text:
# Feynman-Schwinger Representation method for bound states

## 1 Introduction

The basic idea in the Feynman-Schwinger representation is to replace path integrals over quantum fields with path integrals over particle trajectories. The step of going from field configurations to particle trajectories dramatically reduces the number of degrees of freedom.

In this talk we present analytic and numerical applications of Feynman-Schwinger representation  to nonperturbative problems. The first applictaion is the calculation of 1-body propagator in massive scalar qed. The second application involves the calculation of 2-body bound state masses in scalar $`\chi ^2\varphi `$ interaction.

## 2 1-body propagator in massive SQED

Massive scalar QED in 0+1 dimension is a simple interaction that enables one to obtain a fully analytical result for the dressed and bound state masses within the FSR approach. In 0+1 dimension contribution of the matter loops identically vanish and therefore quenched FSR calculations give the exact result . In this section we compare the self energy result obtained by three different approaches; namely the simple bubble sum, the Dyson-Schwinger equation, and the Feynman-Schwinger representation.

The Minkowski metric expression for the scalar QED Lagrangian in Feynman gauge is given by

$`_{SQED}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\chi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2A^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A)^2+(_\mu ieA_\mu )\chi ^{}(^\mu +ieA^\mu )\chi ,`$ (1)
where $`A`$ represents the gauge field of mass $`\mu `$, and $`\chi `$ is the charged field of mass $`m`$. The field tensor $`F`$ is zero in 0+1 dimensions, and the dynamics is described by the gauge fixing term $`(A)^2`$. The kind of diagrams included in each method are displayed in Fig. 1. The main difference between the rainbow Dyson-Schwinger and the Feynman-Schwinger diagrams is the crossed diagrams. These diagrams involve photon lines that cross each other. The FSR approach also includes all possible four-point interaction contributions while the rainbow DSE only includes the tadpole type four-point interactions. In principle all four-point interactions can also be incorporated into the simple bubble sum and the rainbow DSE.

In Fig. 2 we display all dressed mass results. The bubble summation develops a complex mass pole beyond a critical coupling $`e_{crit}^2=0.4`$ (GeV)3. At the critical point a ‘collision’ takes place with another real solution, leading to two complex conjugated solutions with increasing $`e^2`$. The result obtained from the Dyson-Schwinger Equation displays a similar characteristic. At low coupling strengths the rainbow DS and the bubble results are very close and they converge to the exact result given by the Feynman-Schwinger approach. Similar to the bubble result the DS result develops a complex mass pole at a critical coupling of $`e_{crit}^2=0.49`$ (GeV)3. These results clearly show that the solution of the Dyson-Schwinger Equation in rainbow approximation is not a good approximation to the exact result.

The second application of the FSR involves bound states in scalar $`\chi ^2\varphi `$ interaction.

## 3 Two-body bound states in scalar $`\chi ^2\varphi `$

The application of the FSR to scalar particles have been considered in References . The Euclidean Lagrangian for this theory is given by

$$_E=\chi ^{}\left[m^2^2+g\varphi \right]\chi +\frac{1}{2}\varphi (\mu ^2^2)\varphi .$$
(2)
Here we present the results for the 2-body bound states. The final result for the two-body propagator involves a quantum mechanical path integral that sums up contributions coming from all possible trajectories of particles

$$G=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{s}(𝒟z)_{xy}(𝒟\overline{z})_{\overline{x}\overline{y}}e^{S[Z]},$$
(3)
where $`S[Z]`$ term involves kinetic and interaction energy contributions. Further details on the treatment of scalar interactions can be found in Refs. . The interaction kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{e^{ipx}}{p^2+\mu ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{4\pi ^2|x|}}K_1(\mu |x|).`$ (4)
where $`\mu `$ is chosen to be $`\mu =0.15GeV`$. The ultraviolet singularity in the kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\mu )`$ Eq. (4) can be regularized using a Pauli-Villars regularization prescription. The Pauli-Villars mass we choose is $`M_{PV}=3\mu `$.

In Figure 3 we present the comparison of the 2-body bound state masses obtained by the FSR to various bound state equations. The FSR calculation involves summation of all ladder and crossed ladder diagrams, and excludes the self energy contributions. According to Figure 3 all bound state equations underbind. Among the manifestly covariant equations the Gross equation gives the closest result to the exact calculation obtained by the FSR method. This is due to the fact that in the limit of infinitely heavy-light systems the Gross equation effectively sums all ladder and crossed ladder diagrams. Equal-time equation also produces a strong binding but the inclusion of retardation effects pushes the Equal-time results away from the exact results (Mandelzweig-Wallace equation). In particular the Bethe-Salpeter equation in the ladder approximation (BSE in Figure 3) gives the lowest binding. A comparison of the ladder Bethe-Salpeter, Gross, and the FSR results shows that the exchange of crossed ladder diagrams plays a very significant role.

## 4 Conclusion

Results presented in this talk clearly shows that approximate calculations in field theory may lead to serious deviations from the exact results. Therefore it is important to develop rigorous nonperturbative methods. The FSR is a promising candidate for doing nonperturbative calculations in field theory.


format: text

text:
# Scaling and Crossover to Tricriticality in Polymer Solutions

## Abstract

We propose a scaling description of phase separation of polymer solutions. The scaling incorporates three universal limiting regimes: the Ising limit asymptotically close to the critical point of phase separation, the “ideal gas” limit for the pure-solvent phase, and the tricritical limit for the polymer-rich phase asymptotically close to the theta point. We have also developed a phenomenological crossover theory based on the near-tricritical-point Landau expansion renormalized by fluctuations. This theory validates the proposed scaled representation of experimental data and crossover to tricriticality.

PACS: 64.75.+g, 05.70.Jk, 42.70.Jk

Phase separation in solutions of polymers in low-molecular-weight (monomer-like) solvents changes dramatically with increase of the degree of polymerization (Fig. 1) . Like in simple binary liquids, asymptotically close to the critical point the coexistence curves obey a universal power law of the form

$$\varphi \varphi _\mathrm{c}=\pm B_0\left|\tau \right|^\beta ,$$
(1)
where $`\varphi `$ is the volume fraction of polymer, $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical volume fraction; $`\tau =(TT_\mathrm{c})/T`$, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical temperature; $`\beta =0.326\pm 0.001`$ is a universal 3-dimensional (3d) Ising critical exponent , $`B_0`$ is a system-dependent critical amplitude. However, with increase of the polymer molecular weight, the range of validity of the symmetric parabolic-like behavior given by Eq.(1) shrinks, yielding an asymmetric angle-like coexistence boundary near the theta point  (Fig. 1). Physically, it means that in the limit of infinite molecular weight (upon approaching the theta point) the critical amplitude $`B_0`$ and the range of 3d-Ising behavior vanish.

Qualitatively, the phenomenon of separation of a polymer solution into two coexisting phases was explained long ago by Flory . According to the Flory theory, the dependence of the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and the critical volume fraction $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ of the polymer on the degree of polymerization $`N`$ is $`T_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{\Theta }/(1+1/\sqrt{N})^2`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}=1/(1+\sqrt{N})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the theta temperature. As elucidated by Widom , for any value of the scaling variable $`x=\frac{1}{2}\tau \sqrt{N}`$ (where $`N`$ is assumed to be large and $`\tau `$ to be small), the phase coexistence in the Flory system can be represented in terms of a scaling form. The concentration difference $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }\varphi ^{}`$, where $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are the volume fractions of polymer in the concentrated and dilute phases, respectively, is given by

$$\sqrt{N}(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }\varphi ^{})\{\begin{array}{cc}2\sqrt{6x}\hfill & (x0)\hfill \\ 3x\hfill & (x\mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(2)
Although Eq. (2) yields the angle-like coexistence in the theta-point limit ($`x\mathrm{}`$), it violates Eq. (1) in the critical-point limit ($`x0`$). The reason is well known: the Flory theory is essentially a mean-field theory which, just like the van der Waals theory for simple fluids, ignores critical fluctuations. It is possible to modify the Flory model to include critical fluctuations, which does indeed predict both the critical and the theta-point limits correctly as well as the crossover between them . However, restrictions implied by the Flory model for the system-dependent parameters (even after incorporating the fluctuations), and, especially, for the dependence of these parameters upon the degree of polymerization, are too tight to apply the model to real systems.

An attempt to describe the data shown in Fig. 1 by a generalized form of Eq. (2) with $`\sqrt{N}`$ replaced by $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}^1`$, the $`\sqrt{x}`$ by $`x^\beta `$ at the limit $`x0`$, and $`x`$ by $`(T_\mathrm{c}T)/(\mathrm{\Theta }T_\mathrm{c})`$ in both limits, was made by Isumi and Miyake . A practical disadvantage of this approach is that, when $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is close to the theta temperature (large $`x`$), even small changes in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (which is not a directly obtainable parameter) cause dramatic changes in $`x`$, making the scaling representation extremely sensitive to the choice of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

In this letter we propose a general scaling description of phase separation in polymer solutions. Experiments have shown that $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ does not satisfy the dependence on the degree of polymerization implied by the Flory theory . The description we propose is not based on any specific molecular model and does not incorporate any particular dependence of the critical parameters on the degree of polymerization. Instead, it uses experimentally well defined variables, namely, the reduced temperature distance to the critical point $`\tau `$ and the critical volume fraction $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$. Furthermore, to obtain an explicit form of the scaling function, we have developed a crossover theory by incorporating fluctuations into a Landau expansion near the tricritical point. Furthermore, we shall elucidate the physical nature of the crossover phenomena: very close to the critical phase-separation point the correlation length of the concentration fluctuations becomes much larger than the polymer molecular size (radius of gyration) and the system exhibits universal 3d-Ising behavior. Very close to the theta point the radius of gyration becomes larger than the correlation length and the system exhibits tricritical mean-field behavior .

We assume that a polymer solution can be described by a scaling function $`y(z)`$ with three universal limits

$$y(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm Kz^\beta & (z0),\\ \frac{1}{2}z& (z\mathrm{},\text{ polymer-rich phase}),\\ 1& (z\mathrm{},\text{ solvent-rich phase}),\end{array}$$
(3)
where

$$y=A(\varphi \varphi _\mathrm{c})/B_0\varphi _\mathrm{c}^\beta ,\text{ }z=C\left|\tau \right|/\varphi _\mathrm{c},$$
(4)
and $`K=AC^\beta `$ with $`A`$ and $`C`$ being system-dependent coefficients. The coefficient $`C`$ defines the limiting $`(M_\mathrm{w}\mathrm{})`$ slope of the phase-separation boundary (Fig. 1). The coefficient $`A`$ can be obtained from a linear correlation between the asymptotic amplitude $`B_0`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}^{1\beta }`$ (insert in Fig. 1) for high molecular weights of polymer (small $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$), so that $`y=(\varphi \varphi _\mathrm{c})/\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ in this limit. The coefficient $`A`$ becomes a weak function of $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ for lower molecular weights and thus allows for incorporating non-asymptotic regular effects. The Ising limit in Eq. (3) will be perfectly universal for different systems if the coefficient $`K=A/C^\beta `$ is not system-dependent. Although there is no theoretical proof for such universality, for the three polymer solutions we have analyzed, the combination $`AC^\beta `$ turns out to be the same.

