format: text

text:
# The standard model and parity conservation

## 1 Introduction

The parity-violating feature at low-energies is strongly phenomenologically supported. Based on this feature, the extremely successful standard model for particle physics is constructed in the form of a renormalizable quantum field theory with chiral gauge symmetries. While, the very-small-scale structure of the space-time, the arena of physical reality, can exhibit rather complex structure of a space-time “string” or “foam”, instead of a simple space-time point. As the consequence of these fundamental constituents of the space-time, the physical space-time gets endowed with a fundamental length that provides a neutral regularization for a fundamental theory, as a result, fundamental theory must be finite. However, with very generic axioms, the “no-go” theorem  demonstrates that the quantum field theories with parity-violating gauge symmetries, as the standard model (SM), cannot be consistently regularized on the lattice, i.e., the discrete space-time. The vectorlike fermion spectrum and parity-conservation gauge coupling are unavoidable at the lattice scale $`\pi /a`$, as a consequence, the gauge anomaly and flavor singlet anomaly are not correctly produced. This paradox may imply a new physics beyond SM at low energies. This has been, for a long time, our basic point to find a resolution to this paradox. Searching for a chiral gauge symmetric approach to properly regularize SM on the lattice has been greatly challenging to theoretical particle physicists for the last two decades.

One of the classes of approaches is the modeling by appropriately introducing local interactions. However, the phenomenon of hard spontaneous symmetry breakings in the intermediate coupling and the argument of anomaly-cancelation within vectorlike spectra in the strong coupling phase prevent such modelings from having a scaling region for low-energy chiral gauged fermions. It was then a general belief that it seems impossible to formulate a theory of exact chiral gauge symmetries on the lattice. Nevertheless, in refs., we advocated a model with peculiar 10-dimension four-fermion interactions on the lattice and a plausible scaling region at low energies. The dynamics of realizing chiral gauged fermions was studied. In ref., we computed and discussed the gauge anomalies and flavor singlet anomalies. In ref., based on a simple chiral-fermion model (11112) on the 1+1 dimensional lattice, we gave an exact illustration of the dynamics realizing chiral gauge theories in the low-energy scaling region, which were discussed in previous papers. In this paper, with two additional Weyl fermions: sterile neutrino $`\chi _L`$ and spectators $`\chi _R=\nu _R`$, we analogously introduce strong four-fermion interactions for leptons and quarks, we present a regularization of SM on the lattice and try to show the dynamics that we studied in the previous papers can realize SM at low energies. We obtain a consistent scenario and predict that the parity conservation must be restored at high energies.

## 2 The model

We consider the first generation of SM, whose fermion content consists of the left-handed doublets $`\psi _L=(\nu _L,e_L),(u_L,d_L)`$ and right-handed singlets $`\psi _R=e_R,u_R,d_R`$. The Higgs sector is disregarded and all fermions are massless. At high energies of the lattice scale, the naive lattice-regularized action for SM is given by

$$S_{}=\frac{1}{2a}\underset{x}{}\left(\overline{\psi }_L(x)D_\mu ^L\gamma _\mu \psi _L(x)+(LR)\right),$$
(1)
where $`D_\mu ^{L,R}`$ are ($`\delta _{x,x\pm 1}\psi (x)=\psi (x\pm a_\mu )`$),

$$D_\mu ^{L,R}=([U_\mu (x)]^{L,R}\delta _{x,x+1}[U_\mu ^{}(x)]^{L,R}\delta _{x,x1}),$$
(2)
where $`U_\mu (x)`$ is the gauge fields of the $`SU_c(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$ group of SM.

We introduce two neutral Weyl fermions $`\chi _L,\chi _R`$. At the lattice scale, the $`\chi _R`$ couples to the left-handed doublets $`\psi _L`$ and $`\chi _L`$ couples to the right-handed singlets $`\psi _R`$ by following 10-dimension four-fermion interactions,

$`S_i^L`$ $`=`$ $`g\overline{\psi }_L(x)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _R(x)\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\chi }_R(x)\right]\psi _L(x),`$ (3)
$`S_i^R`$ $`=`$ $`g\overline{\psi }_R(x)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _L(x)\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\chi }_L(x)\right]\psi _R(x),`$ (4)
where the coupling $`g`$ has dimension $`[a^2]`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined by,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi (x)\underset{\mu }{}\left[\chi (x+a_\mu )+\chi (xa_\mu )2\chi (x)\right],$$
(5)
and its Fourier transformation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=\underset{\mu }{}\left(\mathrm{cos}(p_\mu )1\right),$$
(6)
where the dimensionless momentum $`p_\mu =\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu a`$. Eq.(6) indicates that large momentum states of $`\chi _R(\chi _L)`$ strongly couple to $`\psi _L(\psi _R)`$, while small momentum states of $`\chi _R(\chi _L)`$ weakly couple to $`\psi _L(\psi _R)`$.

The interactions (3,4) preserve the gauge symmetries of SM and the global symmetries $`U_{B,L}(1)`$ for the baryon- and lepton-numbers at the lattice scale. For the second and third fermion generations, eq.(1-4) are the same respectively for an exact flavor symmetry at the lattice scale. We can also consider the interaction vertex of t’Hooft type.

Considering the case of the strong coupling $`ga^21`$ phase, we rescale the fermion fields $`\psi g^{\frac{1}{4}}\psi `$ to be dimensionless and rewrite,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ag^{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\left(\overline{\psi }_L(x)D_\mu ^L\gamma _\mu \psi _L(x)+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}S_i^L(x)+(LR),`$
where the coupling $`g`$ in $`S_i^{L,R}(x)`$ is rescaled away and “$`\mathrm{}`$” stands for the kinetic terms for $`\chi _L`$.

## 3 No hard spontaneous breaking

In addition to the gauge symmetry and global symmetries $`U_{B,L}(1)`$ of SM, this lattice-regularized action (7) possesses the exact shift-symmetries of $`\chi _R`$ and $`\chi _L`$. It was demonstrated that in the region $`ga^21`$ there is no any spontaneous breakings of the shift-symmetries via

$$\overline{\psi }_L\chi _R0\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\overline{\chi }_L\psi _R0,$$
(8)
by interactions (3,4). These shift-symmetries protect the right-handed doublets $`\psi _L`$ and left-handed singlets $`\psi _R`$ from coupling each other and guarantee the spectators $`\chi _R,\chi _L`$ decoupled from gauge fields and other fields at low energies. This is very important to obtain the low-energy spectra, gauge couplings and correct anomalies.

## 4 Three-fermion states

It was demonstrated that for the strong coupling region $`ga^21`$ at high energies, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)0,p_\mu 0`$ where vectorlike doublers are, the following three-fermion states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ are formed,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_R\frac{1}{2a}(\overline{\chi }_R\psi _L)\chi _R,\psi _L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ e\end{array}\right)_L,\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\end{array}\right)_L$$
(9)
for the left-handed doublets $`\psi _L`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_L\frac{1}{2a}(\overline{\chi }_L\psi _R)\chi _L,\psi _R=e_R,u_R,d_R$$
(10)
for the right-handed singlets $`\psi _R`$. The three-fermion state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(\mathrm{\Psi }_L)`$ has the same quantum numbers as $`\psi _L(\psi _R)`$ but opposite chirality. The massive vectorlike (Dirac) fermions

$$(\psi _L,\mathrm{\Psi }_R)\mathrm{and}(\psi _R,\mathrm{\Psi }_L),$$
(11)
are formed consistently with the gauge symmetry $`SU_c(3)SU_L(2)U_Y(1)`$. 15 doublers at $`p_\mu 0`$ are thus gauge invariant decoupled from the low-energy spectrum. Non-perturbative $`(O(1/a))`$ and non-smooth $`(O(a))`$ variations of longitudinal gauge fields are eliminated.

