is approached at $`\xi (T_a)1/3`$ and comprises $`136`$ MeV. At $`\xi (T)1/3`$ the phase transition, as was mentioned above, disappears. That is, our model states that if a first order PT does exist in the isotopically symmetric equilibrium pion matter, it takes place at the temperature not higher than $`136`$ MeV.

A similar first order PT in hadron matter but at higher temperature ($`T=190÷200`$ MeV) was predicted long ago within various models . In Ref. the hot and dense phase was interpreted as quark-gluon plasma, i.e. the PT was identified with color deconfinement PT. This agrees with the estimations of the temperature of the deconfinement PT from lattice simulations of two-flavor QCD: $`T_{dec}=150`$$`200`$ MeV .

In contrast, the present model predicts a PT at lower temperature, which cannot be identified with the deconfinement PT. This suggest the possibility that a new phase of hadron matter, distinct from the HG and QGP may exist at zero baryonic chemical potential in the temperature range $`136`$ MeV $`TT_{dec}`$. It is formed from colorless pions attracting to one another rather than from deconfined quarks and gluons and can be called ’hot pion liquid’.

It is possible that the ’hot pion liquid’ can be created in relativistic heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC energies, where the pions will play a dominant role at the final stage of the reaction.

The authors are grateful to Larry McLerran for fruitful discussion and his interest to the paper and to Gephard Zeeb for reading the manuscript and usefull comments. The financial support of GSI and DAAD (Germany) is appreciated. The research described in this publication was made possible in part by Award No. UP1-2119 of the U.S. Civilian Research & Development Foundation for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (CRDF).


text:
# Heavy Elements in DA White Dwarfs

## 1. Introduction

The existence of two distinct groups of hot white dwarfs, having either hydrogen-rich or helium-rich photospheres is now, qualitatively at least, understood to arise from the number of times the progenitor star ascends the red giant branch and the amount of H (and He) lost through the successive phases of mass-loss. Consequently, it seems clear that each group descends from their respective proposed progenitors, the H-rich and He-rich central stars of planetary nebulae (CSPN). Nevertheless, there remain several features of the white dwarf cooling sequence that cannot be readily explained. For example, while the hottest H-rich DA white dwarfs outnumber the He-rich DOs by a factor 7 (Fleming et al. 1986), the relative number of H- and He-rich CSPN is only about 3:1. In addition, there exists a gap in the He-rich track between $`45000`$K and 30000K between the hot DO and cooler DB white dwarfs, confirmed by a detailed spectroscopic analysis of all the then known hot He-rich objects by Dreizler and Werner (1996).

To understand white dwarf evolution, we need to know accurately several physical parameters for each star. For example, a measurement of effective temperature ($`T_{eff}`$) establishes how far along its evolutionary sequence the star has progressed. A key result has been the establishment of the temperature scale for DA stars through the determination of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ from the Balmer line profiles in optical spectra. The reliability of this work depends on the assumption that the Balmer line profile technique is a reliable estimator of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in all cases. However, Barstow Holberg & Hubeny (1998) have shown that the presence of substantial blanketing from photospheric heavy elements does significantly alter the Balmer line profiles at a given effective temperature. Hence, the temperature scale of the hottest, most metal-rich DA white dwarfs, realised by studies using only pure H photospheric models, cannot be viewed as reliable and must be revised taking into account the photospheric composition of each star.

Until recently very few DA white dwarfs were known to have effective temperatures above $`70000`$K. Therefore, the proposed direct evolutionary link between H-rich CSPN and white dwarfs has hardly been explored. In particular, there have been no measurements of the photospheric composition of what might be termed super-hot DAs, to distinguish them from the cooler ranges studied in detail. Using a new grid of non-LTE, heavy element-rich model atmospheres and a combination of HST STIS and FUSE spectra, we have made the first measurements of photospheric abundance for a sample of very hot DA white dwarfs. For comparison, we have also re-examined the archive data of the cooler DA stars.

