text:
# Thermal and electromagnetic properties of 166Er and 167Er

## I Introduction

The energy distribution of primary $`\gamma `$-rays provides information on both the level density and the $`\gamma `$-ray strength function. The present aim is to study the level density and $`\gamma `$-strength function of the nuclei 166,167Er and to compare with other nuclei in this mass region. In addition, thermodynamic and electromagnetic properties of the two nuclei will be investigated.

Most of the experimental information on the level density of rare earth nuclei originates from the neutron-resonance spacing at the neutron-separation energy  and direct counting of levels in the vicinity of the ground state . Experimental knowledge of the $`\gamma `$-strength function is mainly based on the study of photo-absorption cross sections  and radiative neutron capture .

A new method  derives the level density and $`\gamma `$-strength function simultaneously from a set of primary $`\gamma `$ spectra. This technique has proven to give a valuable supplement to the more traditional methods for level density extraction, and to our knowledge, it represents the least model-dependent method to obtain the $`\gamma `$ strength function over a wide energy region below the neutron-separation energy.

The nuclear level density is closely related to the thermodynamic properties of nuclei, and can therefore be utilized to deduce e.g. entropy, temperature and heat capacity of nuclei. The thermodynamic observables may reveal phase transitions.

The $`\gamma `$-strength function is a measure for the average electromagnetic properties of nuclei and has a fundamental importance for the understanding of nuclear structure and reactions involving $`\gamma `$ rays . At $`3`$ MeV of $`\gamma `$ energy, a bump is observed in the $`\gamma `$-strength function of rare earth nuclei from (3He,$`\alpha `$) experiments , and is probably of the same origin as the pygmy resonance found in $`(n,\gamma )`$ reactions .

Section II describes the experimental methods. In Sect. III the experimental level density and $`\gamma `$-strength function of 166Er and 167Er are obtained. Section IV examines thermodynamic properties within the micro-canonical and the canonical ensemble, while electromagnetic properties of the two nuclei are discussed in Sect. V. Concluding remarks are given in Sect. VI.

## II Experimental method and techniques

The experiment was carried out at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory. The reactions employed were the neutron pick-up (3He,$`\alpha \gamma `$) and the inelastic scattering (3He,3He’$`\gamma `$) with a beam energy of $`45`$ MeV, populating 166Er and 167Er with high excitation energy and low spin. The $`Q`$-value of the (3He,$`\alpha `$)-reaction is $`14.142`$ MeV. The self-supporting 167Er target was isotopically enriched to $`95.6`$% and had a thickness of $`1.5`$ mg/cm2.

The charged particles and $`\gamma `$ rays were recorded with the detector array CACTUS , which contains 8 Si particle telescopes and 27 NaI $`\gamma `$-ray detectors. Each telescope is placed at an angle of 45 relative to the beam axis, and comprises one Si front and one Si(Li) back detector with thickness $`140`$ and $`3000`$ $`\mu `$m, respectively. The NaI $`\gamma `$-detector array, having a resolution of $`6`$ % at $`\gamma `$ energy $`E_\gamma =1`$ MeV and a total efficiency of $`15`$ %, surrounds the target and particle detectors. In addition, two Ge detectors were used to monitor the spin distribution and selectivity of the reactions.

The excitation energy of the resulting 166Er and 167Er nuclei are determined by means of reaction kinematics of the ejectile. By setting proper gates in the particle spectra, each coincident $`\gamma `$ ray can be assigned to a $`\gamma `$ cascade originating from a specific excitation energy. The data are sorted into a matrix of $`(E,E_\gamma )`$ energy pairs, $`E`$ being the excitation energy. Examples of the recorded $`\gamma `$ spectra, the so called raw spectra, from two excitation energies are shown in the left panel of Figs. 1 and 2 for 166Er and 167Er, respectively. Note that the statistics of 167Er is about twice as good as for 166Er, since the (3He,3He’) reaction has a higher cross section than the (3He,$`\alpha `$) reaction.

In order to determine the true $`\gamma `$-energy distribution, the $`\gamma `$ spectra are corrected for the response of the NaI detectors with the unfolding procedure of Ref. . Unfolded $`\gamma `$ spectra are shown in the central panel of Figs. 1 and 2 for the two nuclei.

The now corrected $`(E,E_\gamma )`$ matrix comprises the $`\gamma `$-energy distribution of the total $`\gamma `$ cascade, and make it possible to derive the primary $`\gamma `$ matrix according to the subtraction technique of Refs. . Primary $`\gamma `$ spectra can be seen in the right panel of Figs. 1 and 2.

The method of extracting the primary $`\gamma `$ spectra is based on the assumption that the decay properties of a bin of excited states are independent of whether the states are directly populated through the nuclear reaction or from de-excitation from higher excited states. This is believed to be approximately fulfilled because the long life time of excited states give the nucleus time to thermalize prior to the $`\gamma `$ decay.

## III Extraction of level density and $`\gamma `$-ray strength function

The primary $`\gamma `$ matrix provides information on both the level density and the $`\gamma `$-ray strength function, enabling a simultaneous determination of the two functions. The fundamental assumption behind the extraction procedure is the Brink-Axel hypothesis , where the probability of $`\gamma `$-decay in the statistical regime, represented by the primary $`\gamma `$ matrix $`P(E_i,E_\gamma )`$, can be expressed simply as a product of the final-state level density $`\rho (EE_\gamma )`$ and a $`\gamma `$-energy dependent factor $`F(E_\gamma )`$

$$P(E,E_\gamma )F(E_\gamma )\rho (EE_\gamma ).$$
(1)
The $`\gamma `$-energy dependent factor is proportional to $`_{XL}E_\gamma ^{2L+1}f_{XL}(E_\gamma )`$, where $`f_{XL}(E_\gamma )`$ is the $`\gamma `$-ray strength function for the multipolarity $`XL`$.

During the last few years a method for simultaneous deduction of level density and $`\gamma `$-strength function from primary $`\gamma `$ spectra has been developed at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory . In the previously published results on 166Er , the level densities and $`\gamma `$-strength functions were still unnormalized. The procedure is now fully replaced by an iteration technique deriving the level density and the $`\gamma `$-energy dependent factor by a $`\chi ^2`$-fit to the experimental primary $`\gamma `$ spectra . This technique is described in detail in Ref. , and only an outline of the normalization procedures is given here. It is important to note that the extracted experimental quantity $`\rho `$ is in fact the density of levels accessible to the nuclear system in the $`\gamma `$-decay process. This quantity is interpreted as the level density, but may be influenced by selection rules in the $`\gamma `$ decay. For a thermalized nucleus in the continuum, the interpretation is approximately valid .

Equation (1) has an infinite number of solutions. It can be shown  that all equally good solutions of Eq. (1) can be obtained by the transformations

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(EE_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (EE_\gamma )]\rho (EE_\gamma ),`$ (2)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}(E_\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`B\mathrm{exp}(\alpha E_\gamma )F(E_\gamma )`$ (3)
of any particular solution ($`\rho ,F`$). Consequently, neither the slope nor the absolute value of the two functions can be obtained through the iteration procedure, but the three variables $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`\alpha `$ of Eqs. (2) and (3) have to be determined independently to give the best physical solution of the level density and $`\gamma `$-strength function.

### A The level density

The parameters $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ of Eq. (2) can be determined by fitting the level density from the iteration procedure to the number of known discrete levels  at low excitation energy and to the level density estimated from neutron-resonance spacing data at high excitation energy . This normalization procedure is shown for 167Er in the right panel of Fig. 3. The deduced level density is fitted to the discrete levels (between the arrows in the upper panel of Fig. 3) as far up in energy as we can assume that all levels are known. At high excitation energies the deduced level density is fitted (between the arrows in the lower panel of Fig. 3) to a Fermi-gas approximation of the level density (line) forced to pass through the level-density estimate at the neutron-separation energy (filled square) obtained from the neutron-resonance spacing data.

Unfortunately, 165Er is an unstable nucleus ($`T_{1/2}=10.36`$ h), making the neutron capture 165Er(n,$`\gamma `$)166Er difficult to investigate. Thus, there is no neutron-resonance data available for 166Er. In this case the level density at the neutron-separation energy is estimated with the Fermi-gas expression

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{exp}(2\sqrt{aU})}{12\sqrt{2}a^{1/4}U^{5/4}\sigma },$$
(4)
where the level density parameter $`a=0.21A^{0.87}`$, the shifted excitation energy $`U=EC_1\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the spin-cutoff parameter $`\sigma `$ is defined by $`\sigma ^2=0.0888\sqrt{aU}A^{2/3}`$, while $`A`$ is the mass number, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the pairing-gap parameter and $`C_1=6.6A^{0.32}`$. All parameters are calculated according to Ref. , which provides a level density in acceptable agreement with the experimental level density at the neutron-separation energy for 167Er. Also the nuclei 161,162Dy and 171,172Yb show conformity between the experimental and theoretical level density at the neutron-separation energy . The left panel of Fig. 3 shows the normalization of 166Er, where the open square represents the theoretically calculated level density at the neutron-separation energy with an error of $`80`$.

The normalized level density of 166Er is compared to the level densities of 162Dy and 172Yb  in the left panel of Fig. 4. The three level-density functions coincide well at high excitation energies, indicating that the chosen value for the level density at the neutron-separation energy for 166Er is reasonable. For excitation energies below $`1.9`$ MeV the experimental level density of the erbium nucleus is seen to be lower than for the two others. In this energy region most levels in the three nuclei are believed to be known. From counting of known levels , it is found that between $`1.1`$ and $`1.9`$ MeV, the level density of 162Dy and 172Yb indeed exceed the level density of 166Er with the same degree as observed experimentally.

The right panel of Fig. 4 compares the level density of 167Er with the level densities of 161Dy and 171Yb . The two latter nuclei were populated through (3He,$`\alpha `$) reactions. The 171Yb-level density is seen to be lower than the two others below $`1.1`$ MeV. According to , this agrees with reality below $`900`$ keV. Above this limit the level densities from counting of known levels start to decrease, making it evident that not all levels are known.

In Ref.  the level density of 162Dy extracted from two different reaction mechanisms are compared. The primary $`\gamma `$ spectra from the (3He,$`\alpha `$) pick-up reaction and the inelastic (3He,3He’) reaction are found to provide level densities with very good agreement except below $`1`$ MeV of excitation energy. There, the level density obtained from the inelastic 3He scattering overestimates the number of levels by a factor of $`3`$, because this reaction populates more collective excitations with similar structure as the ground-state band. This causes a relatively large $`\gamma `$-transition rate from the direct populated states to the ground band, which in turn gives an overestimation of the level density there. The same is observed in the level density of 172Yb deduced from the inelastic reaction . This effect of overestimation can not be ruled out in the level density of 167Er derived from the (3He,3He’) reaction, however, the experimental data fit the known level density at low excitation energy very well, see Fig. 3. A difference between these (3He,3He’) experiments is the spin of the target nuclei. The 167Er target has a spin of $`7/2`$ making excitations to a large number of states probable, with a resulting fragmentation of collective strength and a lower probability for subsequent $`\gamma `$ transitions directly into the ground-state band than in the even-even nuclei. Thus, the accessible states in the $`\gamma `$ decay seem to approximates the level density quite well.