## 5 Dissolving at an intermediate scale

In ref., we show that with the fixed value of the strong coupling $`ga`$, the effective coupling $`\stackrel{~}{g}a(p)`$ is weak at low energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)0,p_\mu 0`$, there is an intermediate scale $`ϵ`$

$$\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ\frac{\pi }{a},\stackrel{~}{v}250GeV,$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ is the electroweak scale. At this intermediate scale $`ϵ`$, the three-fermion states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ must dissolve into the corresponding three-fermion cuts

$$𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }_L]\mathrm{and}𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }_R]$$
(13)
as binding energies go to zero and the residues of the propagators for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R,L}`$ go to zero when $`pϵa0`$. These three-fermion cuts $`𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }_L]`$ and $`𝒞[\mathrm{\Psi }_R]`$ are the virtual states processing the same quantum numbers as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$, such a dissolving process is thus gauge invariant. The low-energy spectra (below the threshold $`ϵ`$) are those $`\psi _L`$ and $`\psi _R`$ in SM, in addition two free particles $`\chi _R`$ and $`\chi _L`$. In Eq.(12), the value of the scale $`ϵ`$ depends on the value of the coupling $`ga^2`$. The electroweak scale $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ is the soft spontaneous symmetry breaking $`\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R`$ that can be introduced by the induced 6-dimension four-fermion interactions $`\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L`$ at the intermediate scale $`ϵ`$, rather than the lattice scale.

## 6 Gauge couplings

Above the threshold $`ϵ`$, The 1PI vertex functions for gauge couplings are vectorlike and given by two parts, one is with and another without external truncated three-fermion states (9,10), e.g.,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu (p,p^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu LL}(p,p^{})+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu LR}(p,p^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_R)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu RL}(p,p^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_R)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu RR}(p,p^{},\mathrm{\Psi }_R).`$ (14)
These 1PI vertex functions obey Ward identities of the gauge symmetries of SM at the lattice scale, since the gauge symmetries are realized by the vectorlike and massive spectrum (11). Below the threshold $`ϵ`$, the parts with external truncated three-fermion states in (14) vanish and these 1PI vertex functions of gauge couplings reduce to the counterparts of SM at low energies up to some local counterterms.

## 7 Anomalies

We turn to discuss the gauge anomaly and the $`BL`$ number violation. Since the high-energy spectra above the threshold $`ϵ`$ are vectorlike consistently with the gauge symmetry of SM, these high-energy spectra do not have any contributions to the gauge anomaly. The fermionic modes that contribute to the gauge anomaly are those living below the threshold $`ϵ`$. For computing the gauge anomalies up to some local counterterms, we can adopt a continuous regularization, for instance Pauli-Villars one, at the scale $`ϵ`$ for perturbative $`O(a)`$ and smooth $`O(1/a)`$ gauge fields, and the result as well-known is proportional to,

$$\underset{\mathrm{fermions}}{}\mathrm{tr}(T^aT^aY),$$
(15)
where $`T^a`$ is some component of the weak isospin and $`Y`$ denotes the weak hypercharge. Eq.(15) vanishes for the fermion content of SM that is anomaly-free. This is an important self-consistency for (i) our gauge invariant action and dynamics to have the low-energy fermion spectrum of SM; (ii) introducing local counterterms to eliminate local and explicit breakings of gauge symmetries at the scale $`ϵ`$, which are introduced by continuous regularizations.

To compute the $`BL`$ number violation, the flavor-singlet anomaly due to the $`SU_L(2)`$ instanton effect, we can adopt the approach of computing the mixing anomalies. In this case, the “mixing” gauge group is $`SU_L(2)U_B(1)U_L(1)`$, where $`U_{B,L}(1)`$ respectively associate to the flavor-singlet currents $`j_\mu ^B`$ and $`j_\mu ^L`$ of the quarks and leptons. In such an approach, the computation is the same as that for the gauge anomaly (15) and we just need to replace the hypercharge $`Y`$ in (15) by one, the generator of $`U_{B,L}(1)`$. As discussed in ref., due to completely decoupling of $`\chi _{R,L}`$ from gauge bosons, anomalous flavor-singlet currents of quarks and leptons are obtained up to local counterterms,

$$^\sigma j_\sigma ^{B,L}=\frac{i}{32\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(16)
These results lead to the $`BL`$ number conservation and $`B+L`$ number violation,

$$^\sigma (j_\sigma ^B+j_\sigma ^L)=\frac{i}{16\pi ^2}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(17)
The $`SU_L(2)`$ global anomaly of the Witten type appears for odd numbers of left-handed $`SU_L(2)`$ doublets. We do not find any inconsistency in our model, since there are two (even numbers) left-handed $`SU_L(2)`$ doublets $`\psi _L`$ for leptons and quarks at low energies.

## 8 Some remarks and predictions

The final scenario appears to be: (i) vectorlike fermion spectra (10,11) and gauge couplings (14) at high energies; (ii) chiral fermion spectra and parity-violating gauge coupling at low energies. Such a scenario implies an important prediction that the parity-violating phenomenon is only at low energies and parity conservation must be restored at high-energies. Whether this is true can be experimentally tested by measuring the left-right asymmetry,

$$A_{LR}=\frac{\sigma _L\sigma _R}{\sigma _L+\sigma _R}$$
(18)
at high energies $`ϵ`$ above the electroweak scale, where $`\sigma _L(\sigma _R)`$ denotes the cross section for an incident left-handed (right-handed) polarized electrons. $`A_{LR}`$ is related to gauge couplings to fermions.

Based on such a scenario, we had made some preliminary studies of phenomenological aspects on the generation of fermion masses, fine-tuning problem and masses and mixing angles of the quark and lepton sectors. The Flavor physics, neutrino physics and any experimental phenomena deviating from that of SM are interesting subjects to study within this scenario.


text:
# A high-𝑸^𝟐 measurement of the photon structure function 𝑭_𝟐^𝜸 at LEP2

## Introduction

We present a measurement of the hadronic photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ at a higher value of the average momentum transfer squared, $`Q^2`$, than has ever previously been reported. The measurement of $`F_2^\gamma `$ is interesting because of its potential to test perturbative QCD ref:F2QCD ; ref:Nisius . In the high-$`Q^2`$ domain the perturbatively calculable point-like contribution to $`F_2^\gamma `$, which rises logarithmically with $`Q^2`$, dominates over the non-perturbative hadron-like part.

The structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ has been measured at $`Q^2`$ of 706 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ using a sample of single-tagged two-photon events recorded by the OPAL detector between 1997 and 1999. These events (also referred to as $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ events) can be regarded as deep inelastic scattering of an electron on a quasi-real photon, and the flux of quasi-real photons can be calculated using the equivalent photon approximation ref:Weiz .

To study $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ the distribution of events in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ is needed. These variables are related to experimentally measurable quantities by

$$Q^2=2E_\mathrm{b}E_{\mathrm{tag}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{tag}})$$
(1)
and

$$x=\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+W^2+P^2},$$
(2)
where $`E_\mathrm{b}`$ is the energy of the beam electron, $`E_{\mathrm{tag}}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{tag}}`$ are the energy and polar angle of the deeply inelastically scattered electron, $`W^2`$ is the invariant mass squared of the hadronic final state and $`P^2=p^2`$, where $`p`$ is the four-momentum of the quasi real target photon. The requirement that the associated electron is not visible in the detector ensures that $`P^2Q^2`$, so $`P^2`$ can be neglected when calculating $`x`$ from Equation 2.

## Data selection

This analysis uses data from the 1997 to 1999 LEP runs, with $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ centre-of-mass energies ranging from 183 to 202 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. The total integrated $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ luminosity is $`424\text{pb}\text{-1}`$. Candidate $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \text{hadrons}`$ events are required to satisfy the following selection criteria, in addition to several technical cuts to ensure good detector status and track quality.

1. A tagged electron is required; that is, a cluster in the OPAL electromagnetic endcap calorimeter with an energy of at least $`0.6E_\mathrm{b}`$ and a polar angle $`\theta `$ in the range 230–500 mrad with respect to either beam direction.
2. The energy of the most energetic electromagnetic cluster in the hemisphere opposite to that which contains the tagged electron must be less than $`0.25E_\mathrm{b}`$.
3. The number of tracks originating from the hadronic final state must be at least 3.
4. The visible invariant mass $`W_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ of the hadronic system is required to be in the range $`2.5\mathrm{GeV}W_{\mathrm{vis}}50\mathrm{GeV}`$.
5. The number of objects (tracks plus unassociated clusters), belonging to the hadronic final state must be at least 9.
6. The energy deposited in a cone of 200 mrad half-angle about the direction of the tag, excluding the tag itself, must not be more than 2 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Cuts 1–4 select a sample of candidate single-tag hadronic two-photon events, with double-tag events excluded by cut 2. Events with leptonic final states are rejected by cuts 3 and 5. The invariant mass cuts have two functions. The lower limit removes the low-$`W`$ region which is dominated by resonance production and is very difficult to model accurately. The upper limit rejects background events from hadronic decays of $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ bosons, as does cut 6.