In Fig. 2 we show coexistence-curve data obtained by Dobashi et al.   for polystyrene in methylcyclohexane, by Xia et al.  for polymethylmethacrylate in 3-octanone, and by Nakata et al.  for polystyrene in cyclohexane, scaled according to Eq. (3). We see that all data points collapse onto a single master curve. In Fig. 4, a crossover from critical Ising behavior (for $`z1`$) to the theta behavior (for $`z1`$) is clearly seen. As $`z`$ increases, the volume fraction $`\varphi ^{}`$ of the solvent-rich phase goes to zero (the “ideal-gas” limit), while the volume fraction $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }/\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ of the polymer-rich phase tends to its theta limit $`\frac{1}{2}z`$, indicated in Fig. 4 by the dashed line. The slope of the dashed line on a double logarithmic scale corresponds to the tricritical value of $`\beta =1`$.

De Gennes  has pointed out that the theta point in the polymer-solvent system is a tricritical point. A tricritical point is a point which separates lines of second-order ($`\lambda `$-line) and first-order transitions. The states above the theta temperature on the $`\varphi =0`$ (shown by the cogged line in Fig. 1) correspond to the critical-like self-avoiding-walk singularities associated with the behavior of long $`(N\mathrm{})`$ polymer molecules at infinite dilution . This $`\lambda `$-line is associated with an $`n`$-component vector order parameter ($`\psi `$) in the limit $`n0`$ . The field $`h`$, conjugate to the order parameter, is zero along the $`\lambda `$-line but it becomes non-zero for finite degrees of polymerization. The correlation length associated with the order parameter is the radius of gyration, which diverges in the limit of infinite degree of polymerization (zero field). Below the theta (tricritical) point, the polymer order parameter exhibits a discontinuity accompanied by phase separation and by a discontinuity in the concentration of the polymer. The line of critical phase-separation points shown in Fig. 1 is a nonzero-field critical (“wing”) line originating from the tricritical point. The order parameter for the fluid-fluid phase separation, associated with the concentration $`\varphi `$, and the polymer order parameter $`\psi `$ belong to different classes of universality. Tricriticality emerges as a result of a coupling between these two order parameters and exhibits mean-field behavior with small logarithmic corrections . Physically, $`\psi `$ is proportional to the concentration of end points of the polymer chain, while the concentration $`\varphi `$ is proportional to $`\left|\psi \right|^2`$ . Therefore, a proper description of the phase separation near the tricritical point should incorporate a crossover between Ising critical behavior and (almost) mean-field tricritical behavior.

To obtain an explicit form of the proposed scaling description, we start with the Landau expansion of the critical part of the dimensionless thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of a two-component system in the vicinity of the tricritical point in powers of the order parameter $`\psi `$ :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\stackrel{~}{\tau }\psi ^2\lambda \psi ^4+v\psi ^6h\psi ,$$
(5)
where $`h`$ is the ordering field; $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=a(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mu }+b\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T})`$ is the temperature-like scaling field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T}=(T\mathrm{\Theta })/T`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ being the tricritical (theta) temperature, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=(\mu _2/v_2\mu _1/v_1)/RT`$ being the reduced polymer/solvent chemical potential difference, $`v_2`$ and $`v_1`$ the corresponding molecular volumes, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the value of the chemical potential at the tricritical (theta) point; $`\lambda =\lambda _0\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$; $`a`$, $`b`$, $`\lambda _0`$, and $`v`$ are system-dependent parameters. The conditions $`h=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=0`$ determine the $`\lambda `$-line. At the tricritical point, the coefficient $`\lambda `$ changes its sign, being negative along the $`\lambda `$-line above $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and positive below $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

The equilibrium values $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$ of the order parameter are found from the conditions $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\psi )_{T,h}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\psi ^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\psi ^{\prime \prime })`$. The concentration (volume fraction) $`\varphi `$ is related to the polymer order parameter $`\psi `$ by

$$\varphi =\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\right)_{T,h}=a\psi ^2\lambda _0\psi ^4.$$
(6)
In the limit of infinite degree of polymerization ($`h=0`$), we find for the limiting phase-separation boundary shown by the dashed line in Fig. 1:

$$\varphi ^{}=0,\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\lambda _0a}{2v}b|\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T}|\left[1\frac{\lambda _0^2}{4va}b|\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T}|\right]$$
(7)
At non-zero $`h`$, a phase separation (“wing”) critical line emerges, defined by

$$\psi _\mathrm{c}^2(h)=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{2h}{v}\right)^{2/5}\varphi _\mathrm{c}/a,$$
(8)
$$T_\mathrm{c}(h)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left\{1+\frac{5v}{\lambda _0ab}\left[a\psi _\mathrm{c}^2(h)3\lambda _0\psi _\mathrm{c}^4(h)\right]\right\}^1.$$
(9)
Asymptotically, the ratio of the slopes of the limiting ($`h=0`$) phase-separation boundary to the critical “wing” line is universal in the Landau expansion and is equal to $`5/2`$. A comparison between the results obtained from the Landau expansion (5) and from the mean-field Flory model at $`N1`$ has shown that the ordering field $`h`$ can be identified with the degree of polymerization $`N`$ as $`\left(2h/v\right)^{2/5}\sqrt{N}`$. Consequently, the near-tricritical Landau model satisfies the mean-field scaling given by Eq. (2).

The Landau theory does not include fluctuations and does not recover the 3d-Ising limit exhibited by real polymer systems. Therefore, we have modified the expansion (5) using the crossover procedure based on the renormalization-group matching method (see  and references therein). The details of the calculations will be published elsewhere. The key point of the approach is representing the polymer order parameter as a sum of a regular $`\psi _0`$ and a “critical” $`\delta \psi `$ part $`\psi =\psi _0+\delta \psi `$ and rewriting expansion (5) in terms of $`\delta \psi `$. The critical part is expressed in terms of the distance to the critical temperature (at certain field $`h`$) $`\tau =\left[TT_\mathrm{c}(h)\right]/T`$. The crossover procedure is implemented by replacing the temperature variable $`\tau `$ and the order parameter $`\delta \psi `$ in the corresponding Landau expansion with renormalized quantities $`\tau _\times `$ and $`\delta \psi _\times `$, respectively, such that

$$\tau _\times =\tau Y^{\alpha /2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}},\delta \psi _\times =\delta \psi Y^{(2\gamma 3\nu )/4\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\nu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}`$ are universal critical exponents with the following 3d-Ising values adopted in this work: $`\alpha =0.11`$, $`\gamma =1.239`$, $`\nu =0.630`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}=0.51`$ . The crossover function $`Y`$ is to be determined from the equation

$$1(1\overline{u})Y=\overline{u}[1+(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa )^2]^{1/2}Y^{\nu /\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}},$$
(11)
where $`\overline{u}`$, a normalized coupling constant roughly independent of $`h`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(2h/v)^{2/5}`$, a dimensionless “cutoff” wavenumber assumed to be inversely proportional to the radius of gyration $`R_\mathrm{G}`$, are two crossover parameters. The parameter $`\kappa `$ is inversely proportional to the correlation length and serves as an effective distance to the critical point. In the simplest approximation

$$\kappa ^2=2c_t\tau Y^{(2\nu 1)/\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}},$$
(12)
where the parameter $`c_t=c_{t0}(2h/v)^{2/5}`$ is associated with the amplitude $`\overline{\xi }_0`$ of the mean-field correlation length $`\overline{\xi }`$. Close to the critical point $`Y(\kappa /\overline{u}\mathrm{\Lambda })^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{s}/\nu }0`$ and the thermodynamic properties exhibit 3d-Ising asymptotic behavior. Far away from the critical point, $`Y1`$, and the mean-field expansion (5) is recovered. The crossover temperature (“Ginzburg number”) $`\tau _0(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Lambda })^2/c_t=[(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^2/c_{t0}](2h/v)^{2/5}\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ vanishes at the theta (tricritical) point. The physical origin of the crossover to tricriticality is a competition between the radius of gyration $`R_\mathrm{G}`$ and the correlation length $`\xi `$, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa \xi /R_\mathrm{G}`$, while the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/c_t(\overline{\xi }_0/R_\mathrm{G})^2`$ defines the crossover temperature $`\tau _0`$. Specific $`N`$-dependencies of the Ising critical amplitudes, predicted by de Gennes’ scaling , can be also obtained from our theory with the assumption $`(2h/v)^{2/5}\sqrt{N}`$.

We have applied the renormalized (crossover) Landau model to describe the experimental data  on phase separation in polymer systems and have obtained excellent agreement (solid lines in Figs. 1-3). The description of all the systems with a variety of degrees of polymerization requires only four non-universal parameters, namely $`a`$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`C=\lambda _0a/v`$, and the “bare” crossover temperature $`(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^2/c_{t0}`$, which do not depend on molecular weight. Moreover, the combination $`(\overline{u}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^2/c_{t0}`$ and $`AC^\beta `$ can be taken to be the same within the available experimental resolution not only for different molecular-weight samples, but also for different substances. This feature makes the solid curve in Figs. 3 and 4 truly universal for all systems studied.

The universality demonstrated in Fig. 4 requires both $`\tau `$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ to be small. In first approximation some non-asymptotic effects are incorporated into the universal scaling description. The slight dependence of $`A`$ on $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$ for moderate molecular weights (at larger $`\varphi _\mathrm{c}`$), shown in Fig. 1, absorbs non-asymptotic corrections to the critical limit. A non-asymptotic (at larger $`\tau `$) non-linearity of the phase separation boundary in the tricritical (zero field) limit can be accounted for by a term quadratic in $`\tau `$.

Renormalization-group calculations  have shown the existence of logarithmic corrections to mean-field tricriticality: the coefficients $`v`$ and $`\lambda _0`$ in expansion (5) are renormalized, so that the critical line has zero slope at the theta-point. The resolution of the existing experimental data is not sufficient to convincingly determine the logarithmic corrections: the description is equally good with or without the corrections.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with M. E. Fisher, S. C. Greer, A. Z. Panagiotopoulos, J. V. Sengers, and B. Widom. The research at the University of Maryland was supported by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-95ER-14509.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Phase-coexistence curves for solutions of polystyrene of various molecular weights $`M_\mathrm{w}`$ in methylcyclohexane. Symbols indicate experimental data by Dobashi et al. . The insert shows dependence of the critical amplitude $`B_0`$ on the critical concentration. Solid curves represent the crossover theory.

Figure 2. Universal scaled coexistence curve of polymer solutions: (a) the entire range, (b) the critical region. Solid line is calculated from the crossover theory.