### B The $`\gamma `$-ray strength function

Blatt and Weisskopf  suggested the ratio of the partial radiative width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E_\gamma )`$ and the level spacing of the initial states $`i`$ with equal spin and parity $`D_i`$ to describe the $`\gamma `$ decay in the continuum. The corresponding definition of the $`\gamma `$-ray strength function is given by $`f_{XL}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(E_\gamma )/(E_\gamma ^{2L+1}D_i)`$, where $`X`$ denotes the electric or magnetic character, and $`L`$ defines the multipolarity of the $`\gamma `$ transition.

After the normalization of the level density, the parameter $`\alpha `$ of Eq. (3) is already fixed, and the slope, i.e. the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha E_\gamma )`$, is included in the $`\gamma `$-energy dependent functions shown for 166Er and 167Er in Fig. 5. Still, the normalization constant $`B`$ of Eq. (3) remains to be determined.

The $`\gamma `$-energy dependent factor $`F(E_\gamma )`$ is proportional to the sum of $`E_\gamma ^{2L+1}f_{XL}(E_\gamma )`$ for all possibilities of $`X`$ and $`L`$. We assume that the $`\gamma `$ decay in the continuum of nuclei with low spin is mainly governed by electric and magnetic dipole radiation and that the accessible levels have equal numbers of positive and negative parity states. Thus, the observed $`F`$ can be expressed by a sum of the E1 and M1 $`\gamma `$-strength functions only:

$$BF(E_\gamma )=[f_{\mathrm{E1}}(E_\gamma )+f_{\mathrm{M1}}(E_\gamma )]E_\gamma ^3.$$
(5)
The average total radiative width of neutron resonances $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$  with excitation energy equal to the neutron-separation energy $`S_n`$, spin $`I`$, and parity $`\pi `$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (S_n,I,\pi )}}{\displaystyle \underset{XL}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{I_f,\pi _f}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{S_n}}dE_\gamma E_\gamma ^{2L+1}f_{XL}(E_\gamma )`$ (7)
$`\rho (S_nE_\gamma ,I_f,\pi _f),`$
can be written in terms of $`F`$ by means of Eq. (5). With the experimental level density $`\rho `$ already normalized, the normalization constant $`B`$ can be deduced. Assuming $`s`$-neutron capture, $`I,\pi `$ take the values $`I_t\pm \frac{1}{2},\pi _t`$, where $`I_t,\pi _t`$ are the spin and parity of the target nucleus in the $`(n,\gamma )`$ reaction. The experimental value of the total radiative width is the average over the possible spins of the compound state ($`I_t\pm \frac{1}{2}`$). Since we expect the $`\gamma `$ decay to be governed by dipole transitions, the second sum is restricted to possible final states with spin $`I_f`$ and parity $`\pi _f`$ accessible by dipole radiation.

The methodical difficulties in the primary $`\gamma `$-ray extraction, prevents determination of the functions $`F(E_\gamma )`$ and $`\rho (E)`$ in the interval $`E_\gamma <1`$ MeV and $`E>S_n1`$ MeV, respectively. In addition, the data at the highest $`\gamma `$-energies, above $`E_\gamma S_n1`$ MeV, suffer from poor statistics. Therefore, extrapolations of $`F`$ and $`\rho `$ were necessary in order to calculate the integral of Eq. (7). For the level density a Fermi-gas extrapolation is used (see Fig. 3), and for the $`\gamma `$-energy dependent factor a pure exponential of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(bE_\gamma )`$ is utilized (see Fig. 5). The contribution of the extrapolation to the total radiative width in Eq. (7) does not exceed $`15`$%, thus the errors due to a possibly poor extrapolation are expected to be of minor importance .

Values for the neutron-resonance radiative width are given in , and for 167Er we find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =92(8)`$ meV. Since the radiative width of 166Er is unknown, its value is taken as the average of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ of the neighbouring isotopes. This is justified by the general slow variance in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ values of neighbouring isotopes for other elements. From interpolation, we thus adopt the value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =90(20)`$ meV for 166Er. The normalized $`\gamma `$-strength functions of 166Er and 167Er are compared to the strength functions of 162Dy and 172Yb, and 161Dy and 171Yb, respectively, in Fig. 6. All strength functions are increasing smoothly with $`\gamma `$ energy except for a bump around $`E_\gamma 3`$ MeV. The $`\gamma `$-strength functions of neighbouring isotopes display a striking qualitative similarity. This can be expected for nuclei with approximately the same charge distribution. The location of the bump can however be seen to move towards higher $`\gamma `$ energies with increasing mass number.

## IV Thermodynamic properties

For a statistical description of hot nuclei, the micro-canonical thermodynamics is the proper theory. Within this frame, the system is isolated, giving a well defined energy. However, the canonical ensemble, permitting heat exchange, and the grand-canonical ensemble, which in addition allows particle exchange, are often used due to mathematical difficulties with detailed calculations within the micro-canonical ensemble. In this work, both the micro-canonical and the canonical ensemble will be utilized to discuss thermodynamic properties of the 166,167Er nuclei experimentally.

In particular we will focus on different ways, within the two ensembles, to obtain experimental values of the critical temperature for the pair-breaking process and the general quenching of pair correlations. The micro-canonical ensemble gives a detailed description of the breaking of one, two, three,… nucleon pairs as a function of excitation energy, while the canonical ensemble reveals the general average properties of this phase-like transition. The proper definition of thermally driven first- and second-order phase transitions in systems with few particles is a long standing problem, which will not be discussed in the present experimental work.

### A Micro-canonical ensemble

The micro-canonical partition function is simply the multiplicity of nuclear states, which experimentally corresponds to the level density of accessible states. Thus, the experimental level density $`\rho (E)`$ is our starting point for the extraction of thermodynamic properties of nuclei.

The entropy is determined by

$$S(E)=S_0+\mathrm{ln}\rho (E),$$
(8)
where the Boltzmann constant for simplicity is set to unity ($`k_B1`$), and the normalization constant $`S_0`$ can be adjusted to fulfill the condition of the third law of thermodynamics; $`S0`$ when $`T0`$, $`T`$ being the nuclear temperature

$$T(E)=\left(\frac{S}{E}\right)^1.$$
(9)
The ground-state band of even-even nuclei is assumed to have $`T=0`$. Therefore, $`S_0`$ is determined so that the entropy of the ground-state band in 166Er is approximately zero.

Figures 7 and 8 show the entropy and the temperature, respectively, deduced in the micro-canonical ensemble for 166Er and 167Er. The entropy curve plotted in a linear scale is essentially identical to the level-density curve in a logarithmic scale. The small bumps in the entropy curves of Fig. 7 are enhanced through the differentiation performed in Eq. (9) to obtain the temperatures of Fig. 8.

The specific heat can be determined from differentiating the temperature

$$C_V(E)=\left(\frac{T}{E}\right)^1$$
(10)
and is displayed in the lower panel of Fig. 8 for 166Er and 167Er. The double differentiation of the entropy has introduced strong fluctuations in the specific heat. Still it is distinct that the oscillations in the temperature give rise to successive positive and negative heat capacity. The spectacular feature of negative heat capacity is a direct consequence of the decrease in the micro-canonical temperature, and has recently been observed experimentally in the critical region of nuclear fragmentation in Au quasi-projectile sources formed in Au+Au collisions .

An anomalous decrease in the temperature means an unusual increase in the entropy, i.e. a more than normal opening of new domains of the phase space, e.g. opening of new degrees of freedom as more particle pairs are broken. The successive bumps of Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that the transition from a paired to an unpaired phase is a gradual process of breaking up more and more nucleon pairs.

When we interpret the area of negative heat capacity, corresponding to the region where the temperature has a negative slope, as the location of the break up of a nucleon pair, a signal of the break up of the first pair can be seen around $`E1.5`$ MeV in 167Er in Fig. 8. This value is close to twice the pairing-gap parameters $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_n=1.7`$ MeV and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_p=1.5`$ MeV, which are the expected cost of breaking of a neutron and proton pair, respectively. The pairing-gap parameters are calculated from the empirical masses of a sequence of isotopes or isotones  of 167Er. The first negative slope in the temperature as a function of excitation energy in 161Dy, 162Dy, 171Yb, and 172Yb  also coincide roughly with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A similar argument is however less successful for 166Er. Deviations from $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the localization of the break up of the first pair of particles can be due to the influence of several structural effects in the nuclei, such as e.g. the Fermi-level position in the Nilsson single-particle scheme, variation in the density of single-particle orbitals, and two quasi-particle couplings to collective degrees of freedom.

It has been shown  that phase transitions of finite-size systems can be observed in the micro-canonical ensemble without invoking the thermodynamic limit. According to , a phase transition of first order can be recognized from the caloric curve in the region of co-existing phases, i.e. in the excitation energy region where the phase transition takes place. There, both the phase the system is leaving and the phase the system is attending are existing simultaneously. For this co-existency the system has to “pay” an amount of entropy which is eventually returned as the whole system is converted into the new phase . The non-oriented area between the inverse temperature $`T(E)^1`$ and the line $`T_c^1`$ is twice this entropy. The critical temperature has to satisfy the condition that the oriented area between $`T(E)^1`$ and $`T_c^1`$ equals zero.

The process studied in the present work, namely the breaking of nucleon pairs and the general quenching of pair correlations, deviates from the process of multifragmentation . In the latter process, the geometrical surfaces of the fragments play a crucial role. In the depairing process, the long-range two-nucleon force has correlation lengths longer than the diameter of the nucleus. Thus, the phase-like situation of having a pair coupled or not, reveals no geometrical surface of interaction.

In order to qualitatively analyze our experimental findings along the procedure of Ref. , the excitation energy region around the outstanding bump in the temperature of 167Er is expanded, and the entropy, inverse temperature and heat capacity of 167Er are plotted in Fig. 9. The qualitative similarity with the picture of Ref.  suggests that the general process of breaking a nucleon pair around $`E2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ appears like a phase transition of first order.

Accepting this theoretical result, however, the similar experimental signals of breaking of further nucleon pairs indicate that the process of quenching of pairing correlations is a series of first order phase transitions. This interpretation might seem physically unattractive, and therefore we are anticipating further theoretical clarifications.