## 2. Observations

All the new far-UV spectroscopic observations were obtained as part of a joint HST STIS (cycle 8) and FUSE (cycle 1) programme. The FUSE observations are discussed elsewhere in these proceedings (Barstow et al. 2000), with examples of typical spectra. Our STIS data were all obtained with the E140M grating and cover the wavelength range from 1150 to 1700Å. Figure 1 shows sample regions of the STIS spectrum of REJ0558$``$371 (for which we also have FUSE data), illustrating the detection of NV, OV, SiIV and FeV. The STIS spectra are typically more sensitive to Fe and Ni than the FUSE observations and N is not detected by FUSE. On the other hand, P and S which are detected in the FUSE range cannot be seen by STIS. Hence, the two instruments acquire complementary information.

## 3. Abundance measurements

We have calculated a new grid of model stellar atmospheres using the non-LTE code $`\mathrm{tlusty}`$. These are based on work reported by Lanz et al. (1996) and Barstow, Hubeny & Holberg (1998, 1999). In this case we have extended the temperature range of the calculations up to 90,000K, to deal with the hotter DA stars included in this analysis. To take account of the higher element ionization stages that are likely to be encountered in these objects, we have added new ions of OVI, FeVII/VIII and NiVII/VIII to the model atoms as well as extending the data for important ions such as CIV to include more energy levels. As before, all the calculations were performed in non-LTE with full line-blanketing. We initially fixed the abundances of the heavy elements at the values determined from our earlier homogeneous analysis of G191$``$B2B (He/H=$`1.0\times 10^5`$, C/H=$`4.0\times 10^7`$, N/H=$`1.6\times 10^7`$, O/H=$`9.6\times 10^7`$, Si/H=$`3.0\times 10^7`$, Fe/H=$`1.0\times 10^5`$, Ni/H=$`5.0\times 10^7`$). but taking into account that the CIV lines near 1550Å have subsquently been resolved into multiple component by STIS.

Abundances were estimated for each element in each star of the sample by matching the data to a synthetic spectrum calculated from the $`\mathrm{tlusty}`$ non-LTE model nearest in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and log g using $`\mathrm{synspec}`$. Abundances were then varied within a narrow range within $`\mathrm{synspec}`$ to obtain the formal values that give the best representation of the data, summarised in Table 1. For the hot group of stars (REJ0457 and above), gaps in the abundance data arise mostly from the absence of data in the appropriate spectral range, rather than a true absence of these elements. For GD246 and PG1123, which are of similar temperature to REJ0457, the situation is not completely clear cut. STIS observations are available for both these stars, but at higher dispersion with the E140H grating and over a narrower wavelength range than the E140M. Hence, the 1550Å CIV resonance lines are not covered while NV, SIV and OV are. For the cooler stars gaps in the table are indicative that the element is not present at abundances detectable by STIS or IUE.

## 4. Discussion

It is no surprise that significant quantities of heavy elements are present in the majority of stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in excess of 50,000K. What is particularly interesting for these hot objects is that the abundances seen in the hottest object are quite similar to those seen in the temperature regime near G191$``$B2B, the prototypical star of this group. However, it is also clear that the abundances are not identical from object to object. This variation may well be explained by small differences in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and log g altering the precise balance of the radiative levitation and diffusion processes. Schuh (2000) has shown that including these effects self-consistently within the model atmosphere calculations can give a good match to the observed EUV and UV spectra of several of these stars. However, this agreement may break down in the hotter objects if a wind is present and Schuh’s analysis should be extended to PG1342, REJ0558 and REJ1738.

The cooler white dwarfs ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`<50,000`$K) can be divided into two broad categories, those where heavy elements (typically C,N and Si, e.g. REJ1032) are detected and those where the atmospheres seem to be devoid of such material (e.g. REJ2156). Where heavy elements are detected in the far UV, the EUV spectra appear to arise from a pure H envelope, indicating that the atmospheres are highly stratified, with the heavy elements residing in the outermost regions (see Holberg et al. 1995, Holberg et al. 1999). In the case of one of these stars (REJ1032) Schuh has demonstrated that the stratification (and resulting spectra) is a natural consequence of the balance between radiative levitation and downward gravitation. However, it is difficult to reconcile this picture with the increasing abundance of N towards lower temperatures in REJ1614 and GD659. Furthermore, it is difficult to explain the dramatic difference between objects at similar temperature and gravity, such as REJ1032 and REJ2156 which has no heavy element content.