Figure 3. Universal scaled coexistence curve of polymer solution in a double-logarithmic scale showing crossover from Ising behavior to “ideal gas” and tricritical (theta-point) behavior. Solid line is calculated from the crossover theory.


text:
# References

ORIGIN OF THE NUCLEON ELECTROMAGNETIC FORM FACTORS DIPOLE FORMULA.

P. Weisenpacher 111E-mail address: weisenpacher@center.fmph.uniba.sk

Department of Theoretical Physics, Comenius University, Mlynská dolina, 842 48 Bratislava, Slovak Republic.

## Abstract

Starting with the VMD parametrization of the electric and magnetic nucleon form factors, which are saturated just by the ground state vector-mesons $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, then aplying the strict OZI rule and the asymptotic behaviour of form factors as predicted by quark model of hadrons, the famous one parameter dipole formula is derived. By its comparison with space-like data up to $`t=5GeV^2`$ the most optimal value of the parameter under consideration is determined. Finaly, charge and magnetization distributions in proton and neutron are predicted.
PACS codes: 13.00, 13.40, 14.00, 14.80
Keywords: nucleon, structure, resonances, form factors, coupling constants

The electromagnetic structure of nucleons is completely described by four scalar functions to be dependent on the square momentum transfer of the virtual photon $`t=q^2`$. They can be chosen in the form of Sachs electric and magnetic form factors $`G_E^p(t)`$, $`G_M^p(t)`$, $`G_E^n(t)`$ and $`G_M^n(t)`$. Their behaviour is relatively complicated, especially in time-like region. In space-like region the behaviour of these form factors is well described by so-called dipole formula, which was founded in 1965  before a discovery of the quark structure of hadrons determining asymptotic behaviours of the corresponding form factors. Generally, it has been found

$`G_E^p(t){\displaystyle \frac{G_M^p(t)}{1+\mu _p}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_M^n(t)}{\mu _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{4m_n^2}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_E^n(t)}{\mu _n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{0.71})^2}},`$ (1)
at that time without any theoretical justification.

Since that time theoretical knowledges of form factor behaviours have been improved. Vector-meson-dominance (VMD) model, based on a experimental fact of a creation of vector-meson resonances in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons, has been created. In the framework of the perturbative QCD quark number dependent asymptotic behaviour of form factors has been revealed to be of the form

$`Ft^{1n_q}.`$ (2)
In this paper using the abovementioned theoretical knowledges the nucleon form factors dipole formula is derived.

With this aim we start with the canonical VMD parametrization of the electric and magnetic nucleon form factors

$`G_E^p(t)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\varrho ^2t}}(f_{\varrho pp}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2t}}(f_{\omega pp}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^2}{m_\varphi ^2t}}(f_{\varphi pp}^{(E)}/f_\varphi )`$
$`G_M^p(t)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\varrho ^2t}}(f_{\varrho pp}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2t}}(f_{\omega pp}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^2}{m_\varphi ^2t}}(f_{\varphi pp}^{(M)}/f_\varphi )`$
$`G_E^n(t)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\varrho ^2t}}(f_{\varrho nn}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2t}}(f_{\omega nn}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^2}{m_\varphi ^2t}}(f_{\varphi nn}^{(E)}/f_\varphi )`$
$`G_M^n(t)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\varrho ^2t}}(f_{\varrho nn}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2t}}(f_{\omega nn}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varphi ^2}{m_\varphi ^2t}}(f_{\varphi nn}^{(M)}/f_\varphi ),`$ (3)
where $`f_{vNN}^{(E,M)}`$ are vector meson to nucleon coupling constants, $`f_v`$ is universal vector-meson coupling constant and $`t`$ is photon four-momentum tranfer squared. Taking into account OZI rule  strictly we require coupling constant of $`\varphi `$ -meson to be zero.

Form factors $`G_E^p`$, $`G_M^p`$, $`G_E^n`$, $`G_M^n`$ are normalized for the value $`t=0`$ as follows

$`G_E^p(0)=1;G_M^p(0)=1+\mu _p;G_E^n(0)=0;G_M^n(0)=\mu _n,`$ (4)
where $`\mu _p`$ and $`\mu _n`$ are anomalous magnetic moments of proton and neutron, respectively.

For very large space-like $`t`$ the asymptotic behaviour

$`G_{E,M}^{p,n}t^2,`$ (5)
is applied as predicted by the quark counting rules .

Requirements (4) and (5) lead to four systems of algebraic equations for coupling ratios

$`\mathrm{I}.`$ $`(f_{\omega pp}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+(f_{\varrho pp}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )=1`$
$`m_\omega ^2(f_{\omega pp}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+m_\varrho ^2(f_{\varrho pp}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )=0`$
$`\mathrm{II}.`$ $`(f_{\omega pp}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+(f_{\varrho pp}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=1+\mu _p`$
$`m_\omega ^2(f_{\omega pp}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+m_\varrho ^2(f_{\varrho pp}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=0`$
$`\mathrm{III}.`$ $`(f_{\omega nn}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+(f_{\varrho nn}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )=0`$
$`m_\omega ^2(f_{\omega nn}^{(E)}/f_\omega )+m_\varrho ^2(f_{\varrho nn}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )=0`$
$`\mathrm{IV}.`$ $`(f_{\omega nn}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+(f_{\varrho nn}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=\mu _n`$
$`m_\omega ^2(f_{\omega nn}^{(M)}/f_\omega )+m_\varrho ^2(f_{\varrho nn}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=0.`$ (6)
Their solutions take the form

$`\mathrm{I}.`$ $`(f_{\omega pp}^{(E)}/f_\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}}`$
$`(f_{\varrho pp}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )={\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{II}.`$ $`(f_{\omega pp}^{(M)}/f_\omega )=(1+\mu _p){\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}}`$
$`(f_{\varrho pp}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=(1+\mu _p){\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}}`$
$`\mathrm{III}.`$ $`(f_{\omega nn}^{(E)}/f_\omega )=0`$
$`(f_{\varrho nn}^{(E)}/f_\varrho )=0`$
$`\mathrm{IV}.`$ $`(f_{\omega nn}^{(M)}/f_\omega )=\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{m_\varrho ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}}`$
$`(f_{\varrho nn}^{(M)}/f_\varrho )=\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{m_\omega ^2}{m_\omega ^2m_\varrho ^2}},`$ (7)
which tranform form factors defined by (3) into relations

$`G_E^p(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m_\omega ^2})(1\frac{t}{m_\varrho ^2})}}`$
$`G_M^p(t)=(1+\mu _p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m_\omega ^2})(1\frac{t}{m_\varrho ^2})}}`$
$`G_E^n(t)=0`$
$`G_M^n(t)=\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m_\omega ^2})(1\frac{t}{m_\varrho ^2})}}.`$ (8)
Masses of $`\omega `$ a $`\rho `$ mesons are almost the same, therefore one can substitute these values in relations (8) by averaged mass $`m`$ and finally for electric a magnetic nucleon form factors one gets expressions

$`G_E^p(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m^2})^2}}`$
$`G_M^p(t)=(1+\mu _p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m^2})^2}}`$
$`G_E^n(t)=0`$
$`G_M^n(t)=\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m^2})^2}}`$ (9)
consistent with the standard form of dipole formula besides the form factor $`G_n^E(t)`$, which is equal zero. This fact correspond with experimentally detected negligible values of $`G_n^E(t)`$. Dipole formula constant value is approximately $`m^2=0.60GeV^2`$.

Behaviour of form factor $`G_E^n(t)`$ can be determined including their additional properties. One can start from the identity

$`<r_n^2>=6{\displaystyle \frac{dG_E^n(t)}{dt}}_{t=0}=6{\displaystyle \frac{dF_1^n(t)}{dt}}_{t=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\mu _n}{2m_n^2}},`$ (10)
following from a decomposition of $`G_E^n`$ into Dirac a Pauli form factors

$`G_E^n(t)=F_1^n(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{4m_n^2}}F_2^n(t)`$
and normalization condition $`F_2^n(0)=\mu _n`$. According to the fact, that the last term value in (10) $`0.126fm^2`$ is comparable with experimentally determined value of the neutron charge radius ($`<r_n^2>_{exp}=0.119fm^2`$ ), the term $`\frac{dF_1^n(t)}{dt}_{t=0}`$ is almost zero and it can be neglected. So, taking into account the later and the zero value of $`G_E^n(t)`$ at $`t=0`$ one obtains a dipole formula for electric neutron form factor as follows

$`G_E^n(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n}{4m_n^2}}t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{m^2})^2}}`$ (11)
which describes data quite well.

If we define

$`G_D(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t}{\lambda })^2}},`$ (12)
then the electric and magnetic nucleon form factors take the form

$`G_E^p(t)=G_D(t)`$
$`G_M^p(t)=(1+\mu _p)G_D(t)`$
$`G_E^n(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _n}{4m_n^2}}tG_D(t)`$
$`G_M^n(t)=\mu _nG_D(t),`$ (13)
identical with (1).

There are 433 experimental values of form factors in space-like region obtained from the elastic electron scattering on hydrogen and deuteron target, which have been analyzed by means of the relations (13) using program MINUIT.

One could expect, that two free parameter dependent dipole formula in (8) gives a better description of experimental data than canonical one free parameter dipole formula (13). However, the values of both free parameters in (8), determined in fitting procedure take almost the same values and therefore (8) is practically reduced to (9). In this case the dipole formula parameter takes the value $`\lambda =0.7134GeV^2`$ ($`\chi ^2/ndf=6.32`$). Introducing non-zero value of $`G_E^n(t)`$ by (11) we obtain better description $`\lambda =0.7132GeV^2`$ ($`\chi ^2/ndf=5.92`$).

In order to achieve acceptable value of $`\chi ^2/ndf`$ it is necessary to reduce our fitting procedure to points up to $`5GeV^2`$. $`\chi ^2/ndf`$ takes a value $`2.34`$ and $`\lambda =0.7263`$. This results are graphically presented in Fig. 1. Strong enhancement of $`\chi ^2/ndf`$ value suggests important deviation from dipole behaviour for low values of four-momentum transfer. Approximately 20% of total $`\chi ^2`$ is generated by $`G_E^n(t)`$. Relation (11) gives a worse description of experimental data, therefore it is impossible to decrease $`\chi ^2`$ value per point below limit $`\chi ^2/ndf=2`$.

Taking into account (13) one can predict charge and magnetization distribution of nucleons (Fig. 2). These results are compared with distributions given by unitary and analytic ten-resonance model presented by .

Although dipole formula gives a good description of all experimental values of electric and magnetic nucleon form factors, since this time it has not been known any theoretical motivation of these relations. Our paper present derivation of dipole formula including VMD model saturated by ground state of vector-meson $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, OZI rule, normalization conditions and asymptotic behaviour of form factors given by quark model of hadrons.