The convex shape of the entropy curve of Fig. 9 indicates a transition from the one quasi-particle regime to the three quasi-particle regime. The transition takes place between the two tangent points of the entropy and its enveloping curve (dashed line in the entropy plot). The transition region is marked with two dotted vertical lines. The critical temperature for breaking of the first nucleon pair in 167Er is derived to be $`T_c=0.51(4)`$ MeV (horizontal dashed line in the caloric curve of Fig. 9).

The inter-phase entropy***As stated above, these phases are not physically separated. could in principle be expected to be equal to the envelope entropy, that is, an interpolation of the entropies before and after the pair-breaking process. But compared to this expectation, the entropy is seen to be lowered by $`0.6`$ units, corresponding to the sum of the primary loss and the final gain in entropy through the transition. It is unclear how this entropy-mixing contribution shall be interpreted in a small nuclear system.

The first law of thermodynamics states that supplied heat equals the change in internal energy plus the work performed by the system: $`dQ=dE+dW`$. Since the nucleus is an isolated system the work $`dW`$ is zero, and the increase in energy equals the supplied heat through the phase transition. In macroscopic systems, where the temperature is constant through a phase transition of first order, this increase in energy is the latent heat. We interpret the transition-region energy of approximately $`1.8`$ MeV (see Fig. 9) as the latent heat, even though the temperature is not constant. We note that this value is also very close to the expected cost $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, of breaking up a particle pair. The dashed lines in the specific heat are purely meant as guiding lines towards the theoretical prediction of poles between the successive positive and negative branches.

The derivative of the entropy-envelope curve in Fig. 9 equals the critical temperature. The somewhat stronger concave shape of the micro-canonical entropy of 167Er compared to 166Er (see Fig. 7) suggests that increasing temperature is necessary to break further nucleon pairs of 167Er, whereas the critical temperature for breaking of particle pairs is rather constant in 166Er. After the break up of the first particle pair in 167Er, the slope of the entropy becomes however more constant. A linear fit to the entropy above $`E2`$ MeV gives a critical temperature of $`0.53(10)`$ MeV for 166Er and $`0.55(4)`$ MeV for 167Er, indicating that the critical temperature for breaking of nucleon pairs in 167Er has a slight increase. This can be understood from the blocking effect of the unpaired nucleon, increasing the distance to the Fermi surface for low-lying orbitals with coupled pairs.

The critical temperature for breaking of the first particle pair in 167Er could be nicely determined from equal areas in the caloric plot. Unfortunately, the thermodynamic quantities of small systems are strongly fluctuating. Thus, the critical temperature for each back bend of the temperature, e.i. breaking of a particle pair, can generally be difficult to obtain by this method. The slope of the entropy-envelope curve can however always serve as a measure.

### B Canonical ensemble

The transformation from the micro-canonical to the canonical ensemble is performed by the canonical partition function

$$Z(T)=\underset{E=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega (E)e^{E/T}.$$
(11)
The partition function is a Laplace transform of the multiplicity of states $`\omega (E)=\mathrm{\Delta }E\rho (E)`$, where $`\rho (E)`$ is the level density of accessible states in the nuclear reaction at the discrete energy $`E`$ given in energy bins $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

The thermal average of the excitation energy in the canonical ensemble is

$$E(T)=Z^1\underset{E=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E\omega (E)e^{E/T}.$$
(12)
By the Laplace transform in Eq. (11) much of the information contained in the micro-canonical level density becomes smeared out. This smoothing effect can be quantified by the standard deviation for the thermal average of the energy

$$\sigma _E=\sqrt{E^2E^2},$$
(13)
which e.g. gives $`\sigma _E=3`$ MeV at $`E=7`$ MeV. Thus, fine structure in the thermodynamic observables in the micro-canonical ensemble will not be visible in the canonical ensemble. The lines in the upper panel of Fig. 8 display the smooth variance of the canonical temperature as a function of the thermal average of the excitation energy.

The mathematical justification of Eqs. (11) and (12) is that the summation is performed to infinity. However, for the typical temperatures studied here, $`T<1`$ MeV, the level density should be known up to $`40`$ MeV, which was found  to be a sufficiently high upper limit for the summation. The experimental level density is only covering the excitation energy region from zero to about $`S_n1`$ MeV. In the region of and above the neutron-separation energy $`S_n`$, the Fermi-gas model is believed to describe the nuclear properties. Therefore, the experimental level density is extrapolated to higher excitation energies with the Fermi-gas approximation of Ref. , see the solid lines of Fig. 3.

The heat capacity in the canonical ensemble is the derivative of the thermal average of the excitation energy

$$C_V(T)=\frac{<E>}{T},$$
(14)
and it is shown for 166,167Er as a function of the thermal average of the excitation energy in Fig. 8 and as a function of temperature in Fig. 10. The averaging done by the partition function can be seen to provide a smooth energy and temperature dependence of the heat capacity. The heat capacity of both nuclei shows an $`S`$ shape as a function of temperature. This feature is interpreted  as a fingerprint of a phase transition from a state with strong pairing interaction to a state where the pairing correlations are quenched. Because of the smoothing performed by the canonical-partition function, discrete transitions between the different quasi-particle regimes, as observed within the micro-canonical ensemble, are hidden, and only the phase transition related to the quenching of the pair correlations as a whole can be seen.

The shape of the heat-capacity curve is related to the level-density. In general a constant-temperature level density gives a pronounced $`S`$ shape , while a pure Fermi-gas level density provides a linear heat capacity $`C_V=2aT3/2`$; see the dashed lines of Fig. 10. The more prominent $`S`$ shape in 166Er is due to a quicker rise in the heat capacity. This is the same phenomenon as observed in the micro-canonical ensemble, where the concave shape of the 167Er entropy was assigned to the blocking effect of the odd neutron. Shell model Monte Carlo calculations  on various Fe isotopes have shown that the pairing-phase transition is strongly correlated with the suppression of neutron pairs with increasing temperature. It is also observed that the reduction of neutron pairs is much stronger in the even- than in the odd-mass isotopes, giving rise to a more pronounced $`S`$ shape in the even nuclei. The same difference in the heat capacity is also observed experimentally between 161Dy and 162Dy, and 171Yb and 172Yb .

In order to extract a critical temperature for the quenching of pair correlations from the canonical data, two different approaches has been tested. First, the local maximum of the heat capacity relative to the Fermi-gas approximation of Fig. 10 have been determined to be $`0.47(10)`$ MeV for 166Er and $`0.59(10)`$ MeV for 167Er, see the arrows of Fig. 10. This method relies very much on the Fermi-gas extrapolation of the level density. The second approach depends on the assumption that the nuclear level density can be approximated by a constant-temperature expression at low excitation energies. Within the canonical ensemble this assumption provides the relations

$$T^1=E(T)^1+\tau ^1,$$
(15)
$$C_V(T)=(1T/\tau )^2,$$
(16)
where $`\tau `$ is the constant-temperature parameter. By fitting $`T^1`$ as a function of $`E(T)^1`$ to a straight line of slope $`1`$, $`\tau `$ can be determined. To minimize the dependency of the extracted critical temperature on the extrapolated level density, the fit is performed between $`E(T)0.52`$ MeV. According to Eq. (12) this corresponds to energies in the level density curve up to $`6`$ MeV. Then $`\tau `$ is identified with the critical temperature, since $`C_V(T)`$ has a pole at $`T=\tau `$. The critical temperature is determined to $`T_c=0.44(10)`$ MeV for 166Er and $`T_c=0.52(9)`$ MeV for 167Er. The dashed-dotted lines of Fig. 10 describe Eq. (16) with asymptotes at $`\tau =T_c`$.

The different values derived for $`T_c`$ are quoted in Table I. The micro-canonical caloric-curve method (Fig. 9) is only supposed to provide the critical temperature for breaking of the first particle pair, while the others should give the critical temperature for the total quenching of the pairing correlations. The canonical constant-temperature approach relies on experimental data, but it can be questionable whether Eqs. (15) and (16) describes the nucleus well at low excitation energies. The method of deducing $`T_c`$ from the local maximum of the canonical heat capacity relative to the Fermi-gas approximation depends highly on the extrapolation of the level density. The most straight forward method is to obtain the temperature directly from the slope of the micro-canonical entropy. There seem to be a tendency for the critical temperature in 166Er to be slightly lower than in 167Er. All results are however equal within the approximated uncertainties, with a mean value of $`0.5(1)`$ MeV for both nuclei.

The results for 166Er agrees with recent finite-temperature Hartree Fock Bogoliubov calculations for 164Er , in which the critical-temperature estimate extracted is $`0.7`$ MeV. This value is somewhat higher than the present derived result for 166Er. This diversity is probably due to application of different interpretations of where exactly the phase transition takes place. Since the shapes of the heat-capacity curves of 164Er and 166Er are practically identical, we assume that the calculated critical temperature for quenching of pair correlations in 164Er coincides with the experimental findings for 166Er.

Relativistic Hartree-BCS calculations  also find the proton and neutron pairing gaps to vanish around $`0.40.5`$ MeV of temperature in 166Er and 170Er. The heat capacity shows two peaks corresponding to these events, characteristic of second order phase transitions from superfluid to normal phase . Thus theoretically, the pair quenching is calculated to be a phase transition of second order. Provided that negative heat capacity is a sufficient signal, the observed breaking of nucleon pairs in the micro-canonical ensemble appears like first-order phase transitions. The process of breaking one nucleon pair does however not lead to a total quenching of the pair correlations, and may not be described by the same physics as the pairing-phase transition. It is not clear how a series of phase transitions should be interpreted physically.

## V Electromagnetic properties

The $`\gamma `$-strength function is governed by different multipolarities of electric and magnetic character. We assume however, that the $`\gamma `$ decay in the continuum is dominated by dipole transitions and will try to model the $`\gamma `$-strength function theoretically. It is commonly adopted that the E1 strength is determined by the giant electric dipole resonance (GEDR) at high $`\gamma `$ energies. More doubtful is the assumption that the tail of the GEDR governs the E1 strength at low $`\gamma `$ energies when the tail approaches zero . A model  taking into account the energy and temperature dependence of the GEDR width is often utilized to describe the experimental data . The M1 strength function also plays an important role governing the $`\gamma `$ emission for low $`\gamma `$ energies. Experiments indicate the existence of an M1 giant resonance due to spin-flip excitations in the nucleus .