A total of 348 events pass these cuts, with the data covering the range $`270\mathrm{GeV}^2<Q^2<2200\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. There is a two sigma difference between the number of events selected in the 1997/8 data and that recorded in 1999, with the 1999 data lying below the Monte Carlo expectation, particularly at low $`W_{\mathrm{vis}}`$. No explanation has been found for this. The larger samples of $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ events with the electron tagged in subdetectors at lower polar angles are consistent between the two periods, suggesting that the observed difference could well be purely statistical. However, as a precaution, the difference is included in the systematic error in this preliminary analysis.

The OPAL LEP1 analysis of $`F_2^\gamma `$ using tags in the same subdetector ref:PR185  found the trigger efficiency to be 100%. The present analysis uses a tighter set of cuts, thus no inefficiency is to be expected, and a trigger efficiency of 100% is assumed.

## Monte Carlo modelling and background

Monte Carlo programs are used to simulate $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ events and to provide background estimates. The Monte Carlo generator used to simulate signal $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ multiperipheral events is HERWIG 5.9+$`k_\mathrm{t}`$(dyn) ref:Herwig . The GRV LO ref:GRV  parameterisation of $`F_2^\gamma `$ was used as the input structure function.

The dominant background comes from the reaction $`\mathrm{Z}^0/\gamma ^{}`$ hadrons. Also significant are non-multiperipheral four-fermion processes with $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ final states and the QED process $`\gamma ^{}\gamma \tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. Less severe sources of background are estimated to account for around 1% of the data sample.

Figure 1 shows comparisons between data and Monte Carlo distributions.

Figure 1(b) shows the polar angle of the tagged electron. It can be seen that the Monte Carlo is somewhat higher than the data in the polar range 260–350 mrad. Turning to variables describing the hadronic final state, it can be seen that the number of charged tracks is reasonably well described, Figure 1(c), but that the Monte Carlo lies above the data at low $`W_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ in Figure 1(d) - which correlates with high $`x`$.

## Determination of $`𝑭_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝜸`$

The perennial problem in measurements of $`F_2^\gamma `$ is that, because the $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ centre-of-mass system does not coincide with the laboratory system, the hadronic final state, which must be measured to determine $`W`$, is only partially observed in the detector. This leads to a dependence of the $`F_2^\gamma `$ measurement on the Monte Carlo modelling, which is needed for the unfolding process used to relate the visible distributions to the underlying $`x`$ distribution.

In the high-$`Q^2`$ measurement presented here, however, the situation is not as serious as at lower values of $`Q^2`$. Because of the larger tagging angle, the hadronic final state has much more transverse momentum and as a consequence is better contained in the detector. Figure 2 shows the correlation between the measured invariant mass $`W_{\mathrm{vis}}`$ and the generated $`W`$ as given by HERWIG 5.9+$`k_\mathrm{t}`$(dyn). It can be seen that the correlation is maintained throughout. This is in contrast with the situation observed in the lower $`Q^2`$ analysis ref:PR314  where the correlation deteriorates at high W. As a consequence of this the result can be expected to have a smaller dependence on the Monte Carlo modelling of the hadronic final state.

After subtraction of background, the data are unfolded on a linear scale in $`x`$ in the range $`0.1x0.98`$ using the GURU program ref:GURU .

Each data point is corrected for radiative effects and bin-centre corrections are applied. In Figure 3 the data are compared to several theoretical calculations. The leading order parameterisations of $`F_2^\gamma `$ from GRV, SaS1d ref:sas1d  and WHIT1 ref:WHIT , which all include a contribution from massive charm quarks, are described in detail in reference ref:Nisius . The naive quark-parton model (QPM) simulates only the point-like component of $`F_2^\gamma `$, and is calculated for four active flavours with masses of 0.325 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for light quarks and 1.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ for charm quarks. It can be seen that in this high-$`Q^2`$ regime the differences between the models are relatively small, particularly in the central $`x`$-region. The differences between the QPM and the other models are much smaller than at lower $`Q^2`$, where the photon has been shown to have a significant hadron-like component ref:PR314 . All the predictions are compatible with the data in three of the $`x`$ bins, but overshoot the data in one bin.

## Conclusions

The photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma `$ has been measured using deep inelastic electron-photon scattering events recorded by the OPAL detector during the years 1997–1999. The $`Q^2`$ value of 706 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ represents the highest measured thus far. $`F_2^\gamma `$ has now been measured by OPAL at $`Q^2`$ values ranging from 1.9–706 $`\mathrm{GeV}^2`$.


text:
# Shear turbulence beneath the solar tachocline

## 1 Introduction

Helioseismology has revealed that the rotation regime in the Sun changes abruptly from latitude dependent in the convection zone to almost uniform in the radiation zone below. The top of the radiation zone is thus a region of strong vertical shear, and for this reason that layer has been called the tachocline (Spiegel & Zahn 1992). Acoustic sounding has shown also that some mild macroscopic mixing occurs in this region, to smoothen the composition gradient which, with microscopic diffusion only, would be somewhat steeper. Moreover, the Li depletion observed in solar-type stars can only be explained by some type of macroscopic transport between the convection zone and the depth where this fragile element is destroyed.

Among the possible mechanisms which may produce such mixing, a plausible one is the shear instability induced by the vertical rotation profile. In the present Note we shall verify whether this instability is able to play an effective role in the observed mixing.

## 2 The solar rotation profile

Through the inversion of LOWL frequency-splitting data spanning 2 years, Charbonneau et al. (ctst98 (1998)) have derived the following internal solar rotation rate for $`r>0.5R_{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(r,\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{C}+\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{erf}\left(\frac{rr_\mathrm{C}}{w}\right)\right]\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{S}(\theta )\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{C}\right).$$
(1)
The observed latidinal differential rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{S}`$ is expressed as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{S}(\theta )=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eq}}+c_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +c_2\mathrm{cos}^4\theta .$$

The parameters values are: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{C}=2\pi \times 432.8`$ nHz, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{eq}}=2\pi \times 460.7`$ nHz, $`c_1=62.69`$ nHz, $`c_2=67.13`$ nHz; $`r_\mathrm{C}=0.713R_{}`$ is the radius at the bottom of the solar convective zone and $`w=0.025R_{}`$ the tachocline thickness. Similar expressions can be found in the litterature e.g. Li & Wilson (lw98 (1998)), Corbard et al. (cbpm98 (1998)), Antia et al. (antia98 (1998)). The fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r,\theta )`$ is almost constant at greater depth is in conflict with earlier predictions of a faster rotating core (Pinsonneault et al. pins89 (1989); Zahn z92 (1992)), and it rules out that angular momemtum be transported vertically through shear-induced turbulence. But this possibility still exists in the shear flow of the tachocline.

## 3 Conditions for vertical shear instability

### 3.1 Richardson criterion

In a stellar radiation zone, the stable stratification of entropy tends to inhibit any instability arising from a vertical shear $`dV/dz`$, where $`V`$ is the amplitude of the horizontal velocity and $`z`$ the vertical coordinate. In the adiabatic limit, i.e. when radiative losses are negligible, the shear instability is suppressed whenever:

$$N^2\left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)^2\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}.$$
(2)
The strength of the stratification is measured by the Brunt-Väisälä frequency $`N`$:

$$N^2=\frac{g\delta }{H_P}\left(_{\mathrm{ad}}\right),$$
(3)
with the usual notations for the gravity $`g`$, the pressure scale height $`H_P`$, the logarithmic temperature gradients $`=\mathrm{ln}T/\mathrm{ln}P`$ and $`\delta =(\mathrm{ln}\rho /\mathrm{ln}T)_P`$, $`P`$, $`\rho `$ and $`T`$ being pressure, density and temperature. The critical Richardson number $`\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}`$ is of order unity for typical flow profiles; in the following we shall take $`\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}=1/4`$.

However shear turbulence may still arise, and be sustained, provided that sufficient heat is lost by the turbulent eddies to lower their buyoancy. Whether this occurs is determined by the Péclet number characterizing these eddies:

$$\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{e}=\frac{vl}{K};$$

in this expression $`v`$ and $`l`$ are the velocity and the size of turbulent elements and $`K`$ the thermal diffusivity:

$$K=\frac{16\sigma }{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_11}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\frac{T^4}{\kappa \rho P},$$

$`\sigma `$ is the Stefan constant, $`\kappa `$ the Rosseland mean opacity and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ the first adiabatic exponent.