I would like to thank Professor Stanislav Dubnička for suggesting this problem and for his giving me new ideas that led to successful solution, and Professor Anna Zuzana Dubničková for a great support and useful advice.


text:
# Measurements of the instantaneous velocity difference and local velocity with a fiber-optic coupler

## I Introduction

Measurements of the velocity difference or the relative velocity, $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})=𝐯(𝐱+\mathrm{})𝐯(𝐱)`$, between two spatial points separated by a distance $`\mathrm{}`$ have important applications in fluid dynamics. For example, in the study of turbulent flows one is interested in the scaling behavior of $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$ over varying distance $`\mathrm{}`$, when $`\mathrm{}`$ is in the inertial range, in which the kinetic energy cascades at a constant rate without dissipation. If the separation $`\mathrm{}`$ is smaller than the Kolmogorov dissipation length, the measured $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$ becomes proportional to the velocity gradient $`v/r\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})/\mathrm{}`$ (assuming $`\mathrm{}`$ is known), a useful quantity which is needed to determine the energy dissipation and flow vorticity. In many experimental studies of fluid turbulence, one measures the local velocity as a function of time and then uses Taylor’s frozen turbulence assumption to convert the measured temporal variations into the spatial fluctuations of the velocity field. The frozen turbulence assumption is valid only when the mean velocity becomes much larger than the velocity fluctuations. For isotropic turbulent flows with a small mean velocity, direct measurement of $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$ is needed.

Over the past several years, the present authors and their collaborators have exploited the technique of homodyne photon correlation spectroscopy (HPCS) to measure $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$. With the HPCS scheme, small particles seeded in a flowing fluid are used to scatter the incident laser light. The scattered light intensity $`I(t)`$, which fluctuates because of the motion of the seed particles, contains Doppler beat frequencies of all particle pairs in the scattering volume. For each particle pair separated by a distance $`\mathrm{}`$ (along the beam propagation direction), their beat frequency is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=𝐪\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$, where $`𝐪`$ is the momentum transfer vector. The magnitude of $`𝐪`$ is given by $`q=(4\pi n/\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, $`n`$ is the refractive index of the fluid, and $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the incident light. Experimentally, the Doppler beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$ is measured by the intensity auto-correlation function,

$$g(\tau )=\frac{I(t+\tau )I(t)}{I(t)^2}=1+bG(\tau ),$$
(1)
where $`b`$ ($`1`$) is an instrumental constant and henceforth we set $`b=1`$. The angle brackets represent a time average over $`t`$.

It has been shown that $`G(\tau )`$ in Eq. (1) has the form

$$G(\tau )=_0^L𝑑rh(r)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\delta vP(\delta v,r)\mathrm{cos}(q\delta v\tau ),$$
(2)
where $`\delta v`$ is the component of $`\delta 𝐯`$ in the direction of $`𝐪`$, $`P(\delta v,r)`$ is the probability density function (PDF) of $`\delta v(r)`$, and $`h(r)dr`$ is the number fraction of particle pairs with separation $`r`$ in the scattering volume. Equation (2) states that the light scattered by each pair of particles contributes a phase factor $`\mathrm{cos}(q\tau \delta 𝐯)`$ (because of the Doppler beat) to the correlation function $`G(\tau )`$, and $`G(\tau )`$ is an incoherent sum of these ensemble averaged phase factors over all the particle pairs in the scattering volume. In many previous experiments, the length $`L`$ of the scattering volume viewed by a photodetector was controlled by the width $`S`$ of a slit in the collecting optics.

While it is indeed a powerful tool for the study of turbulent flows, the HPCS technique has two limitations in its collecting optics and signal processing. First, a weighted average over $`r`$ is required for $`G(\tau )`$ because the photodetector receives light from particle pairs having a range of separations ($`0<r<L`$). As a result, the measured $`G(\tau )`$ contains information about $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$ over various length scales up to $`L`$. With the single slit arrangement, the range of $`L`$ which can be varied in the experiment is limited. The lower cut-off for $`L`$ is controlled by the laser beam radius $`\sigma `$. The upper cut-off for $`L`$ is determined by the coherence distance (or coherence area) at the detecting surface of the photo-detector, over which the scattered electric fields are strongly correlated in space. When the slit width $`S`$ becomes too large, the photodetector sees many temporally fluctuating speckles (or coherence areas), and consequently fluctuations in the scattered intensity $`I(t)`$ will be averaged out over the range of $`q`$-values spanned by the detecting area.

Recently, we made a new optical arrangement for HPCS, with which the weighted average over $`r`$ in Eq. (2) is no longer needed and the upper limit for $`L`$ can be extended to the coherence length of the laser. In the experiment, two single mode, polarization-maintaining (PM) fibers are used to collect light with the same polarization and momentum transfer vector $`𝐪`$ but from two spatially separated regions in a flow. These regions are illuminated by a single coherent laser beam, so that the collected signals interfere when combined using a fiber-optic coupler, before being directed to a photodetector. With this arrangement, the measured $`G(\tau )`$ becomes proportional to the Fourier cosine transform of the PDF $`P(\delta v,r)`$.

The second limitation of HPCS is related to signal processing. The correlation method is very effective in picking up small fluctuating signals, but the resulting correlation function $`G(\tau )`$ is a time-averaged quantity. Therefore, the correlation method is not applicable to unstable flows. Furthermore, information about the odd moments of $`P(\delta v,r)`$ is lost, because the measured $`G(\tau )`$ is a Fourier cosine transform of $`P(\delta v,r)`$.

In this paper, we present a further improvement for HPCS, which is free of the two limitations discussed above. By combining the new fiber-optic method with the laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) electronics, we are able to measure the instantaneous velocity difference $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{},t)`$ and local velocity $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ at a high sampling rate. With this technique, the statistics of $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{},t)`$ and $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ are obtained directly from the time series data. The new method of measuring $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ offers several advantages over the standard LDV. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe the experimental methods and setup. Experimental results are presented and analyzed in Section 3. Finally, the work is summarized in Section 4.

## II Experimental Methods

### A Measurement of the velocity difference

Figure 1 shows the optical arrangement and the flow cells used in the experiment. A similar setup has been described elsewhere, and here we mention only some key points.

As shown in Fig. 1(b), an incident beam from a Nd:YVO4 laser with a power range of 0.5-2W and a wavelength of $`\lambda `$=532 nm is directed to a flow cell by a lens. With the aid of a large beam splitting cube, two single-mode, polarization-maintaining (PM) fibers collect the scattered light from two different spots along the laser beam with a separation $`L`$. The two PM fibers are connected to a fiber-optic coupler (purchased from OZ Optics), which combines the light from the two input fibers and split the resultant light evenly into two output fibers. A graded index lens is placed at each end of the fiber to collimate the light entering (or exiting from) the fiber core. Each input fiber is mounted on a micrometer-controlled translation stage and the distance $`L`$ can be adjusted in a range of 0-25 mm in steps of 0.01 mm. The output fibers of the optical coupler are connected to two photomultiplier tubes (PMT1 and PMT2). PMT1 is operated in the digital mode and its output signal is fed to a digital correlator (ALV-5000). PMT2 is operated in the analogue mode and its output signal is fed to a LDV signal processor (TSI IFA655). An oscilloscope connected to PMT2 directly views the analogue signals. A low-noise preamplifier (Stanford Research SR560) further amplifies the analogue output of PMT2 before it goes to the LDV signal processor.

As shown in Fig. 1(a), the electric fields detected by each input fiber sum in the coupler and consequently interfere. In the experiment, we obtain the beat frequency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=𝐪𝐯_1𝐪𝐯_2=𝐪\delta 𝐯(L)`$, in two different ways. One way is to measure the intensity auto-correlation function $`g(\tau )`$ in Eq. (1). With the ALV correlator, it takes $`1`$ minute to collect the data with an adequate signal-to-noise ratio. The other way is to use the LDV signal processor to measure the instantaneous beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$, giving velocity differences in real time. The LDV signal processor is essentially a very fast correlator and thus requires the beat signal to be large enough so that no signal averaging is needed. In the experiment to be discussed below, we use both methods to analyze the beat signals and compare the results.

It has been shown that the correlation function $`g(\tau )`$ has the form:

$`g(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{I_1^2+I_2^2}{(I_1+I_2)^2}}G_s(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{2I_1I_2}{(I_1+I_2)^2}}G_c(\tau )`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`1+b_sG_s(\tau )+b_cG_c(\tau ),`$ (4)
where $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are the light intensities from the two input fibers. When $`I_1=I_2`$, one finds $`b_s=b_c=0.5`$. If one of the input fibers is blocked (i.e., $`I_2=0`$), we have $`g(\tau )=1+G_s(\tau )`$, where $`G_s(\tau )`$ is the self-beat correlation function for a single fiber. When the separation L between the two input fibers is much larger than the spot size viewed by each fiber, the cross-beat correlation function $`G_c(\tau )`$ takes the form

$$G_c(\tau )G_s(\tau )_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\delta vP(\delta v)\mathrm{cos}(q\delta v(L)\tau ).$$
(5)
Two flow cells are used in the experiment. The first one is a cylindrical cuvette having an inner diameter of 2.45 cm and a height of 5 cm. The cuvette is top mounted on a geared motor, which produces smooth rotation with an angular velocity $`\omega =2.5rad/s`$. The cell is filled with 1,2-propylene glycol, whose viscosity is 40 times larger than that of water. The whole cell is immersed in a large square index-matching vat, which is also filled with 1,2-propylene glycol. The flow field inside the cell is a simple rigid body rotation. With the scattering geometry shown in Fig. 1(b), the beat frequency is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=k_s\omega L`$ with $`k_s=2\pi n/\lambda `$. The sample cell is seeded with a small amount of polystyrene latex spheres. For the correlation measurements, we use small seed particles of $`1.0\mu m`$ in diameter. By using the small seed particles, one can have more particles in the scattering volume even at low seeding densities. This will reduce the amplitude of the number fluctuations caused by a change in the number of particles in each scattering volume. The particle number fluctuations can produce incoherent amplitude fluctuations to the scattered light and thus introduce an extra (additive) decay to $`g(\tau )`$. Large particles $`4.75\mu m`$ in diameter are used to produce higher scattering intensity for instantaneous Doppler burst detection. Because the densities of the latex particles and the fluid are closely matched, the particles follow the local flow well and they do not settle much.

The second flow cell shown in Fig. 1(c) is used to generate a jet flow in a $`9cm\times 9cm`$ square vat filled with quiescent water. The circular nozzle has an outlet 2 mm in diameter and the tube diameter before the contraction is 5.5 mm. The nozzle is immersed in the square vat and a small pump is used to generate a jet flow at a constant flow rate $`0.39cm^3/s`$. The mean velocity at the nozzle exit is $`12.4cm/s`$ and the corresponding Reynolds number is Re=248. This value of Re is approximately three times larger than the turbulent transition Reynolds number, $`Re_c80`$, for a round jet. Because of the large area contraction (7.6:1), the bulk part of the velocity profile at the nozzle exit is flat. This uniform velocity profile vanishes quickly, and a Gaussian-like velocity profile is developed in the downstream region, 2-20 diameters away from the nozzle exit. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the direction of the momentum transfer vector $`𝐪`$ (and hence the measured velocity difference) is parallel to the jet flow direction, but the separation L is at an angle of $`45^o`$ to that direction.