In Fig. 11, the experimental $`\gamma `$-strength function is fitted by a theoretical strength function taking into account both the giant electric dipole resonance and the spin-flip resonance. In addition, a weaker resonance at lower energies is needed in order to fit the experimental data. Because of the much lower strength compared to the GEDR, the resonance is denoted the pygmy resonance. To account for the E1 radiation, the model

$$f_{\mathrm{E1}}(E_\gamma )=\frac{1}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}\frac{0.7\sigma _{\mathrm{E1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{E1}}^2(E_\gamma ^2+4\pi ^2T^2)}{E_{\mathrm{E1}}(E_\gamma ^2E_{\mathrm{E1}}^2)^2}$$
(17)
is adopted. The values for the giant electric dipole resonance parameters $`\sigma _{\mathrm{E1}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{E1}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{E1}}`$ are taken from . The temperature parameter $`T`$ is utilized as a constant fit parameter. The M1 radiation is described by

$$f_{\mathrm{M1}}(E_\gamma )=\frac{1}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2c^2}\frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{M1}}E_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{M1}}^2}{(E_\gamma ^2E_{\mathrm{M1}}^2)^2+E_\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{M1}}^2},$$
(18)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{M1}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{M1}}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{M1}}`$ are the giant magnetic dipole resonance parameters, which are taken from . The pygmy resonance is here described with a similar Lorentzian function $`f_{\mathrm{py}}`$ as Eq. (18), where the pygmy-resonance strength $`\sigma _{\mathrm{py}}`$, width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{py}}`$ and centroid $`E_{\mathrm{py}}`$ have been fitted in order to adjust the total theoretical strength function

$$f=K(f_{\mathrm{E1}}+f_{\mathrm{M1}})+f_{\mathrm{py}}$$
(19)
to the experimental data. The resulting theoretical $`\gamma `$-strength functions are shown as solid lines in Fig. 11. The obtained values of the fitting parameters for the pygmy resonance, the normalization constant $`K`$ and the temperature $`T`$ are given in Table II.

The low-energetic resonance has its centroid at $`E_\gamma =2.98(8)`$ MeV in 166Er and at $`E_\gamma =3.24(7)`$ MeV in 167Er. In $`(n,\gamma )`$ reactions a pygmy resonance is observed  in the energy region $`2.53.5`$ MeV for nuclei of mass 160-176. Both the centroid and the width of the resonance is found  to increase gradually with neutron number. In 166Er the centroid, width and strength of the pygmy resonance are somewhat lower than in 167Er, fitting very well into the systematics of . The enhanced $`\gamma `$ strength around $`3`$ MeV in 161,162Dy and 171,172Yb  also fit into this systematics, indicating that the $`3`$ MeV bump after (3He,$`\alpha `$) and (3He,3He’) reactions probably is of the same origin as the pygmy resonance reported in .

The pygmy resonance has been explained by the enhancement of the E1 $`\gamma `$-strength function . The possibility that it on the contrary is of M1 character can not be excluded. At an excitation energy around $`3`$ MeV, there is a concentration of orbital M1 strength in the weakly collective scissors mode . The scissors mode was first observed in electron-scattering experiments , and is confirmed by the $`(\gamma ,\gamma ^{})`$ reaction . A systematic survey of centroids of observed M1 strength distributions in even-even nuclei in the $`A=134196`$ mass region is given in Ref. , where the scissors mode of 166Er is found to be centered at $`2.961(26)`$ MeV, in perfect agreement with the pygmy resonance found here.

Figure 11 also shows the predicted individual contributions from the giant electric dipole resonance $`f_{E1}`$, the giant magnetic dipole resonance $`f_{M1}`$ and the pygmy resonance $`f_{\mathrm{py}}`$ to the $`\gamma `$-strength function. The strength function is generally dominated by E1 radiation. The M1-strength function $`f_{M1}`$ is always $`20`$% lower than the E1-strength function $`f_{E1}`$. Moreover, the pygmy resonance contributes considerably around $`3`$ MeV.

The normalization constant $`K`$ is close to 1 for 167Er (Table II), showing that the adopted theoretical model reproduces the absolute values of the $`\gamma `$-strength functions very well. The deviation from $`1`$ can be explained by uncertain values of the GEDR parameters for the investigated nuclei and uncertainties in the experimental normalization of the $`\gamma `$-strength functions. Also the $`K`$ value for 166Er is reasonable, provided that the adopted value for the neutron-resonance radiative width is reliable.

## VI Conclusion

Levels in 166Er and 167Er in the excitation region up to the neutron separation energy were populated with the (3He,$`\alpha `$$`\gamma `$) and (3He,3He’$`\gamma `$) reaction, respectively. The level density and $`\gamma `$-ray strength function of 166Er and 167Er are determined from their corresponding primary $`\gamma `$-ray spectra.

Thermodynamic observables are deduced from the level density and display signatures of phase-like transitions within the micro-canonical and the canonical ensemble, interpreted as the transition from a strongly pair-correlated phase to an uncorrelated phase. Micro-canonical thermodynamics give the possibility of investigating the successive breaking of nucleon pairs in detail, information which is hidden in the canonical approach. The canonical ensemble on the other hand, reveals the average properties of the pairing transition. In addition, the canonical ensemble provides an excellent opportunity to study the different mechanisms governing the thermodynamic properties of odd and even systems. The increase in the heat capacity with temperature is much steeper in 166Er than in 167Er, probably due to the tendency of the odd neutron to block higher quasiparticle excitations. Various estimates of the critical temperature for the pairing-phase transition is performed, giving the result $`T_c0.5`$ MeV.

The experimental $`\gamma `$-strength function is fitted by a theoretical strength function, assuming that the $`\gamma `$ decay in the continuum is governed by dipole transitions. The contribution of electric and magnetic dipole radiation to the $`\gamma `$-strength function is recognized. A bump is observed in the $`\gamma `$-strength function at $`3.0`$ and $`3.2`$ MeV in the 166Er and 167Er, respectively, and is probably of the same origin as the pygmy resonance found in the $`(n,\gamma )`$ reaction.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial support from the Norwegian Research Council (NFR) is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Continuous-wave Doppler-cooling of hydrogen atoms with two-photon transitions

## Abstract

We propose and analyze the possibility of performing two-photon continuous-wave Doppler-cooling of hydrogen atoms using the $`1S2S`$ transition. “Quenching” of the $`2S`$ level (by coupling with the $`2P`$ state) is used to increase the cycling frequency, and to control the equilibrium temperature. Theoretical and numerical studies of the heating effect due to Doppler-free two-photon transitions evidence an increase of the temperature by a factor of two. The equilibrium temperature decreases with the effective (quenching dependent) width of the excited state and can thus be adjusted up to values close to the recoil temperature.

Laser cooling of neutral atoms has been a most active research field for many years now, producing a great deal of new physics. Still, the hydrogen atom, whose “simple” structure has lead to fundamental steps in the understanding of quantum mechanics, has not yet been laser-cooled. The recent experimental demonstration of the Bose-Einstein condensation of H adds even more interest on laser cooling of hydrogen . One of the main difficulties encountered in doing so is that all transitions starting from the ground state of H fall in the vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) range (121 nm for the $`1S2P`$ transition), a spectral domain where coherent radiation is difficult to generate. In 1993, M. Allegrini and E. Arimondo have suggested the laser cooling of hydrogen by two-photon $`\pi `$ pulses on the $`1S3S`$ transition (wavelength of 200 nm for two-photon transitions) . Since then, methods for generation of CW, VUV, laser radiation have considerably improved, and have been extensively used in metrological experiments . This technical progress allows one to realistically envisage the two-photon Doppler cooling (TPDC) of hydrogen in the continuous wave regime, in particular for the $`1S2S`$ two-photon transition.

Laser cooling relies on the ability of the atom to perform a great number of fluorescence cycles in which momentum is exchanged with the radiation field. It is well known that $`2S`$ is a long-lived metastable state, with a lifetime approaching one second. From this point of view, the $`1S2S`$ two-photon transition is not suitable for cooling. On the other hand, the minimum temperature achieved via Doppler cooling is proportional to the linewidth of the excited level involved on the process , a result that will be shown to be also valid for TPDC. From this point of view $`2S`$ is an interesting state.

In order to conciliate these antagonistic properties of the $`1S2P`$ transition, we consider in the present work the possibility of using the “quenching”  of the $`2S`$ state to control the cycling frequency of the TPDC process. For the sake of simplicity, we work with a one-dimensional model. We write rate equations describing TPDC on the $`1S2S`$ transition in presence of quenching. The quenching ratio is considered as a free parameter, allowing control of the equilibrium temperature. The cooling method is then in principle limited only by photon recoil effects.

We also develop analytical approaches to the problem. A Fokker-Planck equation is derived, describing the dynamics of the process for temperatures well above the recoil temperature $`T_r`$ (corresponding to the kinetic energy acquired by an atom in emitting a photon). A numerical analysis of the dynamics of the cooling process completes our study.

Let us consider a hydrogen atom of mass $`M`$ and velocity $`v`$ parallel to the $`z`$-axis (Fig. 1) interacting with two counterpropagating waves of angular frequency $`\omega _L`$ with $`2\omega _L=\omega _0+\delta `$, where $`\omega _0/2\pi =2.5\times 10^{14}`$ Hz is the frequency corresponding to the transition $`1S2S`$, and also define the quantity $`k2k_L=2\omega _L/c`$. The shift of velocity corresponding to the absorption of two-photons in the same laser wave is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{}k/M=3.1`$ m/s. We will neglect the frequency separation between $`2S`$ and $`2P`$ states (the Lamb shift – which is of order of 1.04 GHz) and consider that the one-photon spontaneous desexcitation from the $`2P`$ states also shifts the atomic velocity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ randomly in the $`+z`$ or $`z`$ direction. Note that $`T_r=M\mathrm{\Delta }^2/k_B1.2`$ mK for the considered transition ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant). We neglect the photo-ionization process connecting the excited states to the continuum. This is justified by the $`1/E`$ decreasing of the continuum density of states as a function of their energy $`E`$ and by the fact that a monochromatic laser couples the excited levels only to a very small range of continuum levels.

The atom is subjected to a controllable quenching process that couples the $`2S`$ state to the $`2P`$ state (linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}=6.3\times 10^8s^1`$). The adjustable quenching rate is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$. Four two-photon absorption process are allowed: i) absorption of two photons from the $`+z`$-propagating wave (named wave “$`+`$” in what follows), with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and corresponding to the a total atomic velocity shift of $`+\mathrm{\Delta }`$; ii) absorption of two photons from the $`z`$-propagating wave (wave “$``$”), with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and atomic velocity shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; iii) the absorption of a photon in the wave “$`+`$” followed by the absorption of a photon in the wave “$``$”, with no velocity shift and iv) the absorption of a photon in the wave “$``$” followed by the absorption of a photon in the wave “$`+`$”, with no velocity shift. The two latter process are indistinguishable, and the only relevant transition rate is that obtained by squaring the sum of the amplitudes of these process (called $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$). Also, these process are “Doppler-free” (DF) as they are insensitive to the atomic velocity (to the first order in $`v/c`$) and do not shift the atomic velocity. Thus, they cannot contribute to the cooling process. As atoms excited by the DF process must eventually spontaneously decay to the ground state, this process heats the atoms. In the limit of low velocities, the transition amplitude for each of the four processes is the same. One thus expects the DF transitions to increase the equilibrium temperature by a factor of two.