One or two objects appear to be anomalous in some way. While they fit within the broad categories outlined above, the abundance of at least one element is extreme compared to any other object. For example, the C abundance measured from the FUSE spectrum of PG1342 is by far the greatest value in the entire sample, by at least one order of magnitude. Similarly GD394 contains a Si abundance well in excess of any other star. In this case, Dupuis et al. (2000) have found the star to be peculiar in other ways, exhibiting a 1.15d EUV photometric modulation. The data suggest that GD394 is accreting material, but a possible source has not yet been identified.

## 5. Helium in WD2218+706

All the above work deals with measured abundance of elements heavier than H or He. However, the absence of He in the hot DAs remains a mystery. CSPN typically have significant abundances of photospheric He but this seems to disappear before the central star appears as a white dwarf. One key aim of the STIS observations of the hottest white dwarfs was to search for the presence of the HeII 1640Å in the spectra. He was not detected in either REJ1738 nor REJ0558, but is clearly present in WD2218+706 (figure 2) and lies at the photospheric velocity. The implied abundance of $`3\times 10^5`$ is well below previous optical and UV limits and less than predicted theoretically for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$=56900K and log g=6.9, appropriate for this star. It is tempting to mark this as the first detection of photospheric He in an isolated hot DA (all other detections appear to be associated with binary systems or possible merged DAs). However, the gravity is rather low for an isolated star, suggesting a binary origin, even though there is no companion known. In addition, this star is associated with a known planetary nebula (DeHt5).

## 6. Conclusion

We have reported a series of systematic abundance measurements for a group of hot DA white dwarfs in the temperature range $`20,00075,000`$K, based on far-UV spectroscopy with STIS on HST, IUE and FUSE. Using our latest heavy element blanketed non-LTE stellar atmosphere calculations we have addressed the heavy element abundance patterns for the hottest stars for the first time, showing that they are similar to objects like G191$``$B2B. The abundances observed in the cooler ($`<50,000`$K) white dwarfs are something of a mystery. Some of the patterns (e.g. REJ1032) can be explained by self-consistent levitation-diffusion calculations but there is then a serious difficulty in understanding the appearance of the apparently pure H atmospheres. New observations of other stars lying in this temperature range are need to test the self-consistent model calculations.

## Acknowledgements

The work reported in the papers was based on observations made with the FUSE and HST observatories. MAB, MRB and NPB were supported by PPARC, UK.

## References

Barstow, M.A., Hubeny, I., and Holberg, J.B., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 520.

Barstow, M.A., Hubeny, I., and Holberg, J.B., 1999, MNRAS, 307, 884.

Driezler, S., and Werner, K., 1996, A& A, 314,217.

Dupuis, J., Chayer, P., Vennes, S., Christian, D.J., and Kruk, J.W., 2000, ApJ, 537, 977.

Fleming, T.A., Liebert, J.L., and Green, R.F., 1986, ApJ, 308, 176.

Holberg, J.B., Barstow, M.A., Bruhweiler, F.C., Hubeny, I., and Green, E.M., 1999, ApJ, 517, 850.

Holberg, J.B., Barstow, M.A., Bruhweiler, F.C., and Sion, E.M., 1995, ApJ, 453, 313.

Lanz, T., Barstow, M.A., Hubeny, I., and Holberg, J.B., 1996, ApJ, 473, 1089.

Schuh, S., 2000, Diploma Thesis, Universität Tübingen.


text:
# The Dawn of Galaxies: Deep MAMBO Imaging Surveys

## References

Barger, A.J., Cowie, L.L., Sanders, D.B. 1999, ApJ 518, L5

Bertoldi, F., Carilli, C.L., Menten, K.M., et al. 2000, A&A 360, 92

Blain, A.W. 1999, MNRAS 309, 955

Carilli, C.L., et al. 2000, in Deep Millimeter Surveys, astro-ph 0009298

Carilli, C.L., Yun, M.S. 1999, ApJ 513, L13

Eales, S.A., et al. 1999, ApJ 515, 518

Fabian, A.C. et al. 2000, MNRAS 315, 8

Hughes, D.H., et al. 1998, Nature 394, 241

Ivison, R., et al. 2000, MNRAS 315, 209

Lilly, S., et al. 1999, ApJ 518, 541

Knudsen, K.K., van der Werf, P.P., Jaffe, W. 2000, astro-ph 0009024

Menten, K.M., Bertoldi, F. 2000, Rev. Modern Astronomy, 13, 371

Smail, I., Ivison, R.J., Blain, A.W. 1997, ApJ 490, L5