When $`\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{e}1`$ the Richardson criterion takes the modified form (Dudis d74 (1974); Zahn z74 (1974)):

$$N^2<\left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{e}}vl<\left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}K}{N^2},$$
(4)
from which one infers what are the largest turbulent scales that can survive in a stratified shear flow.

### 3.2 Critical Reynolds number

However turbulence will be maintained only if the turnover rate of the eddies is faster than their viscous decay rate:

$$\frac{v}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\nu }{\mathrm{}^2}\nu \mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}v\mathrm{},$$
(5)
$`\nu `$ is the viscosity. This critical Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}`$ is smaller than the classical one which governs the onset of instability in a shear flow whose velocity varies by $`U`$ between two boundaries separated by the distance $`L`$, namely $`UL/\nu `$. The reason is of course that $`v<U`$ and $`\mathrm{}<L`$.

For the value of this $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}`$ we turn to an experiment performed by Stillinger et al. (shva83 (1983)), who measured the size of the turbulent motions downstream a flow traversing a grid. The size of the smallest turbulent eddies was found to be $`15.4\mathrm{}_K`$, where $`\mathrm{}_k=(\nu ^3/\epsilon )^{1/4}`$ is the classical Kolmogorov length, with $`\epsilon `$ being the energy injection rate per unit mass. In the inertial cascade the velocities scale as $`v^3=\epsilon \mathrm{}`$, and therefore:

$$v\mathrm{}=\epsilon ^{1/3}\mathrm{}^{4/3}\epsilon ^{1/3}(15.4\mathrm{}_K)^{4/3}=(15.4)^{4/3}\nu ,$$
(6)
from which we draw the critical Reynolds number in that experiment: $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}40`$, a value we shall adopt for the present purpose.

The conditions (4) and (5) can be simultaneously fulfilled when:

$$\left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)^2>N^2\frac{\nu }{K}\frac{\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}}.$$
(7)
## 4 The turbulent region in the Sun

Let us now examine where the instability condition (7) is fulfilled is the Sun. According to (1), the maximum shear rate at the top of the solar radiation zone amounts to

$$\frac{dV}{dz}r\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dr}9.10^6\mathrm{s}^1,$$

as illustrated in Fig. (1).

It is convenient to introduce the non-dimensioned parameter

$$\xi \left(\frac{dV}{dz}\right)^2\frac{K}{N^2\nu };$$

according to Eq. (7), the turbulent shear instability will occur if:

$$\xi \xi _{\mathrm{limit}}\frac{\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}}{\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}}160.$$
(8)
Note that $`\xi _{\mathrm{limit}}`$, the ratio of Reynolds and Richardson critical numbers, is rather uncertain, in particular because $`\mathrm{Ri}_\mathrm{c}`$ depends on the vertical flow profile.

We have calculated $`\xi `$ as a function of radius and colatitude in the radiative zone beneath the tachocline of a standard solar model, in order to delimit the regions where the turbulent instability is established.

The standard solar model is computed with CESAM code (Morel m97 (1997)); the evolution includes the pre main-sequence phase. Basically, the physics and calibration parameters are the same as in Morel et al. (mpb00 (2000)); it uses OPAL opacities and equation of state, the microscopic diffusion coefficients of Michaud & Proffitt (mp93 (1993)) and the recently updated thermonuclear reaction rates of the European compilation NACRE (Angulo et al. a99 (1999)). The angular velocity beneath the convection zone is derived from Eq. 1. The dynamical viscosity is taken as in a fully ionized hydrogen plasma.

## 5 Results and discussion

Figure 2 shows $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\xi `$ as a function of radius for three colatitude values. According to the Eq. (8) criterion, the turbulent instability may occur at the equator ($`\theta =90\mathrm{°}`$) in the interval $`0.695R_{}r<0.713R_{}`$; the turbulent layer is thinner at higher latitudes. In other words, the unstable region for the vertical shear instability, beneath the convection zone, measures barely 2 percent of the solar radius and is localized around the equator.

This instability should not be confused with the shear instability arising from the differential rotation in latitude, which is not inhibited by the vertical stratification, and which may play an important role in smoothing horizontal gradients in composition and angular velocity (Spiegel & Zahn sp92 (1992)). But that instability does not contribute to the vertical transport.

We conclude that another physical process is needed to transport matter and angular momentum beneath the solar tachocline, which would operate more efficiently than the turbulence generated by the vertical $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-gradient. A plausible mechanism is the meridional circulation which probably exists in the tachocline (Brun et al. 1999). A more powerful process is required also to establish the almost uniform angular velocity at greater depth, which could be magnetic torquing (Gough & McIntyre 1998) or transport of angular momentum by waves (Schatzman 1996; Kumar et al. 1999).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank the referee pour his pertinent remarks and suggestions. This work has been performed using the computing facilities provided by the OCA program “Simulations Interactives et Visualisation en Astronomie et Mécanique (SIVAM)”.


text:
# A Simple Algorithm for Orbit Classification

## 1 Introduction

The dynamical structure of an elliptical galaxy may be represented by a collection of orbits (e.g. Schwarzschild 1979). In this representation the time-average of each orbit yields an invariant density distribution, and a weighted sum of such distributions equals the overall mass density of the galaxy. Orbits are categorized into different families depending on their shapes; certain orbit families become stable or dominant in certain potentials. The orbits available in a given potential may be characterized in several interrelated ways. Classifying orbits into families says something about their geometry and thus about the contribution they can make to the mass distribution. This paper describes a simple algorithm for classifying orbits in elliptical potentials, and illustrates its application to the well-studied logarithmic potential (see Miralda-Escudé & Schwarzschild 1989, hereafter MES89).

The orbital content of triaxial potentials has long been of interest to dynamical astronomers. Integrable potentials have fairly simple structures, with one family of ‘box’ orbits and three of ‘tubes’ (de Zeeuw 1985). In nonintegrable potentials the situation is much more complex; chaotic orbits may appear (Goodman & Schwarzschild 1981; Valluri & Merritt 1998), and the monolithic tube and box families are partly replaced by a plethora of minor orbit families (Binney & Spergel 1982; MES89; Lees & Schwarzschild 1992). This rich structure is created by a pattern of resonances between fundamental orbital frequences. In $`d`$ dimensions there are $`d`$ such frequencies $`\omega _i`$, and an orbit family corresponds to a resonance condition of the form

$$𝐧𝝎=0,$$
(1)
where $`𝐧`$ is a vector of integers, and $`|𝐧|>0`$; thus each orbit family may be characterized by the corresponding vector $`𝐧`$.

Several different approaches to orbit classification exist. Spectral methods (Binney & Spergel 1982, 1984; Papaphilippou & Laskar 1996, 1998; Carpintero & Aguilar 1998; Valluri & Merritt 1998) classify orbits by measuring their fundamental frequencies $`\omega _i`$. These methods are powerful and general but also somewhat complex to implement. Alternately, orbits may be classified by heuristic methods based on known characteristics of specific orbit families. For example, tube orbits maintain a definite sense of circulation about a principal axis (e.g. Barnes 1992). Likewise, the ‘boxlet’ orbits found in nonintegrable potentials may be classified by measuring extrema along the principal coordinates (e.g. Schwarzschild 1993).

We have developed a classification algorithm that captures the geometry of both loop and boxlet orbits in a simple unified scheme. This algorithm is easily implemented and generalized to find higher-order resonances. In its present form the algorithm is best suited for two-dimensional potentials; while it provides a partial characterization of orbits in three-dimensional potentials, it cannot recognise the full range of orbit families present in such systems. Nonetheless, the generality and simplicity of our method may make it attractive when a full-blown spectral treatment is unnecessary or prohibitively expensive.

In this paper we describe the algorithm and present some sample results. Section 2 develops the theoretical basis for the algorithm and discuss some aspects of its implementation. Section 3 illustrates the use of this algorithm in exploring the orbits in the logarithmic potential. Conclusions and further applications of the algorithm are discussed in Section 4.

## 2 Algorithm

The key idea of our algorithm is to determine an orbit’s family from the pattern of sign changes of the principal coordinates (Barnes 1998, p. 352). This approach can be placed on a firm foundation by examining sign-change patterns for the closed, stable orbits which parent an orbital family. A given family actually contains a one-parameter sequence of stable closed orbits, each with a different energy. In what follows we will use a single one of these closed orbits as representative of an entire family. This simplifies our exposition but has no other consequences, since all the closed orbits in a given family have the same topology and therefore the same sign-change pattern.