We can easily account for the presence of the quenching by introducing an effective linewidth of the excited level (which, due to the quenching process, is a mixing of the $`2S`$ and $`2P`$ levels) given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_e=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}\text{ }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}}=g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}$$
(1)
with $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_q/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_q+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P})`$. This approximation is true as far as the quenching ratio is much greater than the width of the $`2S`$ state (note that this range is very large, as the width of the $`2S`$ state is about $`10^8`$ times that of the $`2P`$ state).

The two-photon transition rates  are given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}\frac{g}{2}\text{ }\frac{(1+3\delta _{n0})\overline{I}^2}{(\overline{\delta }nKV)^2+g^2/4}$$
(2)
where $`n=\{1,0,1\}`$ describes, respectively, the absorption from the “$``$” wave, DF transitions, and the absorption from the “$`+`$” wave. $`\overline{I}I/I_s`$ where $`I_s`$ is the two-photon saturation intensity, $`\overline{\delta }`$ is the two-photon detuning divided by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}`$, $`Kk\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}=0.26`$ and $`Vv/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The rate equations describing the evolution of the velocity distribution $`n(V,t)`$ and $`n^{}(V,t)`$ for, respectively, atoms in the ground and in the excited level are thus

$$\frac{n(V,t)}{t}=\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V)\right]n(V,t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e}{2}\left[n^{}(V1)+n^{}(V+1)\right]$$
(4)
$$\frac{n^{}(V,t)}{t}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V1)n(V1,t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0n(V,t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V+1)n(V+1,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_en^{}(V,t)\text{.}$$
(5)
The deduction of the above equations is quite straightforward (cf. Fig 1). The first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (4) describes the depopulation of the ground-state velocity class $`V`$ by two-photon transitions, whereas the second term describes the repopulation of the same velocity class by spontaneous decay from the excited level. In the same way, the three first terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (5) describe the repopulation of the excited state velocity class $`V`$ by two-photon transition, and the last term the depopulation of this velocity class by spontaneous transitions. For each term, we took into account the velocity shift ($`VV\pm 1`$) associated with each transition and supposed that spontaneous emission is symmetric under spatial inversion.

For moderate laser intensities, one can adiabatically eliminate the population of excited level. This is valid far from the saturation of the two-photon transitions and reduces the Eqs. (3a-3b) to one equation describing the evolution of the ground-state population:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn(V,t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V)}{2}}\right]n(V,t)+`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left[n(V1,t)+n(V+1,t)\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V2)n(V2,t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(V+2)n(V+2,t)\}`$
Eq.(7) is in fact a set of linear ordinary differential equations coupling the populations of velocity classes separated by an integer: $`V,V\pm 1,V\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$. This discretization exists only in the 1-D approach considered here, but it does not significantly affect the conclusions of our study, while greatly simplifying the numerical approach.

Eqs.(7) can be recast as $`d𝐧/dt=C𝐧,`$ where $`C`$ is a square matrix and $`𝐧`$ is the vector $`(\mathrm{}n(i,t),\mathrm{}n(0,t),n(1,t),\mathrm{})`$. Numerically, the equilibrium distribution is obtained in a simple way as the eigenvector $`𝐧_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐪}}`$ of $`C`$ with zero eigenvalue. In this way, the asymptotic temperature is obtained as :

$$\frac{T}{T_r}=V^2=\frac{\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^2n_{eq}(i)}{\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n_{eq}(i)}$$
(8)
Fig. 2 shows the equilibrium distribution obtained by numerical simulation for $`\overline{\delta }=0.25`$ and $`g=1/3`$. The dotted curve corresponds to the distribution obtained by artificially suppressing DF transitions (i.e., by setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=0`$). As we pointed out earlier, the DF transitions lead to a heating effect. Doppler cooling is efficient mainly for atoms distributed on a range of $`g/K`$ around the velocity $`V=\pm |\overline{\delta }|/K`$  whereas Doppler-free transitions are independent of the velocity; all velocity classes are thus are affected by the heating. As a consequence, DF transitions induce a deformation of the velocity profile, specially for small values of $`g`$ and $`\overline{\delta }`$, superimposing a sharp peak of cold atoms on a wide background of “hot” atoms. In what follows, all numerically calculated-temperatures are deduced form the width of the thin peak of cold atoms.

Eqs. (4) and (5) or Eq. (7) have no exact solution. However, using some reasonable hypothesis, it is possible to develop analytical approaches. The most usual of these approaches is to derive from the above equations a Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) describing the evolution of the velocity distribution. The derivation of the FPE for two-photon cooling follows the standard lines that can be found in the literature (see ). If $`|V|1`$ the coefficients in the resulting equation can be expanded up to second order in $`1/|V|`$ (this is the so-called hypothesis of small jumps). Moreover, if $`K|V||\overline{\delta }|,g`$ the resulting expression can be expanded up to the order $`V`$. The resulting FPE reads

$$\frac{n}{t}=2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}\frac{(Vn)}{V}+\left(2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}{2}\right)\frac{^2n}{V^2}$$
(9)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(0)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/4`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}`$ is the $`V`$-derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ evaluated at $`V=0`$. Multiplying this equation by $`V^2`$ and integrating over $`V`$ one easily obtains:

$$\frac{dV^2}{dt}=4\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}V^2+\left(4\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\right)$$
(10)
As $`V^2=T/T_r`$, this equation shows that the characteristic relaxation time is $`(4\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}})^1=(g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2P}\overline{I}^2\overline{\delta }K)/(4\overline{\delta }^2+g^2)`$.

The equilibrium temperature is then given by

$$\frac{T}{T_r}=\frac{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2}{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}}=\frac{\overline{\delta }^2+g^2/4}{K|\overline{\delta }|}$$
(11)
This results confirms that the Doppler-free two-photon transitions, corresponding to the contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/2=2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in Eq. (11) increase the equilibrium temperature (at least in the range of validity of the FPE) by a factor 2. This fact can also be verified from the numerical simulations, as shown in Fig. 3, where the dotted curve corresponds to the temperature obtained without DF transitions. As in one-photon Doppler-cooling, the equilibrium temperature is independent of the laser intensity (but the time need to achieve cooling obviously increases as the laser intensity diminishes).

Note that the range of validity of the FPE is $`|V|1`$. It thus fails when the temperature approaches the recoil temperature (or, in other words, $`|V|1`$). Fig. 4 shows the dependence of the equilibrium temperature as a function of the detuning for different values of parameter $`g`$. The minimum temperature is clearly reduced by the decreasing of $`g`$, up to values close to the recoil temperature $`T_r`$. Moreover, the figure shows that the minimum temperature generally agrees with the theoretical predictions: it is governed both by the effective linewidth $`g`$ of the excited state and by the detuning, the optimum value being $`\overline{\delta }g/2`$ (in the range of validity of the FPE). A reasonably good agreement between numerical data and the FPE prediction within its range of validity is also observed.

Let us finally note that an interesting practical possibility is to change the quenching parameter as the cooling process proceeds. One starts with a high value of $`g`$ in order to rapidly cool the atoms to a few recoil velocities. Then, the quenching parameter and the detuning are progressively decreased, achieving temperatures of order of the recoil temperature. A detail study of the procedure optimizing the final temperature is however out of the scope of the present paper.

In conclusion, we have suggested and analyzed, both analytically and numerically, the using of $`1S2S`$ two-photon transition together with the quenching of the $`2S`$-state to cool hydrogen atoms to velocities approaching the recoil limit. The quenching ratio gives an additional, dynamically controllable parameter.

Laboratoire de Physique des Lasers, Atomes et Molécules (PhLAM) is UMR 8523 du CNRS et de l’Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille. Centre d’Etudes et Recherches Lasers et Applications (CERLA) is supported by Ministère de la Recherche, Région Nord-Pas de Calais and Fonds Européen de Développement Economique des Régions (FEDER).


text:
# Non-perturbative dynamics of hot non-Abelian gauge fields∗

00footnotetext:  Based on talks presented at “Quarks-2000”, Pushkin, Russia, May 2000, and “Strong and Electroweak Matter 2000”, Marseilles, France, June 2000. This summary describes work performed in collaboration with Peter Arnold. A more detailed account of this material may be found in references 1 and 2.

## Abstract

The dynamics of high temperature gauge fields, on scales relevant for non-perturbative phenomena such as electroweak baryogenesis, may be described by a remarkably simple effective theory. This theory, which takes the form of a local, stochastic, classical Yang-Mills theory, depends on a single parameter, the non-Abelian (or “color”) conductivity. This effective theory has recently been shown to be valid to next-to-leading-log order (NLLO), provided one uses an improved NLLO value for the non-Abelian conductivity. Comparisons of numerical simulations using this NLLO effective theory and a more microscopic effective theory agree surprisingly well.

In high temperature non-Abelian gauge theories, non-perturbative properties such as the rate of baryon number violation or the friction on an expanding bubble wall are sensitive to the dynamics of low frequency, long wavelength gauge field fluctuations. The relevant spatial scale for non-perturbative fluctuations has long been understood to be $`1/(g^2T)`$ where, for electroweak applications, $`g`$ is the $`SU(2)_\mathrm{w}`$ gauge coupling. The corresponding time scale (for weakly coupled theories) is parametrically longer, and turns out to be $`1/(g^4T\mathrm{ln}g^1)`$.

The dynamics of low-frequency gauge field fluctuations is approximately described by a remarkably simple effective theory, whose equation of motion is

$$𝐃\times 𝐁=\sigma 𝐄𝜻.$$
(1)
Here, $`𝜻`$ is Gaussian noise, i.e., a random (adjoint valued) vector field, with variance

$$\zeta _i(t,𝐱)\zeta _j(t^{},𝐱^{})=2\sigma T\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{})\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(2)
Eqs. (1) and (2) define stochastic 3-dimensional gauge theory; it has a long history of study for reasons having nothing to do with high temperature dynamics. The parameter $`\sigma `$ is naturally termed a non-Abelian (or “color”) conductivity. In $`A_0=0`$ gauge, Eq. (1) becomes a first-order stochastic partial differential equation, $`\sigma (d𝐀/dt)=𝐃\times 𝐁+𝜻`$, and may be regarded as a natural generalization of the equation of motion of an over-damped oscillator in the presence of thermal noise, with $`\sigma `$ playing the role of the damping constant.