### B Measurement of the local velocity

In the measurement of the velocity difference, we use two input fibers to collect the scattered light with the same $`𝐪`$ (i.e. at the same scattering angle) but from two spatially separated regions in the flow. We now show that with a different optical arrangement, the fiber-optic method can also be used to measure the instantaneous local velocity $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$. Instead of collecting light from two spatially separated regions with the same $`𝐪`$, we use the two input fibers to collect light from a common scattering volume in the flow but with two different momentum transfer vectors $`𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (i.e. at two different scattering angles). Figure 2(a) shows the schematic diagram of the scattering geometry. The collected signals at the two scattering angles are combined by a fiber-optic coupler, and the resultant light is modulated at the Doppler beat frequency: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1=𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐯𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐯=\mathrm{\Delta }𝐪𝐯(𝐱)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐪=𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐪`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=(4\pi n/\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)`$, with $`\alpha `$ being the acceptance angle between the two fibers.

The principle of using the scattered light at two different scattering angles to measure the local velocity has been demonstrated many years ago. What is new here is the use of the fiber-optic coupler for optical mixing. The fiber-optic technique simplifies the standard LDV optics considerably. As shown in Fig. 2(b), in the standard LDV arrangement the two incident laser beams form interference fringes at the focal point. When a seed particle traverses the focal region, the light scattered by the particle is modulated by the interference fringes with a frequency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1=𝐪_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐯𝐪_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐯=\mathrm{\Delta }𝐪𝐯(𝐱)`$. The magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐪`$ has the same expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }q=(4\pi n/\lambda )\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)`$ as shown in the above, but $`\alpha `$ now becomes the angle between the two incident laser beams. The main difference between the standard LDV and the new fiber-optic method is that the former employs two incident laser beams and a receiving fiber \[Fig. 2(b)\], while the latter uses only one incident laser beam and two optical fibers to measure each velocity component \[Fig. 2(a)\]. Consequently, the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1`$ in Fig. 2(a) is independent of the direction ($`𝐤_𝐢`$) of the incident laser beam, whereas in Fig. 2(b) it is independent of the direction ($`𝐤_𝐬`$) of the receiving fiber.

With the one-beam scheme, one can design various optical probes for the local velocity measurement. Figure 2(c) shows an example, which would replace the commercial LDV probe by reversing the roles of the transmitter and receiver. The two input fibers aim at the same measuring point S through a lens P, which also collects the back-scattered light from S. The frequency modulator M shifts the frequency of the light collected by the input fiber 1, before it is combined via the fiber-optic coupler C with the light collected by the input fiber 2. The resultant light from an output fiber of the coupler contains the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1`$ and is fed to a photodetector. Because the measured $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1`$ is always a positive number, one cannot tell the sign of the local velocity when zero velocity corresponds to a zero beat frequency. The frequency shift by the modulator M causes the interference fringes to move in one direction (normal to the fringes) and thus introduces an extra shift frequency to the measured beat frequency. This allows us to measure very small velocities and to determine the sign of the measured local velocity relative to the direction of the fringe motion (which is known). The other output fiber of the coupler can be used as an alignment fiber, when it is connected to a small He-Ne laser. With the reversed He-Ne light coming out of the input fibers, one can directly observe the scattering volume viewed by each input fiber and align the fibers in such a way that only the scattered light from the same measuring point S is collected.

The one-beam probe has several advantages over the usual two-beam probes. To measure two orthogonal velocity components in the plane perpendicular to the incident laser beam, one only needs to add an extra pair of optical fibers and a coupler and arrange them in the plane perpendicular to that shown in Fig. 2(c) (i.e., rotate the two-fiber plane shown in Fig. 2(c) by $`90^o`$). With this arrangement, the four input fibers collect the scattered light from the same scattering volume but in two orthogonal scattering planes. Because only one laser beam is needed for optical mixing, a small single-frequency diode laser, rather than a large argon ion laser, is sufficient for the coherent light source. In addition, the one-beam arrangement does not need any optics for color and beam separations and thus can reduce the manufacturing cost considerably. With the one-beam scheme, one can make small invasive or non-invasive probes consisting of only three thin fibers. One can also make a self-sustained probe containing all necessary optical fibers, couplers, photodetectors, and a signle-frequency diode laser.

## III Results and Discussion

### A Velocity difference measurements

We first discuss the measurements of the velocity difference in rigid body rotation. Figure 3(a) shows a sample oscilloscope trace of the analogue output from PMT2 when the separation L=1.0 mm. The signal is amplified 1250 times and band-pass-filtered with a frequency range of 1-10 kHz. This oscilloscope trace strongly resembles the burst signals in the standard LDV. The only difference is that the signal shown in Fig. 3(a) results from the beating of two moving particles separated by a distance L. Figure 3(a) thus demonstrates that the beat signal between the two moving particles is large enough that a standard LDV signal processor can be used to measure the instantaneous velocity difference $`\delta v(\mathrm{},t)`$ in real time.

Figure 3(b) shows the measured beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$ as a function of separation L. The circles are obtained from the oscilloscope trace and the triangles are obtained from the intensity correlation function $`g(\tau )`$. The two measurements agree well with each other. The solid line is the linear fit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=41.78L(10^3rad/s)`$, which is in good agreement with the theoretical calculation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=k_s\omega L=42.28L(10^3rad/s)`$. This result also agrees with the previous measurements by Du et al. Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$ increases with L, one needs to increase the laser intensity at large values of L in order to resolve $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$. The average photon count rate should be at least twice the measured beat frequency.

We now discuss the time series measurements of $`\delta v(L,t)`$ in a jet flow using the LDV signal processor. The jet flow has significant velocity fluctuations as compared with the laminar rigid body rotation. The measuring point is in the developing region of the jet flow, 3 diameters away from the nozzle exit and is slightly off the centerline of the jet flow. Figure 4 shows the measured histogram $`P(\delta v)`$ of the velocity difference $`\delta v(L,t)`$ in the jet flow, when the separation L is fixed at L=0.5 mm (circles) and L=0.8 mm (squares), respectively. It is seen that the measured $`P(\delta v)`$ has a dominant peak and its position changes with L. Because $`\delta v(L,t)`$ increases with L, the peak position moves to the right for the larger value of L. The solid curve in Fig. 4 is a Gaussian fit to the data points with L=0.5 mm. The obtained mean value of $`\delta v(L,t)`$ is $`\delta v=1.87cm/s`$ and the standard deviation $`\sigma =0.171cm/s`$. At L=0.8 mm, the measured $`P(\delta v)`$ peaks at the value $`\delta v=2.73cm/s`$.

In the above discussion, we have assumed that each input fiber sees only one particle at a given time and the beat signal comes from two moving particles separated by a distance L. In fact, when the seeding density is high, each input fiber may see more than one particle at a given time. The scattered light from these particles can also beat and generate a self-beat frequency proportional to $`\delta v(\mathrm{}_0)`$, where $`\mathrm{}_00.15mm`$ is the laser spot size viewed by each input fiber. The self-beating gives rise to a small peak on the left side of the measured $`P(\delta v)`$. Note that the peak position is independent of L, because $`\delta v(\mathrm{}_0)`$ is determined only by $`\mathrm{}_0`$, which is the same for both measurements. It is seen from Fig. 4 that the cross-beating is dominant over the self-beating under the current experimental condition.

The intensity correlation function $`g(\tau )`$ is also used to analyze the beat signal. In the experiment, we measure the histogram $`P(\delta v)`$ and $`g(\tau )`$ simultaneously, so that Eq. (5) can be examined in details. Figure 5 shows the measured $`g(\tau )1`$ (circles) as a function of delay time $`\tau `$ at L=0.5 mm. The squares are the self-beat correlation function $`G_s(\tau )`$ obtained when one of the input fibers is blocked. As shown in Fig. 4, the measured $`P(\delta v)`$ has a Gaussian form and thus the integration in Eq. (5) can be carried out. The final form of $`g(\tau )`$ becomes

$$g(\tau )=1+G_s(\tau )\left[b_s+b_c\mathrm{cos}[q\delta v\tau ]e^{(q\sigma \tau )^2/2}\right].$$
(6)
The solid curve in Fig. 5 is a plot of Eq. (6) with $`b_s=0.5`$ and $`b_c=0.13`$. The values of $`\delta v`$ and $`\sigma `$ used in the plot are obtained from the Gaussian fit shown in Fig. 4. It is seen that the calculation is in good agreement with the measured $`g(\tau )`$.

The fitted value $`b_s=0.5`$ agrees with the expected value at $`I_1=I_2`$. The value of $`b_c`$ would be 0.5 if the collected signals from the two input fibers were fully coherent and the fiber-optic coupler mixed them perfectly. The fact that the fitted value of $`b_c`$ is smaller than 0.5 indicates that the collected signals are not fully correlated. This is caused partially by the fact that in the present experiment the scattered light suffers relatively large number fluctuations resulting from a changing number of particles in the scattering volume. These number fluctuations produce incoherent amplitude fluctuations to the scattered light and thus introduce an extra (additive) decay to $`g(\tau )`$. Because the beam crossing time (proportional to the beam diameter) is much longer than the Doppler beat time $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$ (proportional to the wavelength of the scattered light), the slow decay due to the number fluctuations can be readily identified in the measured $`g(\tau )`$. This decay has an amplitude 0.4 and has been subtracted out from the measured $`g(\tau )`$ shown in Fig. 5.

It is shown in Eq. (6) that to accurately measure the mean velocity difference $`\delta v`$, the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=q\delta v`$ must be larger than the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_sq\delta v(\mathrm{}_0)`$ for $`G_s(\tau )`$ and also larger than the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_cq\sigma `$ resulting from the fluctuations of the velocity difference. From the measurements shown in Figs. 4 and 5, we find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s1.33\times 10^5s^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c3.8\times 10^4s^1`$, which are indeed smaller than the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _24.15\times 10^5s^1`$. Because $`g(\tau )`$ contains a product of $`G_s(\tau )`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[(q\sigma \tau )^2/2]`$ \[see Eq. (6)\], its decay is determined by the faster decaying function. It is seen from Fig. 5 that the decay of $`g(\tau )`$ is controlled by $`G_s(\tau )`$, which decays faster than $`\mathrm{exp}[(q\sigma \tau )^2/2]`$. It should be noted that in the measurements shown in Fig. 4, the beat signals are analogue ones and we have used a band-pass filter together with a LDV signal analyzer to resolve the beat frequency. Consequently, many low-frequency self-beat signals are filtered out. This low-frequency cut-off is apparent in Fig. 4. The measurements of $`g(\tau )`$, on the other hand, are carried out in the photon counting mode, and therefore the measured $`g(\tau )`$ is sensitive to all the self-beat signals as well as the cross beat signals. With a simple counting of particle pairs, we find that the probability for cross beating is only twice larger than that for the self-beating.