### 2.1 Closed orbits

In two dimensions, the resonance condition (1) establishes a unique relationship between the two fundamental frequencies of an orbit. We write (1) in the form

$$\mathrm{}\omega _\mathrm{x}+m\omega _\mathrm{y}=0,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are integers, and $`\omega _\mathrm{x}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{y}`$ are the orbital frequencies. We assume with no loss of generality (i) that the frequencies obey $`0<\omega _\mathrm{x}\omega _\mathrm{y}`$, (ii) that $`m<0<\mathrm{}`$, (iii) that $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are relatively prime, and (iv) that the orbit has a period of $`2\pi `$. The resonance condition then implies that $`\omega _\mathrm{x}=m`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{y}=\mathrm{}`$.

Since $`\omega _\mathrm{x}/\omega _\mathrm{y}`$ is a rational number, an orbit with two frequencies $`\omega _\mathrm{x}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{y}`$ will close on itself after a finite time. Such a closed orbit, if stable, can parent an orbital family. Although the motion is generally not harmonic, these closed orbits are topologically equivalent to Lissajous figures, which are parametric curves generated by

$$x(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _\mathrm{x}t),y(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\omega _\mathrm{y}t+\varphi ).$$
(3)
where $`\varphi k\pi /2\omega _\mathrm{x}`$ is a phase-shift. For any given $`\omega _\mathrm{x}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{y}`$ there are two values of the parameter $`k`$ which yield possible parenting orbits: $`k=0`$ generates the parents of boxlets, while $`k=1`$ generates the parents of ‘antiboxlets’ (MES89).

Using the parametric equations (3), we can derive the pattern of sign changes of $`x(t)`$ and $`y(t)`$ for any distinct choice for $`(\mathrm{},m)`$ and $`k`$. Since $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ has two sign changes for $`\theta [0,2\pi )`$, this pattern is periodic with a period of $`\pi `$, or half the orbital period. We refer to the pattern generated over the interval $`t[0,\pi )`$ as the semi-pattern; in each semi-pattern $`x(t)`$ has $`m`$ sign changes and $`y(t)`$ has $`\mathrm{}`$ sign changes. Before presenting a general treatment, we will discuss the semi-patterns of some key orbits, organized by their $`\mathrm{}+m`$ values. These examples also serve to introduce our notation for sign-change patterns.

#### 2.1.1 The case $`\mathrm{}+m=0`$

If $`\mathrm{}=m`$ then since $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are relatively prime we have $`(\mathrm{},m)=(1,1)`$, so $`\omega _\mathrm{x}=\omega _\mathrm{y}=1`$. In this case, the curve defined by (3) with $`k=0`$ is trivial: a diagonal line passing through the origin. On the other hand, the curve produced with $`k=1`$ is a circle, which is topologically equivalent to a loop orbit. For $`t[0,\pi )`$ the function $`y(t)`$ changes sign at $`t=0`$, while $`x(t)`$ changes sign at $`t=\pi /2`$. Abstracting away the actual values of $`t`$ but preserving the order of events, this orbit’s semi-pattern is represented by the string ‘YX’, where ‘Y’ marks a sign-change of $`y(t)`$ and ‘X’ a sign-change of $`x(t)`$. An orbit which produces a sign-change string of the form ‘YX’ repeated ad infinitum is a loop orbit.

#### 2.1.2 The case $`\mathrm{}+m=1`$

If $`\mathrm{}=1m`$ and $`k=0`$ then (3) yields ‘centrophobic’ orbits (MES89), which avoid the centre of the potential. The semi-pattern for such orbits is a string of the form ‘YX…Y’, in which $`m`$ pairs of the symbols ‘YX’ are followed by a final ‘Y’. For example, the resonance $`(\mathrm{},m)=(2,1)`$ yields the semi-pattern ‘YXY’, and an orbit which produces a sign-change string consisting of infinite repetitions of ‘YXY’ is a centrophobic $`(2,1)`$ resonance, also known as a ‘banana’ orbit (Binney 1982). Likewise, the resonance $`(3,2)`$ yields ‘YXYXY’, which identifies a ‘fish’ orbit. Unlike the loop orbit described above, all semi-patterns of this kind must begin and end with the symbol ‘Y’. The sign-change string generated by an orbit of this kind will therefore contain places where the ‘Y’ appears twice with no intervening ‘X’. These doubled symbols have a simple physical interpretation: the angular momentum of the orbit reverses between the first and second ‘Y’.

In contrast, $`k=1`$ yields ‘centrophilic’ orbits, which pass exactly through the centre of the potential. The simplest such orbit is the ‘antibanana’, produced by $`(\mathrm{},m)=(2,1)`$. For this orbit $`y(t)`$ has zeros at $`t=0`$ and $`\pi /2`$, while $`x(t)`$ has a zero at $`t=\pi /2`$. To represent the simultaneous zeros of $`x(t)`$ and $`y(t)`$ at $`t=\pi /2`$, we surround the symbols with square brackets; thus the semi-pattern for this orbit is ‘Y\[XY\]’. Next is the ‘antifish’, produced by $`(\mathrm{},m)=(3,2)`$; the semi-pattern for this orbit is ‘YXY\[XY\]’. In all cases with $`\mathrm{}+m=1`$, the semi-patterns for the centrophilic orbits resemble those of their centrophobic counterparts, except that the final symbols are ‘\[XY\]’, indicating that the orbit passes through the origin.

#### 2.1.3 The case $`\mathrm{}+m=2`$

If $`\mathrm{}=2m`$ then $`k=0`$ yields centrophilic orbits which pass through the origin at times just before $`t=\pi /2`$; thus the semi-patterns for such orbits contain a central ‘\[XY\]’ pair. The simplest orbit of this kind with $`\omega _\mathrm{x}/\omega _\mathrm{y}1/2`$ is $`(\mathrm{},m)=(5,3)`$, which produces the semi-pattern ‘YXY\[XY\]YXY’. The next resonance in this series, $`(\mathrm{},m)=(7,5)`$, yields ‘YXYXY\[XY\]YXYXY’. In general, each such pattern has three parts: the first is an alternating string of $`(\mathrm{}1)/2`$ copies of ‘Y’ and $`(m1)/2`$ copies of ‘X’, the second is the central ‘\[XY\]’ pair, and the third is identical to the first.

For $`k=1`$ we obtain centrophobic orbits. Each semi-pattern contains at total of $`\mathrm{}`$ copies of ‘Y’ symbols and $`\mathrm{}2=m`$ copies of ‘X’; thus within the semi-pattern two ‘Y’ symbols must appear next to each other. The simplest example is $`(\mathrm{},m)=(5,3)`$, which yields ‘YXYYXYXY’. As already noted, ‘YY’ pairs indicate a reversal of the angular momentum; counting the two ‘Y’ symbols which begin and end the semi-period, we find that a centrophobic orbit with $`\mathrm{}+m=2`$ reverses its sense of angular momentum four times before closing on itself.

#### 2.1.4 General treatment

The coordinate functions $`x(t)`$ and $`y(t)`$ have zeros in the interval $`t[0,\pi )`$ at times

$$\begin{array}{cc}\tau _\mathrm{x}=\frac{\pi }{m}\left(i_\mathrm{x}+\frac{1}{2}\right),\hfill & i_\mathrm{x}=0,1,\mathrm{},m1,\hfill \\ & \\ \tau _\mathrm{y}=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}\left(i_\mathrm{y}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{2m}\right),\hfill & i_\mathrm{y}=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Using these expressions, it’s straightforward to generate the semi-pattern for any given $`(\mathrm{},m)`$ and $`k`$. Table 1 gives results for all resonances satisfying $`\omega _\mathrm{x}/\omega _\mathrm{y}1/2`$ which yield semi-patterns of $`20`$ symbols or less. The resonances are grouped by $`\mathrm{}+m`$ value; within each group, they are sorted in order of increasing $`\omega _\mathrm{x}/\omega _\mathrm{y}`$; finally we list the centrophobic version of each resonance before its centrophilic counterpart. The column labeled ‘Key’ gives a one-character symbol for each orbit family, which we will use in presenting results of orbit classification in Section 3.