This effective theory was first derived by D. Bödeker,111For other derivations, see also Refs. . starting from the underlying high temperature quantum field theory and carefully integrating out the effects of thermal (and quantum) fluctuations on shorter scales, assuming that the gauge coupling $`g`$ is so small that corrections suppressed by powers of $`g`$, or even powers of $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$, are negligible. In other words, the effective theory was the result of a leading-log analysis. Within this approximation, one finds  that the color conductivity $`\sigma =m^2/(3\gamma )`$, up to relative corrections of order $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$, where $`m`$ is the leading-order Debye screening mass \[equal to $`\sqrt{11/6}gT`$ in minimal electroweak theory\], and $`\gamma `$ is the hard gauge boson damping rate  which, to leading-log order, is $`C_\mathrm{A}\alpha T\mathrm{ln}g^1`$. Using this theory, Moore  has numerically simulated the topological transition (or baryon violation) rate for electroweak theory, obtaining

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(10.8\pm 0.7)\left(\frac{2\pi }{3\sigma }\right)(\alpha T)^5.$$
(3)
The presence of corrections suppressed just by powers of $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$ reflects the fact that the effective theory defined by Eqs. (1) and (2) is only valid on spatial scales large compared to the inverse damping rate $`\gamma ^1`$. As in any effective theory, there will be higher order corrections suppressed by powers of $`(k/\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`k`$ is the momentum scale of interest, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the defining scale of the effective theory. For this application, the scale of interest $`kg^2T`$, while $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\gamma g^2T\mathrm{ln}g^1`$.

A natural question to ask is whether one can extend this leading-log analysis and produce a useful effective theory that is valid beyond leading-log order. After all, leading-log results, by themselves, have minimal practical utility — there is a huge difference between, say, $`\mathrm{ln}(16\pi /g)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1/10g)`$ for any realistic value of the gauge coupling. But this difference is of sub-leading order in $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$.

The obvious first step is a next-to-leading-log order (NLLO) treatment, in which all corrections suppressed by one power of $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$ are retained, while all higher powers are neglected. This is what Peter Arnold and I set out to do.

Typically, when one wishes to go to next order in $`k/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in any effective theory, one must to do two things: (i) add to the effective theory a set of new higher-dimension operators, and (ii) re-determine the coefficients of operators in the effective theory by performing a more accurate matching calculation in which one compares physical quantities computed in the effective theory with some more fundamental theory (or experiment).

Fortunately, in this problem a wonderful simplification occurs. The effects of all higher-dimension corrections to the effective theory (1) are suppressed by two or more powers of $`1/\mathrm{ln}g^1`$. Ref. 1 describes a simple power counting analysis leading to this result, as well as a more elaborate (but more thorough) analysis based on formulating the stochastic effective theory as a supersymmetric functional integral. Consequently, the form of the effective theory remains unchanged to NLLO, one must only calculate its single parameter (namely $`\sigma `$) to next-to-leading log order.

The fact that no higher-dimension terms are needed at NLLO has several other immediate consequences. Stochastic three-dimensional gauge theory is ultraviolet finite. Hence, the effective theory (1) may be discretized on a lattice and numerically simulated without any regularization-dependent subtleties or renormalization of parameters. Because the form of the effective theory remains unchanged at NLLO, previous numerical simulations of the leading-log theory may be instantly extended to NLLO accuracy simply by using a suitably improved value for $`\sigma `$; no new numerical simulations are needed. Because the effective theory remains UV finite at NLLO, this also means that its one parameter, the color conductivity $`\sigma `$, is unambiguously defined at NLLO. In contrast, if new higher-dimension terms had been necessary, this would have destroyed the UV finiteness of the theory, and $`\sigma `$ would then become a scheme and scale dependent quantity (just like quark masses in QCD). But to NLLO, one may regard $`\sigma `$ as a well-defined physical quantity.222This is significant because, unlike the situation for ordinary electrical conductivity, there is no Kubo formula or other gauge-invariant physical definition of a non-Abelian conductivity.

The next-to-leading-log determination of the color conductivity was carried out in Ref. 2. It requires extending the conventional technology for performing effective field theory matching calculations to a situation involving real-time stochastic theories. And it requires identifying an appropriate physical quantity that may be evaluated in both the effective and microscopic theories, from which one may determine $`\sigma `$ by comparing the two results. We argued that a suitable Minkowski-space Wilson loop provides an appropriate physical quantity and showed that operationally, in Coulomb gauge, this reduces (at NLLO) to matching the low momentum behavior of the zero frequency gauge field self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}(0,k)`$.

To carry out the matching calculation, we found it convenient to work with a sequence of three effective theories. Theory 1 was a linearized collisionless Boltzmann-Vlasov kinetic theory equivalent to the usual HTL (“hard-thermal-loop”) effective theory, valid for momenta and frequencies $`k,\omega T`$. Theory 2 was a stochastic, collisional, linearized kinetic theory valid for $`\omega kT`$. And Theory 3 was the final effective theory given by Eqs. (1) and (2) — a diffusive Langevin equation, valid for $`\omega k\gamma `$. The structure of our result is clearest if one writes an expression for $`\sigma ^1`$ (the “color resistivity”) rather than $`\sigma `$ directly. We found,

$`\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3C_\mathrm{A}\alpha T}{m^2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\gamma (\mu )}}\right)+𝒞+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(1/g)}}\right)\right],`$ (4)
with
$`𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`3.0410\mathrm{}.`$ (5)
Inside the logarithm of (4), $`\gamma (\mu )`$ is to be understood as the leading-log formula

$$\gamma (\mu )C_\mathrm{A}\alpha T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m}{\mu }\right),$$
(6)
with $`\mu `$ chosen so that it is of order $`\gamma `$ (so as to avoid unnecessarily large logarithms in the description of physics on the scale of $`\gamma `$). The residual $`\mu `$ dependence in the NLLO result (4) only affects that answer at order $`[\mathrm{ln}(m/\gamma )]^1[\mathrm{ln}(1/g)]^1`$, which is beyond the order of this calculation.

To use the NLLO result (4) in any practical calculation one must choose some particular value of $`\mu `$ and ignore the unknown $`O(1/\mathrm{ln}g^1)`$ corrections. In the absence of a full next-to-next-to-leading-log analysis, there is no clearly preferred procedure for determining an “optimal” value. However, one reasonably natural choice is the “fastest apparent convergence” (FAC) scheme in which $`\mu `$ is chosen so that the next-to-leading order correction vanishes. This amounts to choosing the scale $`\mu _{\text{FAC}}`$ satisfying $`\mu _{\text{FAC}}=e^𝒞\gamma (\mu _{\text{FAC}}).`$ For this choice, the NLLO conductivity is simply

$$\sigma _{\text{NLLO}}^1=\frac{3C_\mathrm{A}\alpha T}{m^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m}{\mu _{\text{FAC}}}\right).$$
(7)
Using our NLLO result (4), one may instantly generalize Moore’s numerical result (3) for the topological transition rate of hot electroweak theory to NLLO:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(10.8\pm 0.7)\left(\frac{gT}{m}\right)^2\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5T^4\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m}{\gamma (\mu )}\right)+3.041+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(1/g)}\right)\right].$$
(8)
Moore, and others, have also obtained numerical results for the topological transition rate by using a more microscopic theory (analogous to a lattice version of what we called Theory 1). Moore also attempted to estimate the size of the NLLO correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by fitting the results of these simulations to the functional form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\kappa \left(\frac{gT}{m}\right)^2\alpha _\mathrm{w}^5T^4\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m}{g^2T}\right)+\delta \right],$$
(9)
with the value of $`\kappa `$ fixed to 10.8, as determined from simulations of the effective theory. This led to $`\delta 3.6`$, with perhaps 20% uncertainty due to systematic errors.333Lattice artifacts exist in these more microscopic simulations (due, in part, to the lattice dispersion relation allowing unwanted Cherenkov radiation), which cause them not to reproduce, precisely, the dynamics responsible for NLLO corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These effects have only been crudely estimated, but are a major part of the uncertainty in the estimate of $`\delta `$.  This implies an estimate of $`4.4`$ for the value of the $`\mathrm{ln}(m/g^2T)+\delta `$ factor in (9), which may be compared with the square bracket appearing in (8). Fig. 1 shows this comparison. The solid line is a plot of $`\mathrm{ln}\left[m/\gamma (\mu )\right]+𝒞`$ as a function of $`\gamma /\mu `$. The dashed line indicates the value of $`4.4`$ estimated in Ref. . The arrow on the abscissa indicates the FAC point, where $`\gamma (\mu )/\mu =e^𝒞20.93`$.

The similarity between our NLLO result and the value inferred from numerical simulations is remarkable. There was no obvious a priori reason why it should be a reasonable approximation to treat logarithms of the gauge coupling \[that is, $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\#}/g)`$\], as large for physical values of the coupling. The close agreement between the FAC value of $`\mu `$ and the precise point where the curves of Fig. 1 cross is striking, but probably fortuitous given the uncertainty in the numerical simulation value. Nevertheless, it may well be that the characteristic scale for neglected corrections really is $`e^𝒞\gamma `$, and not just $`\gamma `$ (as one might naively expect). If true, this would mean that (for electroweak theory) the expansion in inverse logs actually has a respectably small expansion parameter of about 0.25.


text:
# Photons and static gravity

## 1 Introduction

The behaviour of light in a static gravitational field has a long history. It has been discussed in many monographs on General Relativity and in vast popular literature. (An extensive list of references may be found in the recent publications .)

In this note we discuss from a single point of view four effects which in the literature are usually discussed separately:

1) the gravitational redshift of photons flying away from a gravitating body,

2) the increase of energy difference between levels in atoms with the increase of their distance from gravitating body,

3) the retardation of radar echo from planets,

4) the deflection of star light observed during a solar eclipse.

The relation between the effects 1) and 2) was thoroughly discussed in refs. . This note may be considered as a continuation of those articles.

## 2 Redshift and clocks

The phenomenon of gravitational redshift is widely explained by using (explicitly or implicitly) a presumed analogy between a photon and a stone: when moving away from a gravitating body (sun or earth) both a photon and a stone are supposed to lose energy overcoming the gravitational attraction.

This explanation, as was stressed recently , is wrong. The energy of a photon $`E`$ and hence its frequency $`\omega =E/\mathrm{}`$ do not depend on the distance from the gravitating body, because in the static case the gravitational potential does not depend on the time coordinate $`t`$. The reader who is not satisfied with this argument may look at Maxwell’s equations as given e.g. in section 5.2 of ref. . These equations with time independent metric have solutions with frequencies equal to those of the emitter.

In what follows we will often use both the quantum notion of photon and the classical notions of electromagnetic wave or even ray of light. To a certain extent this is caused by the physical nature of experiments in which the effects we are discussing were observed. For instance, in the famous experiments by Pound et al. the $`\gamma `$-quanta were flying vertically in a tower. The language of quantum physics is necessary to discuss the behavior of nuclear and atomic levels, and hence of atomic clocks. On the other hand in the discussion of the radar echo and deflection of light quantum effects are absolutely not essential.