### B Local velocity measurements

We now discuss the local velocity measurements using the new optical arrangement shown in Fig. 2(a). The velocity measurements are conducted on a freely suspended flowing soap film driven by gravity. Details about the apparatus has been described elsewhere, and here we mention only some key points. $`2\%`$ solution of detergent and water is introduced at a constant rate between two long vertical nylon wires, which are held apart by small hooks. The width of the channel (i.e., the distance between the two nylon wires) is 6.2 cm over a distance of 120 cm. The measuring point is midway between the vertical wires. The soap solution is fed, through a valve, onto an apex at the top of the channel. The film speed $`\overline{v}`$, ranging from 0.5 to 3 m/s, can be adjusted using the valve. The soap film is approximately 2-6 $`\mu m`$ in thickness and is seeded with micron-sized latex particles, which scatter light from a collimated laser beam. The light source is an argon-ion laser having a total power of 1W. The incident laser beam is oriented perpendicular to the soap film and the scattered light is collected in the forward direction.

To measure the rapidly changing beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1`$, we build a fast digital correlator board for PC. With a fast sampling rate $`f_s`$, the plug-in correlator board records the time-varying intensity I(t) (number of TTL pulses from the photomultiplier tube per sample time) over a short period of time T and then calculates the (unnormalized) intensity autocorrelation function, $`A(\tau )=I(t+\tau )I(t)`$. Figure 6 shows an example of the measured $`A(\tau )`$ as a function of delay time $`\tau `$ with T = 30 ms and $`f_s=14.32`$ MHz. Because the burst signal I(t) is a periodic function of t, the measured $`A(\tau )`$ becomes an oscillatory function of $`\tau `$. The frequency of the oscillation apparent in the inset (a) is the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _1`$. The amplitude of the oscillation decays at large $`\tau `$. The inset (b) shows the power spectrum $`P(f)`$ of the measured $`A(\tau )`$; it reveals a dominant peak at 755.1 kHz. The power spectrum is obtained using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) program.

To increase the sampling rate of the velocity measurements, one needs to keep the measuring time T for each $`A(\tau )`$ as short as possible. The signal-to-noise ratio for $`A(\tau )`$ decreases with shorter measuring time T and with lower mean photon count rate, which was $`1`$ MHz in the present experiment. It is found that the shortest useful measuring time $`T_c`$ is roughly $`50\mu s`$. For this value of T, $`A(\tau )`$ is quite noisy and the corresponding peak in $`P(f)`$ becomes less pronounced \[see Fig. 7 and inset (a)\]. It is worth mentioning that if one only wants to know the periodicity of a function, rather than its actual power at different frequencies, the Scargle-Lomb method is a better alternative to FFT. This method, which does not require evenly spaced sampling, compares the measured data with known periodic signals using the least-square fitting procedure and determines the relevant frequencies by the goodness of the fit $`Q(f)`$. It can even utilize the uneven sampling to further increase the Nyquist frequency. As shown in Fig. 7(b), the Scargle-Lomb method can still clearly identify the periodicity of the signal, even when the power spectrum $`P(f)`$ \[Fig. 7(a)\] becomes less reliable. The total time required for the measurement of the characteristic frequency is less than 1 ms. Using the correlator board together with an average speed PC (300 MHz), we are able to conduct accurate measurements of the local velocity with a sampling rate up to 1 kHz.

## IV Summary

We have developed new optical arrangements with two single-mode input fibers and a fiber-optic coupler to measure the local velocity $`𝐯(𝐱)`$ and the velocity difference, $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})=𝐯(𝐱+\mathrm{})𝐯(𝐱)`$, between two spatial points separated by a distance $`\mathrm{}`$. The fibers and the coupler are polarization preserving to guarantee a high signal-to-noise ratio. To measure the velocity difference $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$, the two input fibers are used to collect the scattered light with the same momentum transfer vector $`𝐪`$ but from two spatially separated regions in a flow. These regions are illuminated by a single coherent laser beam, so that the collected signals interfere when combined via the fiber-optic coupler. The resultant light received by a photomultiplier tube therefore contains the beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2=𝐪\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{})`$. We analyzed the beat signals using two different devices and compared the results. First, the intensity auto-correlation function $`g(\tau )`$ was measured using a digital correlator. Secondly, a standard LDV signal processor was used to determine the instantaneous beat frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _2`$. With this device, $`\delta 𝐯(\mathrm{},𝐭)`$ can be obtained in real time. The technique can be further developed to measure one component of the local flow vorticity vector $`\stackrel{}{\omega }(𝐱,t)=\times 𝐯(𝐱,t)`$.

To measure the instantaneous local velocity itself, one needs only to reorient the two fibers so that they point to the same scattering volume. With this optical arrangement, we have three alternatives to measure a velocity component. They employ (i) an analog photodetector and a standard LDV signal processor (burst detector), (ii) a commercial photon correlator, such as that made by ALV, and finally (iii) a home-made digital correlator. This latter device completes a velocity measurement in less than 1 ms and is orders of magnitude cheaper than the other two alternatives. The new fiber-optic method has several advantages over the standard LDV and can be used widely in the general area of fluid dynamics. Because only one laser beam is needed to obtain two velocity components, a compact single-frequency diode laser can replace a large multi-frequency argon-ion laser. By eliminating the color and beam separation units in the standard LDV, the one-beam scheme is less costly to implement. With more optical fiber pairs and couplers, one can carry out multi-point and multi-component velocity measurements in various turbulent flows.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank M. Lucas and his team for fabricating the scattering apparatus and J. R. Cressman for his contributions. The work done at Oklahoma State University was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Grant No. NAG3-1852 and also in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant No. DMR-9623612. The work done at University of Pittsburgh was supported by NSF Grant No. DMR-9622699, NASA Grant No. 96-HEDS-01-098, and NATO Grant No. DGE-9804461. VKH acknowledges the support from the Hungarian OTKA F17310.


text:
# A study of 𝑏𝑏̄ production mechanisms in PYTHIA 11footnote 1Talk presented at Phenomenology Workshop on Heavy Flavours and CP Violation, Durham UK

## 1 Introduction

CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) is a general purpose experiment under construction at CERN. The description of the apparatus is given elsewhere . CMS will be built on LHC (Large Hadron Collider) a $`pp`$ collider with $`\sqrt{s}`$=14 TeV and a maximum luminosity of $`10^{34}cm^2s^1`$  . One of the main physics topics of the Collaboration will be the study of the B hadron physics. In fact apart from the interest “per se” of this topic, b-jets are also the main background for several other physics channels , . In this article, I present a study on $`b\overline{b}`$ production mechanisms at LHC energies using the Monte Carlo package Pythia  as event generator.
At a hadron collider $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs are produced by the following mechanisms:

1. Pair production (gluon or quark fusion): $`ggb\overline{b}`$, $`q\overline{q}b\overline{b}`$. For each event a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair is produced in the hard interaction.
2. Flavour excitation: $`bqbq`$, $`bgbg`$. A heavy flavour from the parton distribution of one beam particle is put on mass shell by scattering against a parton of the other beam. As $`b`$ quark is not a valence flavour it must come from a branching $`gb\overline{b}`$.
3. Gluon splitting: $`gb\overline{b}`$. It occurs in the initial- or final-state shower but no heavy flavours are produced in the hard scattering.

A more detailed definition of the mechanisms can be found in ref . As these mechanisms give rise to different kinematic configurations of the final state is important to understand their contribution to the total cross section.
The only way to generate (i), (ii) and (iii) in Pythia is using the steering card MSEL=1, which generates QCD $`22`$ events. In order to have higher statistics, and save computation time the user can set kinematic cuts at generation level which limits the available portion of phase space , increasing the efficiency of selection cuts. One of this cuts is the $`\widehat{P_t}`$ cutoff. 222$`\widehat{P_t}`$ is defined as the transverse momentum of the outgoing partons in the center of mass system of the ingoing partons.
In the following sections I will show differences between the use of the Pythia default cutoff (1 GeV) and a 10 GeV cutoff. Three versions of the generator have been considered: 5.75, 6.115 and 6.152 which has been chosen as event generator for the next CMS physics studies.

## 2 $`b\overline{b}`$ production cross sections

Two samples have been prepared with the three versions of Pythia to investigate the influence of the $`\widehat{P_t}`$ cutoff on the production of $`b\overline{b}`$ events. Both of them have been generated using MSEL=1 and contain events with only one $`b\overline{b}`$ pair. The first sample (SAMPLE A) has been generated with the default $`\widehat{P_t}`$ cutoff (1 GeV). The second sample (SAMPLE B) has been generated with $`\widehat{P_t}10`$ GeV. For both samples the $`b\overline{b}`$ production cross section for $`\widehat{P_t}10`$ GeV has been computed using the following formula:

$$\sigma _{b\overline{b}}^{(\widehat{P_t}10GeV)}=\frac{N_{b\overline{b}}^{(\widehat{P_t}10GeV)}}{N_{tot}}\sigma _{tot}$$
(1)
where $`N_{b\overline{b}}^{(\widehat{P_t}10GeV)}`$ is the number of $`b\overline{b}`$ events with $`\widehat{P_t}`$ 10 GeV, $`N^{tot}`$ is the total number of events generated and $`\sigma ^{tot}`$ is the total (QCD $`22`$) cross section given by Pythia . The results of the computation for the three versions of the package are shown in Tab.1 (the values of the cross section are given in $`\mu `$b).

All double countings have been avoided requiring the number of b-quarks coming from the hard interaction to be 2 (pair production), 1 (flavour excitation) or 0 (gluon splitting). As it appears clear from the table for version 5.75 and 6.115 the cross section is $`\widehat{P_t}`$ dependent. The problem is related to flavour excitation which in this two versions cannot be generated with default $`\widehat{P_t}`$ cutoff (sample A). The difference in the $`\sigma _{b\overline{b}}`$ (for sample A) between 5.75 and 6.115 is due to the different choice of the default parton distribution function. The interpretation of the observed phenomena, given by T. Sjöstrand and E. Norrbin, is reported in . In version 6.152 the problem related to flavour excitation has been set but there is still a difference of about 10% between the cross sections of the two samples (for all versions statistical errors can be neglected).
The difference in the value of cross sections is not very important, because the results are usually normalized to the total $`b\overline{b}`$ cross section of 500 $`\mu `$b. On the other hand, the different contributions for the production mechanisms could be more dangerous, as they can lead to different kinematic distributions, and therefore affect the efficiencies for different selections.
Fig. 1 illustrates the difference in the $`b\overline{b}`$ production cross sections due to the additional contribution of the flavour excitation mechanism in sample B.