In passing, we note a crucial fact: no semi-pattern consists of multiple copies of any other semi-pattern. This follows because $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are relatively prime.

The motion described by (3) is reversible; that is, the transformation $`tt`$ leaves trajectories unchanged. Thus it may seem puzzling that some semi-patterns are not palindromes. The resolution of this puzzle lies in the fact that the transformation $`tt+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is a constant, also leaves trajectories unchanged. Consequently, all cyclic permutations of a given semi-pattern should be identified with each other since they all represent the same trajectory. The reverse of a given semi-pattern can always be cyclicly permuted to obtain the original semi-pattern. We conclude that the asymmetric appearance of some semi-patterns is an artifact of our arbitrary choice for the origin of the time-line.

### 2.2 Family resemblances

The closed orbits in elliptical potentials are distorted versions of Lissajous figures, and each such figure yields a unique semi-pattern. We now argue that all the orbits in an orbital family yield similar sign-change patterns. Recall that in two dimensions, each orbit family is parented by a stable closed orbit. Stability is the key which enables an orbit to be a parent; informally, it implies that other orbits which start near the parenting orbit remain near it at later times. An orbital family is thus the set of all orbits which remain near a stable parenting orbit.

For a centrophobic family the resemblance is simple; all the orbits in a given family generate the same semi-pattern as does their parenting orbit. This seems intuitively clear for orbits which wander only a small distance from the path of their parent, but is it true for even the most far-flung family members? Yes, because no member of a centrophobic family passes exactly through the centre. Consider a continuous ensemble of family members which – up until now – have all generated the same sequence of $`x`$ and $`y`$ sign-changes, and are therefore at present all within the same $`(x,y)`$ quadrant of the system. If some of these orbits next have sign-changes in $`x`$ while others have sign-changes in $`y`$ then the swath defined by their orbits must pass across the origin. But continuity then implies the ensemble includes orbits which pass exactly through the centre, which is impossible since the family is centrophobic.

On the other hand, a centrophilic family includes at least one member – the parenting orbit – which passes exactly through the centre every time. Other family members come arbitrarily close to the centre, but generally pass to one side or the other; the swath defined by an ensemble of such orbits has finite width as it crosses the origin. Thus some of members of the ensemble have sign-changes in the order ‘XY’ and some in the order ‘YX’, while only a infinitesimal subset pass exactly through the centre and produce ‘\[XY\]’. The sign-change sequence generated by a typical centrophilic family member is an infinite repetition of its parenting orbit’s semi-pattern with one embellishment – where the parent’s semi-pattern contains ‘\[XY\]’ the member’s realization may contain either ‘XY’ or ‘YX’ (but not ‘XX’ or ‘YY’). Thus, each ‘\[XY\]’ indicates a place where the order of the symbols is interpreted as ambiguous.

This interpretation complicates matters, since the semi-pattern of a centrophobic resonance will match the semi-pattern of its centrophilic counterpart. Nonetheless, an orbit can be assigned to its appropriate family with little ambiguity – given a sufficiently long sequence of sign-change data generated by following the orbit’s trajectory. Match the orbital data against each semi-pattern in turn, taking care to test centrophobic resonances before testing centrophilic ones; the first successful match gives the orbit’s family. With a finite sequence of sign-change data, it’s possible that a centrophilic resonance will be miss-classified as centrophobic, but the probability of such an error is small if enough trajectory data is available.

### 2.3 Implementation

A fairly straightforward computer program serves to implement the algorithm outlined above. This program computes the trajectory $`(x(t),y(t))`$ of an orbit, recording the sign-changes of $`x`$ and $`y`$; once a total of $`N_{\mathrm{change}}`$ sign-changes have been recorded, these are matched against a finite set of semi-patterns. A successful match identifies the orbit’s family. If none of the semi-patterns match the orbit’s sign-change data then the latter are searched for any strictly periodic pattern of length $`L_{\mathrm{max}}`$; this catches all centrophobic families with $`\mathrm{}mL_{\mathrm{max}}`$. If no such pattern is found then the orbit may be a higher-order resonance, a true (regular) box with incommensurate $`\omega _\mathrm{x}`$ and $`\omega _\mathrm{y}`$, or a stochastic orbit; our algorithm can’t distinguish between these possibilities.

The trajectory-following section of the program is built around a $`4^{\mathrm{th}}`$-order RK integrator with a time-step always proportional to the local dynamical time. While a higher-order integrator and local error control would improve the accuracy of the computed trajectories, convergence tests indicate that most orbits can be robustly classified even when integrated with energy errors as large as $`0.1`$ per cent; to be on the safe side, we limit the peak-to-peak energy variation to $`0.02`$ per cent. After each time-step, the new values of $`x`$ and $`y`$ are compared with their previous values; if one has changed sign then this event is recorded, while if both have changed sign then both events are recorded, with linear interpolation used to determine which occurred first. The algorithm does not try to detect passages exactly through the origin; such passages are vanishingly rare.

The semi-patterns used to try and match the sign-change data are generated from the $`(\mathrm{},m)`$ and $`k`$ values stored in a table like Table 1. When matching the orbital data to a semi-pattern we demand symbol-by-symbol equality throughout unless the semi-pattern contains ‘\[XY\]’; at that point the orbital data may contain either ‘XY’ or ‘YX’. One final subtlety about the matching routine is worth mentioning: since the phase of the orbital data is indeterminate, it is matched against all cyclic permutations of each semi-pattern. Even with this added complication, the amount of computer time spent matching orbital data to patterns is insignificant; only integer arithmetic is required, and most possible matches are quickly rejected.

Finally, the routine which checks the orbital data for arbitrary periodic patterns is quite simple. To test for a semi-pattern of length $`L`$ we take the first $`L`$ symbols as the model and match them against the rest of the data. In this matching process it’s not necessary to consider cyclic permutations of the semi-pattern since it automatically has the same phase as the orbit. If the match succeeds, the $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ values of the parenting resonance are determined by counting the number of ‘Y’ and ‘X’ symbols, respectively, in the semi-pattern. If the match fails then the routine next checks for semi-patterns of length $`L+1,\mathrm{},L_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The availability of this final ‘safety-net’ for arbitrary periodic patterns poses an interesting question: do orbit integrations ever yield periodic sign-change sequences which can’t be generated by the scheme in Section 2.1? No evidence for such orbits has been found. For example, Table 1 contains all semi-patterns of length $`L20`$ which can be generated by the scheme. Among the many thousands of 2-D orbits studied in the next section we have found none with periodic semi-patterns of length $`L20`$ which are not in Table 1. This success illustrates the power of MES89’s ansatz linking periodic orbits to Lissajous figures.

## 3 Application

To demonstrate the use of our algorithm we made a survey of orbits in the logarithmic potential,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(R_\mathrm{c}^2+x^2+\frac{y^2}{b^2}\right),$$
(5)
with ellipticity $`b1`$ and core radius $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ (Richstone 1980; Binney & Tremaine 1987; MES89). The goal of this survey was to show how the core radius influences the set of orbit families. We focused on orbits of total energy

$$E\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)+\frac{1}{2}|\dot{𝐫}|^2=0.$$
(6)
This restriction to $`E=0`$ is largely a matter of convenience. In a singular logarithmic potential ($`R_\mathrm{c}=0`$) an orbit with $`E0`$ can always be rescaled to one with $`E=0`$. If $`R_\mathrm{c}0`$ then rescaling is still possible if the core radius changes along with the energy so that $`E\mathrm{ln}R_\mathrm{c}`$ stays constant. Thus fixing $`E`$ and changing $`R_\mathrm{c}`$, as we do in Section 3.2, is equivalent to fixing $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ and changing $`E`$, and no new orbital families would come to light if we were to vary both parameters instead of just one.

In designing an orbit survey, perhaps the most critical choice is the ‘start space’ which samples the manifold of possible orbits. Below we examine several possible choices. First, we present results for a two-dimensional start space which is guaranteed to include all orbits but awkward to use when surveying a large number of potentials. Second, we present results for several one-dimensional start spaces which between them allow access to all known orbits.

### 3.1 2-D start space

The phase space for a two-dimensional potential has four dimensions: two positions, $`(x,y)`$, and two velocities, $`(\dot{x},\dot{y})`$. Since all orbits eventually cross the $`y`$ axis, we stipulate that the initial $`x`$ coordinate is $`x_0=0`$. The equation for $`E`$ above then fixes any one of the remaining coordinates in terms of the other two. We constructed a grid in $`y_0`$ and $`\dot{y}_0`$, and found $`\dot{x}_0`$ using (6). The resulting two-dimensional start space is parameterized by the same coordinates often used when constructing a ‘surface of section’ (Hénon & Heiles 1964; Contopoulos 1983; Binney & Tremaine 1987, p. 117).