The proper explanation of gravitational redshift lies in the behavior of clocks (atoms, nuclei). The rest energy $`E_0`$ of any massive object increases with increase of the distance from the gravitating body because of the increase of the potential $`\varphi `$:

$$E_0=mc^2(1+\varphi /c^2).$$
(1)
The gravitational potential is

$$\varphi =GM/r,$$
(2)
where $`G=6.6710^8\mathrm{cm}^3/\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^2`$ is the Newton constant, $`M`$ is the mass of the body, and $`r`$ – the distance from its center; $`M=210^{33}`$ g for the sun, while for the earth $`M=610^{27}`$ g.

The universal increase of rest energy of an atom in an excited and the ground state means that the energy difference between levels also universally increases by the factor $`(1+\varphi /c^2)`$. As a result of this increase the energy of a photon emitted in a transition of an atom downstairs is not enough to excite a reverse transition upstairs. For the observer upstairs this looks like a redshift of the photon.

A “semi-competent” observer who knows nothing about the dependence of the rate of the standard clocks (atoms, nuclei) on the value of gravitational potential could conclude that photon is redshifted not relatively, but absolutely. A competent observer knows about special experiments on airplanes which proved that, in accord with General Relativity, (atomic) clocks run faster high above the earth (see e.g. refs. ). Therefore for a competent observer the apparent redshift of the photon is a result of the blueshift of the clock.

A naive (but obviously wrong!) way to derive the formula for the redshift is to ascribe to the photon with energy $`E`$ a mass $`m_\gamma =E/c^2`$ and to apply to the photon a non-relativistic formula $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=m_\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ treating it like a stone. Then the relative shift of photon energy is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E=\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi /c^2`$, which coincides with the correct result. But this coincidence cannot justify the absolutely thoughtless application of a nonrelativistic formula to an ultrarelativistic object.

It is interesting that one can still speak about the redshift of the photon if one considers not its frequency, but its wavelength or momentum 111It is instructive to compare the behavior of $`\lambda `$ in the spherically symmetric case with that in a linear potential near the earth’s surface considered in detail in refs. .. To see this let us consider the condition that photon is massless:

$$g^{ij}p_ip_j=0,$$
(3)
where $`g^{ij}`$, $`i,j=0,1,2,3`$ are contravariant components of the metric tensor. In a spherically symmetric potential when photon moves along a radius we have

$$g^{00}p_0p_0g^{rr}p_rp_r=0.$$
(4)
In the case of standard Schwarzschild metric :

$$g^{00}=(1\frac{r_g}{r})^1,$$
(5)
$$g^{rr}=(1\frac{r_g}{r}),$$
(6)
where

$$r_g=2MG/c^2.$$
(7)
For the sun $`r_g=3`$ km.

We identify the covariant vector $`p_i`$ (and not contravariant vector $`p^i`$) with energy - momentum four-vector because

$$p_i=S/x^i,$$
(8)
where $`S`$ is action. This guarantees that if time is uniform ($`g^{ij}`$ is time independent), then energy of a particle is conserved.

As the energy of the photon $`E=cp_0`$ does not depend on $`r`$, we immediately see from Eq.(4) that its momentum $`p_r`$ does depend:

$$p_r=\frac{E}{c}(1\frac{r_g}{r})^1.$$
(9)
The closer the photon to the sun, the larger its momentum. Hence its wavelength is blueshifted:

$$\lambda =\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{p_r}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}c}{E}(1\frac{r_g}{r})$$
(10)
In that sense (but only in that!) the widely used words about redshift and blueshift of the photon are correct.

## 3 Photon velocity

With $`\omega `$ being constant and $`\lambda `$ decreasing with radius the velocity of the photon

$$v=\frac{\lambda \omega }{2\pi }=c(1\frac{r_g}{r})$$
(11)
also decreases with decreasing radius $`r`$. In that respect photon drastically differs from a non-relativistic stone, falling into the sun. (The velocity of the stone obviously increases with the decrease of $`r`$.)

The same conclusion could be reached by an explicit calculation of velocity from the expression for the interval:

$$ds^2=g_{00}c^2dt^2g_{rr}dr^2=0,$$
(12)
where

$$g_{00}=1/g^{00}=(1r_g/r)$$
(13)
$$g_{rr}=1/g^{rr}=(1r_g/r)^1$$
(14)
$$v=dr/dt=c(\frac{g_{00}}{g_{rr}})^{1/2}=c(1r_g/r)$$
(15)
\[Note that if we defined (incorrectly!) $`v`$ as in Special Relativity, $`v=pc^2/E=cp_r/p_0`$, we would get a different behaviour of velocity: $`v=c(1r_g/r)^1`$, because momentum increases both for the photon and for the stone.\]

The time $`t`$ is often called the coordinate time, or world time, as it is set by clocks infinitely far from the gravitating body. Therefore it is proper to call $`v`$ the coordinate or world velocity. It is worth noting that while the velocity $`v`$ changes with the potential, the velocity of light in a locally inertial reference frame is always equal to $`c`$.

The decrease of coordinate velocity $`v`$ discussed above leads to two types of effects both of which are well known. One of them is the famous deflection of light by the sun, predicted by Einstein and first observed during 1919 solar eclipse. This observation was reported by newspapers worldwide and started the cult of Einstein. The other effect is not so widely known. It is the delay of radar echo from inner planets (Venus, Mercury), the measurement of which was proposed  and realized by I.I.Shapiro. (For the description of the measurements see ref. , Section 8.7.)

It is appropriate to discuss both effects (the echo and the deflection) in the framework of geometrical optics (see ref. ), as the wave-length $`\lambda `$ is negligible compared to any other characteristic length. The refraction index $`n`$ is given by:

$$n=\frac{c}{v}=(1r_g/r)^1=(1+r_g/r).$$
(16)
Here and in what follows we consistently neglect terms of the order of $`(r_g/r)^2`$: the gravitational field in the solar system is weak, and therefore

$$n1=r_g/r1.$$
(17)
## 4 Radar echo

Let us start with radar echo and consider for simplicity the echo from the sun. (This is of course only a gedanken experiment). The duration of a two way travel of a signal in this case is

$$t=2\underset{R_s}{\overset{r_e}{}}\frac{dr}{v(r)}=\frac{2}{c}\underset{R_s}{\overset{r_e}{}}n(r)𝑑r=\frac{2}{c}\underset{R_s}{\overset{r_e}{}}(1+r_g/r)𝑑r$$
(18)
and the delay compared to the case $`v=c`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=2\frac{r_g}{c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r_e}{R_s},$$
(19)
where $`r_e=15010^6`$ km is the distance between the sun and the earth, while $`R_s=0.710^6`$ km is the radius of the sun.

Consider now the echo from a planet close to its superior conjunction (when the planet is at the largest distance from the earth, so that the radar ray almost grazes the sun). In that case, unlike the previous ones, we have a non-radial trajectory with a non vanishing impact parameter $`\rho `$. Let us denote by $`z`$ the coordinate along the straight line connecting the earth at $`(z_e,\rho )`$ and the planet at $`(z_p,\rho )`$. (The axis $`\rho `$ is obviously orthogonal to $`z`$.) Note that we can use straight lines even for non-radial trajectories because the gravitational field in solar system is weak: $`(n1)=r_g/r1`$. The deflection of light (which is considered in the next section) gives a negligible contribution of order $`(n1)^2`$ to the echo delay time. To calculate this delay time we use isotropic metric:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=\frac{2}{c}\underset{z_e}{\overset{z_p}{}}𝑑z(\frac{c}{v}1)=\frac{2}{c}\underset{z_e}{\overset{z_p}{}}𝑑z(r_g/r)=$$

$$2\frac{r_g}{c}\underset{z_e}{\overset{z_p}{}}\frac{dz}{\sqrt{z^2+\rho ^2}}=2\frac{r_g}{c}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{|z_p|+r_p}{\rho }+\mathrm{ln}\frac{|z_e|+r_e}{\rho }\right)=$$

$$=2\frac{r_g}{c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{4r_pr_e}{\rho ^2}.$$
(20)
The effect is maximal when $`\rho R_s`$. The logarithmic dependence for the echo from the sun and from a planet is the same. The non-logarithmic terms ($`r_g/r_e`$) are neglected here: we do not take into account the retardation of clocks on the earth with respect to the world time. Their inclusion would increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ by $``$9%. For Mercury $`r_p=5810^6`$ km, hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }t240\mu s`$.

It is interesting to note that retardation must take place not only for photons but also for any extreme relativistic particle if its mass $`m`$ and energy $`E`$ are such that

$$(mc^2)^2/2E^2r_g/r_e$$
(21)
For the sun - earth system $`r_g/r_e210^8`$, while for electrons from LEP I $`(mc^2/E)^210^{10}`$. It is easy to see that even for low energy solar and reactor neutrinos the inequality is also fulfilled. Unfortunately echo experiments with electrons and neutrinos are not realistic for many reasons.

## 5 Deflection of light

Consider a light ray connecting a star and the earth. In this case the trajectory of light is bent, but we will continue to denote the variable along this trajectory as $`z`$ (its end points $`z_{}`$ and $`z_e`$, respectively) and the impact parameter as $`\rho `$. Assume that we deal with a“thick pencil” ray of diameter $`d\rho `$. It is easy to see from Eq. (15) that the inward side of the ray moves slower than the outward one. (Here inward means closer to the sun.) As a result the cross-section of the ray is tilted: when its inward edge propagates by $`dz`$ the outer edge propagates by $`dz[1+(v/c\rho )d\rho ]`$. Thus the angle of the tilt is

$$d\alpha =dz(v/c\rho )=\frac{dz(r_g/r)}{\rho }.$$
(22)
Hence the direction of the ray would be inward deflected, the differential deflection angle of the ray being given by Eq. (22), while the total deflection angle

$$\alpha =\underset{z_{}}{\overset{z_e}{}}𝑑z\frac{(r_g/r)}{\rho }=\frac{}{\rho }\underset{z_{}}{\overset{z_e}{}}𝑑z(r_g/r).$$
(23)
If we now substitute $`z_{}`$ by $`z_p`$ which is not essential, because both of them are much larger than $`\rho `$ and will not enter the result, we get from Eq. (20):

$$\alpha =\frac{}{\rho }\left(\frac{c\mathrm{\Delta }t}{2}\right)=\frac{2r_g}{\rho }.$$
(24)
As was stressed in ref. , the first part of Eq. (24) is a consequence not of General Relativity, but of geometrical optics.

For the case of solar eclipse $`\rho =R_s`$ and

$$\alpha =2r_g/R_s=1.75^{\prime \prime }.$$
(25)
This is exactly the angle predicted by Einstein  in 1915 in the framework of General Relativity. He used the coordinate velocity $`v`$ given by Eq.(15). Note that in 1911 by implicitly assuming that $`g_{rr}=1`$ and, hence, using $`v=c(1r_g/2r)`$ Einstein derived an expression for the angle in which coefficient 2 was missing .