## 3 Kinematic distributions

The main kinematic parameters which define the signature of $`b\overline{b}`$ event are the transverse momenta and pseudorapidities of the $`b`$ quarks, and the angular distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ between their directions in the transverse plane. The first two parameters have similar distributions in both samples. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution is shown in fig. 2 for the three different mechanisms.

For what concerns gluon splitting, the distribution is slightly peaked at small $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$. The angle between the two $`b`$-quarks produced by the gluon-fusion mechanism has a peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \pi `$, as expected, since in the process $`ggb\overline{b}`$ the b-quarks are produced back-to-back in the transverse plane. The last distribution corresponds to the flavour excitation production mechanism, for which the back-to-back topology is preferred. We can conclude that the total $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distributions of sample A and sample B are slightly different. Some care should be taken about this, as it could affect the estimated efficiency of selection cuts.

## 4 Conclusions

Versions 5.75 and 6.115 show a big discrepancy in the total $`b\overline{b}`$ production cross section when using two different cutoffs on $`\widehat{P_t}`$. The problem is due to flavour excitation which can be generated only in sample B but gluon splitting and pair production are stable and show the same cross section in the two samples. In both versions the use of a different $`\widehat{P_t}`$. cutoff from the default one leads to slightly different $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{b\overline{b}}`$ distributions caused by the presence of flavour excitation.
In version 6.152 everything is set, a part a little inconsistency of about 10% on which I am working in order to understand the cause.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I really thank Andrei Starodumov, Fabrizio Palla and Roberto Dell’Orso who helped me to make this study.
I also would like to thank M. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi for their collaboration and fruitful discussions. Special thanks to T. Sjöstrand and E. Norrbin for detailed explanations of observed Pythia behaviour and recomendations for the generation of $`b\overline{b}`$ events.

## references


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

By using direct numerical simulations  and bubble-visualization experiments , it has been established that turbulence contains vortex tubes. Regions of intense vorticity are organized into tubes. Their radii and lengths are, respectively, of the orders of the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$ and the integral length $`L`$. Their lifetimes are several turnover times of the largest eddies. Vortex tubes occupy a small fraction of the volume, and are embedded in a background flow which is random and of large scales (see also reviews ).

The most familiar model for the tubes is the Burgers vortex . This is an axisymmetric flow in a strain field. In cylindrical coordinates, they are written as

$$u_\theta \frac{2\nu }{ar}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ar^2}{4\nu }\right)\right)\left(a>0\right),$$
(1)
and

$$(u_r,u_\theta ,u_z)=(\frac{1}{2}ar,0,az).$$
(2)
Here $`\nu `$ is the kinetic viscosity. The above equation (1) describes a rigid-body rotation for small radii, and a circulation decaying in radius for large radii. The velocity is maximal at $`r`$ = $`r_0`$ = $`2.24\left(\nu /a\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Thus $`r_0`$ is regarded as the tube radius. The same circulation pattern is expected for the Lamb–Oseen vortex, i.e., an unstretched diffusing tube .

The effect of vortex tubes on the velocity field is of great interest. This is especially the case at high Reynolds numbers, $`Re_\lambda `$ $``$ 100. They are achieved only in experiments, where a measurement is made with a probe suspended in the flow, and merely a one-dimensional cut of the velocity field is obtained. The velocity signal at small scales is enhanced in a fraction of the volume . This small-scale intermittency is attributable to vortex tubes. However, measurements often deal with the velocity component in the mean-flow direction alone (hereafter, the streamwise velocity $`u`$). The transverse velocity $`v`$ is more suited to detecting rotational flows such as those associated with vortex tubes .

This Letter reports simultaneous measurements of the streamwise and transverse velocities in high-Reynolds-number flows behind a grid. Grid turbulence is almost isotropic and free from external influences such as mean shear, and is hence suited to studying universal properties of turbulence . With a conditional averaging technique, we extract typical intermittency patterns, which turn out to agree with velocity profiles of Burgers and Lamb–Oseen vortices. Then energetic importance of the vortex tubes is studied as a function of the scale.

## 2 Experiments

The experiments were done in two wind tunnels of Meteorological Research Institute. Their test sections are of 3 $`\times `$ 2 $`\times `$ 18 and 0.8 $`\times `$ 0.8 $`\times `$ 3 m in size. Turbulence was produced by placing a grid across the entrance to the test section. The grid consists of two layers of uniformly spaced rods, the axes of which are perpendicular to each other. We used three grids. The separation of the axes of their adjacent rods are $`M`$ = 10, 20, and 40 cm. The cross sections of the rods are, respectively, 2 $`\times `$ 2, 4 $`\times `$ 4, and 6 $`\times `$ 6 cm. The mean wind was set to be $`U`$ $``$ 4, 8, or 12 m s-1. We consequently conducted 8 sets of experiments as summarized in Table 1.

The streamwise ($`U+u`$) and transverse ($`v`$) velocities were measured simultaneously with a hot-wire anemometer. The anemometer is composed of a crossed-wire probe and a constant temperature system. The probe was positioned on the tunnel axis at $`d`$ = 2, 3, or 6 m downstream of the grid. The hot wires are 5 $`\mu `$m in diameter, 1.25 mm in effective length, 1.25 mm in separation, and oriented at $`\pm 45^{}`$ to the mean-flow direction. Pitch-angle calibration was done before each of the measurements. The signal was low-pass filtered at $`f_c`$ = 4–12 kHz with 24 dB/octave, and sampled digitally at $`f_s`$ = 8–24 kHz with 16-bit resolution. To avoid aliasing, the sampling frequency was set to be twice of the filter cutoff frequency. The entire length of the signal was as long as 2 $`\times `$ 107 points, since we have to minimize statistical uncertainties.

The turbulence level, i.e., the ratio of the root-mean-square value of the streamwise fluctuation $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ to the mean streamwise velocity $`U`$, was always less than 10% (Table 1). This good characteristic of grid turbulence allows us to rely on the frozen-eddy hypothesis of Taylor, $`/t`$ = $`U/x`$, which converts temporal variations into spatial variations in the mean-wind direction .

To obtain the maximum spatial resolution, we set $`f_c`$ in such a way that $`U/f_c`$ is comparable to the probe size, $`1`$ mm. Since the probe is larger than the Kolmogorov length (see below), the smallest-scale motions of the flow were filtered out. The present spatial resolution is nevertheless typical of hot-wire anemometry . Though the RELIEF technique achieves a greater resolution , it is applicable only to the transverse velocity.

The flow parameters such as the integral length $`L`$, the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$, the Taylor microscale $`\lambda `$, and the Reynolds number $`Re_\lambda `$ are given in Table 1. The $`Re_\lambda `$ values range from 100 to 300. They exceed those in almost all the past studies of grid turbulence . This is because our wind tunnels as well as our grids are large. The present data provide for the first time an opportunity to study vortex tubes in isotropic turbulence at high Reynolds numbers.

## 3 Conditional average

To examine the presence or absence of vortex tubes, we extract typical intermittency patterns in the streamwise ($`u`$) and transverse velocities ($`v`$). The patterns are obtained by averaging the signals centered at the position where the transverse-velocity increment $`\delta v\left(s\right)`$ = $`v\left(x+s\right)v\left(x\right)`$ is enhanced over its root-mean-square value by more than a factor of 3, i.e., $`\left|\delta v\left(s\right)\right|`$ $`>`$ $`3\delta v\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Here the scale $`s`$ is set to be the spatial resolution $`U/f_c`$. Such an event is detected 2–5 times per the integral length. When the increment is negative, we inverse the sign of the $`v`$ signal. The results for experiments 1, 3, 7, and 8 are shown in Fig. 1 (solid lines). We applied the conditional averaging also for the other experiments and with other threshold values. Their results are consistent with those in Fig. 1.

For reference, we show velocity profiles of Burgers vortices (dotted lines). The transverse component is from the circulation flow (1), while the streamwise component is from the radial inflow $`\frac{1}{2}ar`$ of the strain field (2). Here it is assumed that the tube center passes through the probe position and the tube axis is perpendicular to the streamwise and transverse directions. The tube radius $`r_0`$ was determined so as to reproduce the $`v`$ pattern for each of the experiments.

Grid turbulence exhibits nearly the same $`v`$ pattern as that of a Burgers vortex. Tubes are surely ubiquitous at $`Re_\lambda `$ $``$ 100–300. Their radii are estimated to be several of the Kolmogorov length ($`r_0`$ $``$ 6–$`8\eta `$). Since these estimates are well above the $`s`$ values, they should represent typical radii of vortex tubes. Similar tube radii have been obtained from direct numerical simulations .

The $`u`$ pattern of grid turbulence exhibits a trace of the strain field. Thus at least some of the vortex tubes are of Burgers type. However, the observed strain is less significant than those of Burgers vortices. There could exist unstretched tubes such as Lamb–Oseen vortices. In numerical turbulence , vortex tubes are not always oriented to the stretching direction. Once a tube is stretched to a high amplitude, it decouples from the original strain field. This could be the case in grid turbulence .

We applied the conditional averaging to larger values of $`s`$ (not shown here). The velocity patterns for $`s<L`$ have nearly the same shapes as in Fig. 1. However, with increasing the scale $`s`$, the corresponding tube radius $`r_0`$ becomes large, while the amplitude of the $`u`$ pattern becomes small as compared with that of the $`v`$ pattern. Velocity signals at large scales reflect tubes which are inclined to the mean-wind direction. The inclination does not change the shape of the velocity pattern, but the tube radius along the mean-wind direction $`r_{mw}`$ is greater than its true radius . In addition, there could exist large-radius unstretched tubes which are not coupled with the strain field.

Velocity patterns are extracted also for enhancements of the streamwise-velocity increment $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ = $`u\left(x+s\right)u\left(x\right)`$. The results for $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`>`$ $`+3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are shown in Fig. 2, while those for $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`<`$ $`3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are shown in Fig. 3. The $`v`$ pattern, which was obtained by conditioning over the sign of the local slope, is close to a velocity profile of a Burgers or Lamb–Oseen vortex. Thus an enhancement of $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ is caused by a vortex tube. The $`u`$ pattern is explained by the circulation flow (1) crossing the probe at some distance , together with the strain field (2). The event $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`<`$ $`3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is detected two times more frequently than the event $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`>`$ $`+3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. This fact is consistent with the $`u`$ pattern in Fig. 1, which exhibits a negative slope at the tube position.