Fig. 1 shows the result of classifying orbits in the logarithmic potential with core radius $`R_\mathrm{c}=0`$ and ellipticity $`b=0.7`$ using this two-dimensional start space. We emphasise that this diagram is not a surface of section; rather than plotting an orbit’s position on the $`(y,\dot{y})`$ plane each time it intersects $`x=0`$, we plotted the results of classifying separate orbits launched from each point on the grid. We use the symbols listed in the ‘Key’ column of Table 1 to indicate the classifications, with a small dot marking orbits which don’t belong to any family with $`\mathrm{}m20`$. Our result may be directly compared to those of other orbit-classification schemes (Carpintero & Aguilar 1998, Fig. 16) and to the traditional surface of section for this potential (MES89, Fig. 1); the agreement is very good. Basically, the phase space for this potential is almost entirely occupied by a few centrophobic orbit families. Starting at the lower left we find a large number of $`(\mathrm{},m)=(2,1)`$ banana orbits. Moving diagonally across the plot, we next encounter a strip, broken in the middle, of $`(5,3)`$ resonances. Next comes a region of $`(3,2)`$ fish orbits, followed by a narrow strip of $`(4,3)`$ pretzel orbits. Finally, the right-hand side of the plot is entirely occupied by $`(1,1)`$ loop orbits.

The classifications shown in Fig. 1 were made using $`N_{\mathrm{change}}=1000`$ sign-changes per orbit. This gives a high level of confidence; for example, every fish orbit in this diagram has executed $`200`$ semi-patterns without a single sign-change out of place. Since the orbit families in this particular potential all have fairly short semi-patterns, we could have obtained results almost as good with less than $`100`$ sign-changes per orbit. A potential which supports a wider range of resonances provides a more stringent test of the classifier. We therefore chose a potential with $`R_\mathrm{c}=0.02`$ and $`b=0.8`$; compared to the potential used for Fig. 1, the finite core radius helps stabilize centrophilic orbits, while the more modest flattening favors high-order resonances. The same orbits were independently classified for $`N_{\mathrm{change}}=125`$, $`250`$, $`500`$, and $`1000`$, and the results compared to determine which orbit classifications are sensitive to this parameter. Even with $`N_{\mathrm{change}}=125`$, the $`(\mathrm{},m)=(2,1)`$, $`(5,3)`$, $`(3,2)`$, and $`(4,3)`$ resonances were accurately classified, but incorrect classifications sometimes resulted for higher resonances such as $`(9,5)`$, $`(7,4)`$, $`(8,5)`$, and $`(7,5)`$. We observed two kinds of classification errors: false positives from non-resonant orbits which happen to lie near stable resonances, and mistaken identities due to confusion between centrophobic and centrophilic versions of the same resonance. The output of the classifier converges nicely as $`N_{\mathrm{change}}`$ is increased; taking the results for $`N_{\mathrm{change}}=1000`$ as fiducial, we find total error rates of $`4.3`$, $`1.9`$, and $`0.8`$ per cent, for $`N_{\mathrm{change}}=125`$, $`250`$, and $`500`$, respectively.

### 3.2 1-D start spaces

In most previous studies of boxlets the initial conditions were generated by choosing initial positions $`𝐫_0`$ on the equipotential surface $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_0)=E`$ and setting the initial velocities $`\dot{𝐫}_0`$ to zero. This ‘stationary’ start space yields a wide variety of boxlets, but it excludes orbits like the antifish which don’t have a stationary point – that is, a point at which $`|\dot{𝐫}|=0`$. Alternatively, if the potential is finite at the origin one may consider setting the initial positions $`𝐫_0`$ to zero and choosing initial velocities satisfying $`|\dot{𝐫}_0|=(2E2\mathrm{\Phi }(0))^{1/2}`$ (Papaphilippou & Laskar 1996). This ‘central’ start space includes the antifish, but it excludes centrophobic orbits. When using the stationary start space we parameterize the initial position in terms of the angle $`\beta `$ between $`𝐫_0`$ and the $`x`$ axis; likewise when using the central start space we parameterize the initial velocity in terms of the angle $`\beta ^{}`$ between $`\dot{𝐫}_0`$ and the $`x`$ axis.

Fig. 2 presents a survey of the stationary start space for logarithmic potentials with ellipticity $`b=0.8`$ and core radii $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ in the range $`0.16`$ to $`0.0`$. As in Fig. 1, the result of each orbit classification is shown using the symbols listed in Table 1. For the larger values of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ boxlets are few and far between, with only the $`(\mathrm{},m)=(4,3)`$ and $`(6,5)`$ resonances occupying more than a handful of orbits. As $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ decreases, low order resonances such as $`(2,1)`$ and $`(3,2)`$ appear and grow in importance, eventually dominating the start space as $`R_\mathrm{c}0`$. The general trend with core radius seen here is entirely consistent with the results presented by MES89.

Although the overall outline of Fig. 2 is unsurprising, some of the higher-order resonances present in this diagram may be less familiar. For example, there is a narrow band of centrophilic $`(\mathrm{},m)=(5,3)`$ orbits extending from the top of the diagram and ending near $`R_\mathrm{c}0.02`$ and $`\beta 39^{}`$. This family is distinct from the centrophobic $`(5,3)`$ resonance seen in Fig. 1 and in previous studies (MES89; Lees & Schwarzschild 1992). In addition, this centrophilic family is flanked on either side by two centrophobic higher-order resonances: the $`(7,4)`$ and $`(8,5)`$ families. Only the former has been noted in the literature (Lees & Schwarzschild 1992), but the overall pattern seen here might have been anticipated since rational numbers, each corresponding to a possible resonance, are dense among the reals. The pattern of resonant orbits in Fig. 2 may be summarized as follows: at some starting angle $`\beta `$ between any two resonances, $`(\mathrm{}_1,m_1)`$ and $`(\mathrm{}_2,m_2)`$, one may look for a resonance of the form $`(\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2,m_1+m_2)`$. Of course, not all resonances are stable, and unstable resonances don’t parent orbit families. Nonetheless, we expect that much of the space in Fig. 2 occupied by unclassified orbits (dots) is actually threaded by a fine array of still higher-order families.

But Fig. 2 can’t capture all the stable resonances; it only shows orbits which have a stationary point. In Fig. 3, constructed using a central start space, we partly remedy this deficiency; this plot includes all centrophilic orbits, both those that have stationary points and those that do not. We find a number of new orbit families. For larger values of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ there is a region of $`(\mathrm{},m)=(3,2)`$ orbits (antifish) centred on $`\beta ^{}45^{}`$, and a narrow strip of $`(5,4)`$ orbits near $`\beta ^{}78^{}`$. At intermediate values of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ there is a fairly wide region of $`(4,3)`$ resonances (antipretzels) near $`\beta ^{}75^{}`$. Finally, the bottom part of the plot contains regions of $`(7,4)`$ resonances near $`\beta ^{}18^{}`$ and $`(8,5)`$ resonances near $`\beta ^{}47^{}`$. These families, and several others, are not represented in Fig. 2.

Together, Figs. 2 and 3 exhibit an interesting regularity; as $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ changes, a given boxlet vanishes from one plot at almost the same point where the corresponding antiboxlet appears in the other, and vice versa. For example, the centrophilic $`(\mathrm{},m)=(3,2)`$ family is confined to $`R_\mathrm{c}0.12`$, while the centrophobic version of the same family is confined to $`R_\mathrm{c}0.12`$. A similar statement applies to the pair of $`(4,3)`$ resonances and to other pairs of resonances as well. This behavior can be understood from MES89’s discussion of bifurcations in the logarithmic potential; they remark that as a function of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$, ‘a boxlet and its antiboxlet change stability in such a manner that generally one is stable and the other is unstable’.