## 6 Conclusions

Thus in a static gravitational field the frequency $`\omega `$ of the photon is a constant; it is equal to the frequency at emission. The phenomenon of gravitational redshift is explained by the increase of the energy difference between levels in atoms or nuclei (in general, by the increase of the rate of clocks) with the increase of their distance from the gravitating body. The constant energy of photon appears as redshifted with respect to the blueshifted energy difference of atomic levels.

The momentum of a photon $`p`$ and hence its wave-length $`\lambda `$ change with the decrease of the distance from gravitating body: $`p`$ increases, $`\lambda `$ decreases. Hence the coordinate (world) velocity $`v`$ of the photon decreases. This explains the two well established effects: the delay of radar echo from planets and the deflection of star light by the sun.

## 7 Acknowledgments

I am grateful to A.D.Dolgov, V.L. Ginzburg, and K.G.Selivanov for insightful discussions. It is a pity that the latter decidedly refused to coauthor this article. I also would like to thank S.D.Drell, Ya.I.Granowski, J.D.Jackson and especially V.L.Telegdi who read the draft of the paper for their constructive criticism. This work has been partly supported by A. von Humboldt award and by RFBR grant No. 00-15-96562.


text:
# Dynamical resummation and damping in the O(N) model 11footnote 1 Talk presented at SEWM2000, Marseille, France, 14–17 June, 2000.

## 1 Introduction

The out of equilibrium behavior of the field theories can play important role in understanding many physical phenomena, as for example the cosmological inflation, reheating or some aspects of heavy ion physics. A possible treatment of these processes is to compute effective equations of motion (EOM) for the field expectation values and then solve these equations, most simply by applying one loop perturbation theory and linear response approximation. These approximations, however, may not give correct answers in certain dynamical regions, as calculations in gauge theories show, where linear response spoils gauge invariance, higher loop effects change the theory completely at the ultra-soft scale. In this talk I would like to examine the effects of higher loops on the dynamical behavior of the $`O(N)`$ model in linear response approximation. For details and references c.f. Ref.

What new effects may we expect? In calculation of the imaginary part the cutting of a higher loop diagram provides more phase space, less constraint to the incoming momentum. This effect can be important, when the one loop contribution is small, as in the case of Goldstone damping in the O(N) model. Here the mass shell constraints send the internal Goldstone momentum into infinity at one loop resulting in exponentially suppressed Goldstone damping.

The other expected effect is that while at one loop the internal particles are stable, higher loops may provide imaginary part for their propagator. The stability of internal particles leads to long time memory of the system, their decay, on the other hand, leads to loss of memory.

In the followings I first summarize the results of one loop linear response theory, then the results with resummed self energy propagators.

## 2 One loop linear response theory

The action of the theory

$$S=\left[\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a)^2\frac{m^2}{2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^2\frac{\lambda }{24}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a^2)^2\right].$$
(1)
We want to calculate the EOM for the expectation value of the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\text{Tr}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, where $`\rho `$ is some initial density matrix. We apply the operator EOM $`\frac{\delta S}{\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x)}=0`$ to the decomposition $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }+\phi `$ (here, by construction, $`\phi =0`$). Then we take expectation value and obtain

$$0=(^2+m^2+\frac{\lambda }{6}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(x))\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+J^{ind}(x),$$
(2)
where the quantum induced current is

$$J_a^{ind}(x)=\frac{\lambda }{6}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\phi _b^2(x)+2\mathrm{\Phi }_b(x)\phi _b(x)\phi _a(x)+\phi _a(x)\phi _b^2(x)\right].$$
(3)
The expectation values are calculated using real time one loop perturbation theory (there $`\phi _a\phi _b^2=0`$) in linear response approximation. We assume moreover that the fluctuations are in equilibrium. We concentrate on the broken phase where, with proper choice of the coordinate system, we write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\delta _{a1}+\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ with constant $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. The EOM (2) determines the value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$.

In linear response approximation $`J_a^{ind}(k)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^R(k)\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^R`$ is the retarded self energy. In the present case it turns out that the self energy is diagonal $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}^R=\mathrm{\Pi }_a^R\delta _{ab}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^R(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left[S_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2S_{11}(k)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{(N1)\lambda }{6}}\left[S_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}{3}}S_{ii}(k)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^R(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}\left[S_1+(N+1)S_i\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{9}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2S_{1i}(k),`$ (4)
where

$$S_a=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}n(q_0)\varrho _a(q),iS_{ab}(x)=\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)\rho _{ab}(x),$$
(5)
and

$$\rho _{ab}(k)=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\varrho _a(q)\varrho _b(kq)(1+n(q_0)+n(k_0q_0)).$$
(6)
Here $`\varrho _a(k)=(2\pi )\epsilon (k_0)\delta (k^2m_a^2)`$ free spectral function and $`n`$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution.

To avoid IR divergences we have to perform (mass) resummation. Here it is done by using $`m_H^2=\frac{\lambda }{3}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`m_G^2=0`$ in the propagators with the one-loop value of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$.

For a detailed computation see Ref. , here I just quote the main results: 1.) Different methods (kinetic theory, perturbation theory, equations for mode functions) give the same result in one loop linear response approximation. 2.) Goldstone theorem is fulfilled in the present approximation scheme taking into account the quantum corrections to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i^R(k=0)=0`$). 3.) The calculations can be done analytically. The damping rates can be read off from the imaginary part at the mass shell. At high temperatures

$$\gamma _1=(N1)\frac{\lambda T}{48\pi },\gamma _i=\frac{\lambda m_H^2}{96\pi |𝐤|}n(\frac{m_H^2}{4|𝐤|}).$$
(7)
The leading term in damping rate of the Higgs mode is classical (can be obtained using classical statistical field theory), but for the Goldstone mode it is classical only for large momenta $`|𝐤|>M\frac{m_H^2}{4T}`$. For small momenta $`|𝐤|<M`$ the Goldstone damping is exponentially suppressed $`\gamma _ie^{M/|𝐤|}`$ (c.f. also Ref.).

## 3 Beyond one loop

Already in the plain one loop case it was necessary to apply some resummation in order to avoid IR divergences. Similar ideas can be used to resum self energy diagrams. We add a term to and subtract the same term from the original Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2}d^4y\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(x)P_{ab}(x,y)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_b(y)+\frac{1}{2}d^4y\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_a(x)P_{ab}(x,y)\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_b(y),$$
(8)
where $`P`$ depends also on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in the broken phase. We treat the first term as part of the propagator, the second one as counterterm. In this way we did not change the physics, at infinite loop order $`P`$ is irrelevant. At finite loop order, however, the results are sensitive to the choice of $`P`$, which sensitivity can be used to optimize the perturbation theory. We can demand, for example, that the one loop correction to the self energy (propagator) be zero. There are two contributions, one comes from a direct calculation with the new propagator, the other is the counterterm. Their cancellation leads to a gap equation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^R(P,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=P,$$
(9)
where we have denoted the explicit dependence of the self energy on $`P`$ (through the propagator) and on the background. In the later calculations we shall use the resulting $`P=\overline{P}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ function. Since the Lagrangian was symmetric under $`O(N)`$ rotation where $`P`$ was transformed as a tensor, the $`\overline{P}`$ solution transforms also as a tensor under the rotation of the background. Using this function instead of $`P`$ we maintain the $`O(N)`$ symmetry of the Lagrangian. We assume in the sequel that we have chosen the coordinate system properly and $`\overline{P}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ is diagonal.

When $`P`$ is fixed, the calculation goes like in the symmetric phase, but the propagator changes. We can read off the propagators at finite temperature from the spectral function as

$$\begin{array}{cc}iG_a^<(k)=n(k_0)\varrho _a(k),\hfill & iG_a^>(k)=(1+n(k_0))\varrho _a(k),\hfill \\ iG_a^c(t,𝐤)=\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\varrho _a(t,𝐤)+iG_a^<(k),\hfill & iG_a^a(t,𝐤)=iG_a^>(k)\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\varrho _a(t,𝐤),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
and the spectral function can be expressed in the present case as

$$\varrho _a(k)=\frac{2\text{Im}\overline{P}_a}{(p^2m_a^2\text{Re}\overline{P}_a)^2+\text{Im}\overline{P}^2}.$$
(11)
These relations make the gap equation (9) explicit.

To have an analytical solution we have to make some assumptions. We use Breit-Wigner approximation (assuming pole dominance), i.e. we approximate the true spectral function as

$$\varrho (k)\frac{\pi }{\omega _𝐤}\left(\delta _{\gamma _𝐤}(k_0\omega _𝐤)\delta _{\gamma _𝐤}(k_0+\omega _𝐤)\right),$$
(12)
where $`\delta _\gamma (\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\gamma }{\omega ^2+\gamma ^2}`$ smeared delta-function. Passing by the calculations (c.f. ) I summarize the changes compared to the $`\gamma =0`$ case: 1.) Instead of Landau prescription $`k_0k_0+i\epsilon `$ we find $`k_0k_0+i\widehat{\gamma }`$ in $`S_{ab}`$, where $`\widehat{\gamma }=\gamma _{a𝐤}+\gamma _{b𝐤}`$. 2.) Instead of strict energy conservation the energy is conserved by $`\delta _{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ in calculation of the imaginary part. 3.) For low momenta ($`|𝐤|<\gamma _1`$ for Higgs and $`|𝐤|<m_H`$ for Goldstones) both the Higgs and Goldstone fields have imaginary part proportional to $`k_0`$

$$\text{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_a^R(k)=\eta _ak_0,$$
(13)
where $`\eta _1T\lambda ^2\mathrm{log}\lambda `$ and $`\eta _im_H`$.

This latter point yields finite on-shell damping rate for the Goldstone modes, showing that the one loop result was not reliable as expected in the Introduction. It also means that in the effective equation of motion a term $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ appears instead of the integral over the past. That is the loss-of-memory effect indicated in the Introduction.

## 4 Conclusions

We have computed the effective EOM for the $`O(N)`$ model in the linear response approximation at one loop level and with self energy resummation. At one loop we find that the Higgs dynamics in the leading temperature order is consistent with the classical expectations, while for the Goldstone we obtain exponentially small damping rate for momenta $`|𝐤|<M=m_H^2/4T`$

$$\gamma _i^{1loop}e^{M/|𝐤|}.$$
(14)
To go beyond one loop we have performed self energy resummation formulated in gap equations. For the solution we have used Breit-Wigner approximation, which have modified in the result the Landau prescription (now $`k_0k_0+i\widehat{\gamma }`$) and have resulted in a broadened mass shell for the intermediate particles. As a consequence we have found that for low momenta

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_a^R\eta _a_t$$
(15)
for both the Goldstone and Higgs fields. Therefore the Goldstone on-shell damping rate is finite, and we can describe the dynamics of low momentum fields with a differential equation without long time memory kernels.

There can be also other effects which can modify this statement, first of all the ones coming from the running of the coupling constant. On the other hand similar considerations may be applicable for other theories (e.g. gauge theories) as well.