We comment on controversial results in Figs. 1–3. First, the $`v`$ pattern is somewhat extended as compared with the velocity profile of a Burgers vortex, especially in experiments 7 and 8, where the Reynolds number is high. Vortex tubes in grid turbulence might not be exactly the same as Burgers or Lamb–Oseen vortices. There might exist additional contributions from inclined tubes. Second, the $`u`$ pattern is embedded in a one-sided excursion, $`u`$ $``$ a few tenths of $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`>`$ 0, which extends to $`x`$ $``$ $`\pm L`$. This might be due to an artifact of the frozen-eddy hypothesis. The streamwise velocity has a fluctuation of the order of $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ over the scale $`L`$. Thus the speed at which a vortex tube crosses the probe is higher or lower than the mean wind speed. The observed radius of the tube is accordingly smaller or larger than its $`r_{mw}`$ value. Since the scale $`s`$ is at around the typical radius of vortex tubes, inclined tubes with $`r_{mw}`$ $`>`$ $`s`$ are more numerous than tubes with $`r_{mw}`$ $`<`$ $`s`$. Fast-moving tubes with $`r_{mw}`$ $`>`$ $`s`$ could be captured in our averaging process for the scale $`s`$ and cause the observed $`u`$ excursion. We admit that these interpretations are tentative. It is important to conduct detailed analyses of data obtained under wider ranges of conditions.

## 4 Flatness factor

To study energetic importance of vortex tubes as a function of the scale, we compute the flatness factor of the transverse-velocity increment $`\delta v\left(s\right)`$ = $`v\left(x+s\right)v\left(x\right)`$:

$$\mathrm{flatness}\mathrm{factor}=\frac{\delta v\left(s\right)^4}{\delta v\left(s\right)^2^2}.$$
(3)
The flatness factor serves as a measure of the relative importance between vortex tubes and the background flow at each of the scales. If the velocity increments follow a Gaussian distribution, the flatness factor is equal to 3. If the tail of the probability distribution of the velocity increments is more pronounced than that of a Gaussian, the flatness factor is higher than 3. The velocity-increment distribution observed at $`s`$ $``$ $`L`$, where the background flow is predominant, is close to a Gaussian . On the other hand, the $`v`$ pattern for an enhancement of $`\delta v\left(s\right)`$ at $`s`$ $`<`$ $`L`$ is close to a velocity profile of a Burgers or Lamb–Oseen vortex, i.e., a model for the vortex tubes (§3).

Fig. 4 shows the flatness factor for the transverse velocity $`v`$ in experiments 1, 3, 7, and 8. The abscissa is the scale $`s`$ normalized by the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. We indicate the integral length $`L`$ and the Taylor microscale $`\lambda `$ (arrows). At large scales, the flatness factor is equal to the Gaussian value of 3. This is because the velocity increments reflect the background flow. As the scale is decreased from the integral length, the flatness factor begins to increase. This is due to a progressive contribution of vortex tubes. The tubes affect velocity increments at scales around their observed sizes, which could be as large as their lengths ($`L`$). Around the Taylor microscale, the increase becomes significant.

Fig. 4 also shows the flatness factor for the streamwise velocity $`u`$, which is less enhanced than that for the transverse velocity $`v`$. This finding is consistent with past experimental and numerical studies . From our results in Figs. 2 and 3, the streamwise flatness factor is expected to reflect the energetic importance of vortex tubes, as in the case of the transverse flatness factor. However, the $`u`$ pattern for a vortex tube is less pronounced than the $`v`$ pattern. The circulation flow of a vortex tube contributes to the streamwise velocity only if its axis passes at some distance from the probe. Moreover, the streamwise-velocity increment suffers from the strain field.

The flatness factors in Fig. 4 are displayed in order of increasing the Reynolds number (from top to bottom). There appears to exist a trend of increasing the small-scale flatness. This appearance is confirmed in Fig. 5, which shows the flatness factors at the fixed scales $`s`$ = $`10\eta `$ (a) and $`\lambda `$ (b). Those for the streamwise and transverse velocities increase in a similar manner with the $`Re_\lambda `$ value. In both the velocity components, vortex tubes are increasingly predominant over the background flow at a higher Reynolds number. The increase of the flatness factors is more significant at the smaller scale $`s`$ = $`10\eta `$, where the background flow is less important. We also studied the flatness factors at $`s`$ $``$ $`L/2`$ (not shown here), which appear to depend on the grid size $`M`$ rather than the $`Re_\lambda `$ value.

## 5 Conclusion

To summarize, vortex tubes are important to the intermittency pattern of the transverse velocity at $`Re_\lambda `$ $``$ 100–300. The pattern is well approximated as a velocity profile of a Burgers or Lamb–Oseen vortex, if its radius is several of the Kolmogorov length (Fig. 1). The strain field associated with the tube is present in the streamwise velocity. With increasing the Reynolds number, vortex tubes become more predominant over the background flow (Figs. 4 and 5). We believe that these findings are new and convincing, owing to long records of both the streamwise and transverse velocities in isotropic turbulence at high Reynolds numbers. Similar experiments of grid turbulence at much higher Reynolds numbers, $`Re_\lambda `$ $``$ 300, would be crucial to proceed further .

This work was financially supported in part as ‘basic atomic energy research’ by the Science and Technology Agency, Japan. The authors are grateful to the referee for useful comments and M. Takaoka for interesting discussion.

Table 1. Summary of experimental conditions and turbulence characteristics: grid size $`M`$, distance from the grid $`d`$, sampling frequency $`f_s`$ = $`2f_c`$, mean wind speed $`U`$, root-mean-square values of the streamwise and transverse fluctuations $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`v^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$, mean energy dissipation rate $`\epsilon `$ = $`15\nu (u/x)^2`$, integral length $`L`$ = $`u(x+s)u(x)/u^2ds`$, Taylor microscale $`\lambda `$ = $`(u^2/(u/x)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$ = $`(\nu ^3/\epsilon )^{\frac{1}{4}}`$, and Reynolds number $`Re_\lambda `$ = $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda /\nu `$. Velocity derivatives were obtained as $`u/x`$ = $`(8u(x+\mathrm{\Delta })8u(x\mathrm{\Delta })u(x+2\mathrm{\Delta })+u(x2\mathrm{\Delta }))/12\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the sampling interval $`U/f_s`$. The experiments 1 and 2 were made in the 0.8 $`\times `$ 0.8 $`\times `$ 3 m tunnel, while the other experiments were made in the 3 $`\times `$ 2 $`\times `$ 18 m tunnel. To check the isotropy, the transverse velocity was also used to compute the $`L`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\eta `$ values, via the relations $`L`$ = $`2v(x+s)v(x)/v^2ds`$ and $`(u/x)^2`$ = $`(v/x)^2/2`$. The $`L`$ value derived from the $`v`$ data is smaller by a factor of 0.5–0.6 than that derived from the $`u`$ data. Thus our grid turbulence is anisotropic at largest scales. On the other hand, the $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta `$ values derived from the $`v`$ data agree with those derived from the $`u`$ data within $``$ 1%. The exceptions are the results for experiments 1 and 2, where the discrepancy is 10–20%. This anisotropic character is consistent with the fact that their measured ratios of $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}/v^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are not very close to unity.

| exp. | $`M`$ | $`d`$ | $`f_s`$ | $`U`$ | $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ | $`v^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ | $`\nu `$ | $`\epsilon `$ | $`L`$ | $`\lambda `$ | $`\eta `$ | $`Re_\lambda `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | cm | m | kHz | m s-1 | m s-1 | m s-1 | cm2 s-1 | m2 s-3 | cm | cm | cm |  |
| 1 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 4.76 | 0.234 | 0.193 | 0.145 | 0.282 | 9.75 | 0.650 | 0.0322 | 105 |
| 2 | 10 | 2 | 16 | 9.60 | 0.475 | 0.406 | 0.145 | 2.01 | 9.97 | 0.494 | 0.0197 | 162 |
| 3 | 20 | 3 | 8 | 4.27 | 0.257 | 0.255 | 0.147 | 0.182 | 16.1 | 0.897 | 0.0364 | 157 |
| 4 | 20 | 3 | 16 | 8.38 | 0.506 | 0.500 | 0.147 | 1.45 | 17.1 | 0.624 | 0.0216 | 215 |
| 5 | 20 | 3 | 24 | 12.7 | 0.767 | 0.761 | 0.149 | 4.90 | 17.6 | 0.518 | 0.0161 | 267 |
| 6 | 40 | 6 | 8 | 4.39 | 0.220 | 0.213 | 0.147 | 0.0718 | 17.2 | 1.22 | 0.0459 | 182 |
| 7 | 40 | 6 | 16 | 8.70 | 0.446 | 0.427 | 0.147 | 0.595 | 17.2 | 0.858 | 0.0270 | 260 |
| 8 | 40 | 6 | 24 | 13.0 | 0.665 | 0.642 | 0.149 | 2.09 | 15.6 | 0.688 | 0.0199 | 307 |

## Figure captions

Conditional averages of the streamwise ($`u`$) and transverse ($`v`$) velocities for $`\left|\delta v\left(s\right)\right|`$ $`>`$ $`3\delta v\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`s`$ = $`U/f_c`$. The abscissa is the spatial position $`x`$ normalized by the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. The velocities are normalized by the $`v^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ value. For experiments 1, 3, 7, 8, respectively, the peak amplitudes correspond to 0.179, 0.198, 0.276, and 0.443 m s-1. The values of $`3\delta v\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}/v^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are 0.778, 0.498, 0.527, and 0.647. The detection rates per the integral length are 1.99, 4.00, 4.51, and 4.00. The profiles of Burgers vortices are shown with dotted lines. Their radii $`r_0`$ are $`5.54\eta `$, $`7.35\eta `$, $`6.03\eta `$, and $`8.15\eta `$.

Conditional averages of the streamwise ($`u`$) and transverse ($`v`$) velocities for $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`>`$ $`+3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`s`$ = $`U/f_c`$. The abscissa is the spatial position $`x`$ normalized by the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. The velocities are normalized by the $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ value. For experiments 1, 3, 7, 8, respectively, the peak amplitudes correspond to 0.256, 0.260, 0.354, and 0.538 m s-1. The values of $`3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}/u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ are 0.529, 0.346, 0.359, and 0.445. The detection rates per the integral length are 0.464, 0.938, 1.16, and 1.16.

Conditional averages of the streamwise ($`u`$) and transverse ($`v`$) velocities for $`\delta u\left(s\right)`$ $`<`$ $`3\delta u\left(s\right)^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`s`$ = $`U/f_c`$. The abscissa is the spatial position $`x`$ normalized by the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. The velocities are normalized by the $`u^2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ value. For experiments 1, 3, 7, 8, respectively, the peak amplitudes correspond to 0.246, 0.248, 0.338, and 0.518 m s-1. The detection rates per the integral length are 1.08, 2.18, 2.37, and 2.04.

Flatness factor of the increments of the streamwise ($`u`$) and transverse ($`v`$) velocities. The abscissa is the scale $`s`$ normalized by the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. Arrows denote the integral length $`L`$ and the Taylor microscale $`\lambda `$. Dotted lines denote the Gaussian value of 3.

Flatness factor of the velocity increments at $`s`$ = $`10\eta `$ (a) and $`s`$ = $`\lambda `$ (b). The abscissa is the Reynolds number $`Re_\lambda `$. Open circles denote the streamwise velocity while filled circles denote the transverse velocity. We also show the experiment numbers. The scale $`s`$ = $`10\eta `$ is, roughly speaking, the minimum scale resolved in all the experiments.