Does this rule extend to all resonances? The centrophilic $`(\mathrm{},m)=(5,3)`$ family is seen in both Figs. 2 and 3 for $`R_\mathrm{c}0.02`$, but neither plot shows the complementary family. This is easily explained; the missing family is centrophobic and has no stationary point, so it’s automatically excluded from both plots. We therefore constructed a ‘perpendicular’ start space by setting $`x_0=\dot{y}_0=0`$ and using (6) to fix $`\dot{x}_0`$ in terms of $`y_0`$. This start space allows access to centrophobic orbits which don’t have a stationary point – provided that each orbit at some point crosses the $`y`$ axis at an angle of $`90^{}`$. Fig. 4 shows the results of classifying orbits from this start space for $`y_0`$ in the range $`0.004`$ to $`0.36`$. (We excluded the axial orbit obtained with $`y_0=0`$, and trimmed off the loop orbits which dominate this start space from $`y_00.3`$ out to the maximum value, $`y_{\mathrm{max}}=b(1R_\mathrm{c}^2)^{1/2}0.8`$.) This new plot shows the missing centrophobic $`(5,3)`$ family appearing as expected for $`R_\mathrm{c}0.02`$; it’s centred on $`y_00.18`$. Several other families in Fig. 4 also reinforce this pattern; for example, the small clutch of centrophobic $`(11,7)`$ orbits centred on $`y_00.2`$, $`R_\mathrm{c}0.02`$ neatly complements the narrow bands of centrophilic $`(11,7)`$ orbits which extend down to $`R_\mathrm{c}0.03`$ in Figs. 2 and 3.

Fig. 4 also shows several families previously undetected. The centrophobic $`(\mathrm{},m)=(7,5)`$ resonance occupies a strip extending from $`y_00.22`$ at the bottom of the plot to $`y_00.26`$ at the top. This strip has appreciable width for smaller core radii but narrows to less than the space between adjacent grid points in $`y_0`$ for $`R_\mathrm{c}0.08`$, thereby creating apparent gaps where the strip misses the grid. A similar effect is seen in the centrophobic $`(9,7)`$ family. Both of these families seem stable for almost all – if not quite all – values of $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ tested, so it’s probably not worth looking for their centrophilic counterparts.

## 4 Discussion

Our algorithm works by reducing orbital trajectories to sequences of symbols, and matching these sequences against a set of known patterns. The idea of describing trajectories symbolically is not new; it has been applied to geodesics on negatively-curved surfaces, to forced van der Pol oscillators, and to the restricted three-body problem (Moser 1973 and references therein). Symbolic representation of orbits may have other applications in galactic dynamics. Below we briefly discuss a few related issues and some possible future developments.

### 4.1 Start spaces

The reader may feel somewhat reassured to learn that the three 1-D start spaces considered above are probably both necessary and sufficient to find all boxlet families. We can show this by using the properties of the parametric curves (3). First, the orbits which have stationary points are those for which $`k=0`$. Second, centrophilic orbits are those for which the quantity $`\mathrm{}+m+k`$ is an even number. Third, orbits which cross the $`y`$ axis at an angle of $`90^{}`$ are those for which $`\mathrm{}+2m+k`$ is even. Now if an orbit has no stationary point and is centrophobic then it has $`k=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}+m+k`$ is odd, and because $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are relatively prime it follows that $`m`$ is odd and $`\mathrm{}+2m+k`$ is even – so the orbit crosses the $`y`$ axis at $`90^{}`$. Thus any orbit must fall into at least one of these three categories. Orbits with $`k=0`$ can be accessed from the stationary start space, orbits with even $`\mathrm{}+m+k`$ are reachable using the central start space, and orbits with even $`\mathrm{}+2m+k`$ result from the perpendicular start space. With a few exceptions due to misclassification of high-order resonances, these rules accurately predict which orbit families appear in each of Figs. 2, 3, and 4.

The stationary and perpendicular start spaces suffice for the singular logarithmic potential ($`R_\mathrm{c}=0`$) since all centrophilic orbits are unstable in this potential (e.g. Kuijken 1993).

These results have some bearing on orbit surveys in three-dimensional potentials. At a given energy, the manifold of possible orbits can be covered by a 4-D start space constructed by analogy with the 2-D start space described in Section 3.1 (Levison & Richstone 1987). Since this start space is awkward to sample and to display, many workers favor 2-D start spaces analogous to the stationary and perpendicular start spaces described above (Schwarzschild 1993). But these 2-D start spaces don’t allow access to centrophilic orbits which lack a stationary point, and these orbits may be stable in nonsingular potentials. Thus a full survey of orbits in a three-dimensional nonsingular potential requires at least three different 2-D start spaces: the stationary and perpendicular start spaces must be supplemented by a central start space (Merritt 1999). It still remains to be shown that these 2-D spaces really are sufficient to access all orbits.

### 4.2 Noninteger $`k`$?

We’ve assumed, following MES89, that the only allowed values of the phase parameter are $`k=0`$ and $`k=1`$. This assumption is critically important for the discussion in the previous subsection. However, D. Merritt (private communication) has pointed out that $`k`$ may have values between $`0`$ and $`1`$; for example, in a 2-D harmonic oscillator the $`x`$ and $`y`$ motions are independent and neutrally stable orbits with any real value of $`k`$ exist. For nonintegrable potentials the situation is unclear; $`k`$ is probably limited to a discrete set of values, but it’s possible that values between $`0`$ and $`1`$ are permitted. Our algorithm can’t distinguish a resonant orbits with noninteger $`k`$ from a centrophobic orbit with the same $`(\mathrm{},m)`$, since both yield the same sign-change pattern. Such orbits would be excluded from the 1-D start spaces used in Section 3.2, though in principle they are accessible from a 2-D start space. Visual inspection may be the easiest way to discover orbits with noninteger $`k`$; such orbits, while following the same sign-change patterns as ‘normal’ centrophobes, would have different symmetry properties. No such orbits have been seen in a cursory inspection of candidates, but more work is needed.

### 4.3 Orbit families

The results presented in Section 3 emphasize the remarkable variety and structure of orbit families in the logarithmic potential. Of the $`46`$ families listed in Table 1, some $`29`$ can be found in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. Almost half of these families are centrophilic. While centrophilic orbits have been described before (MES89; Lees & Schwarzschild 1992; Barnes 1998, Fig. 42), most earlier studies treated these families as isolated curiosities. MES89’s bifurcation diagrams showed that boxlets and antiboxlets exchange parental roles as $`R_\mathrm{c}`$ changes; we have made the consequences of this role-reversal visible by routinely finding the centrophilic counterparts of unstable centrophobic orbits. Centrophilic orbits may be destabilized by central mass concentrations in real galaxies, but their recognition still helps in understanding the mechanisms which determine the orbital content of a potential.

We note that some families did not appear in any of our classification diagrams. Most of these missing families are fairly high-order resonances which may be difficult to find because they occupy very small regions of the start spaces. Two low-order centrophilic families, however, are conspicuously absent. One is the orbit generated by the $`(\mathrm{},m)=(1,1)`$ resonance with $`k=0`$, and the other is the antibanana, generated by the $`(2,1)`$ resonance with $`k=1`$. The former resonance is stable in some anharmonic potentials (de Zeeuw & Merritt 1983), while the latter may occur in highly flattened logarithmic potentials (Papaphilippou & Laskar 1996, Fig. 10). We would not expect these centrophilic orbits to appear in our plots since their centrophobic counterparts, the loop and banana orbits, do appear and are stable for a wide range of parameters.

### 4.4 3-D orbits

It’s somewhat disappointing to admit that the technique described here doesn’t trivially generalize to three-dimensional potentials. The reason for this failure is fairly straightforward. In two dimensions the resonance condition (1) fixes a unique relation between the fundamental frequencies, but in three dimensions it does not; as a result, the parenting orbits of many three-dimensional orbit families are thin membranes rather than closed curves (Merritt & Valluri 1999). Such parenting orbits don’t generate unique periodic sign-change sequences, so our present algorithm can’t recognise them. In contrast, spectral methods work quite well in three dimensions (Carpintero & Aguilar 1998; Papaphilippou & Laskar 1998; Valluri & Merritt 1998).

Nonetheless, we can partly classify orbits in three-dimensional potentials by projecting their trajectories onto the principal planes and using our two-dimensional algorithm to analyse the resulting sign-change sequences. This approach recognises resonances in which one component of the integer vector $`𝐧`$ in (1) is zero; such resonances, though not the rule, are fairly common in many potentials (Papaphilippou & Laskar 1998; Merritt & Valluri 1999). Some orbits obey two independent resonance conditions; such ‘doubly-degenerate’ orbits are parented by closed three-dimensional curves. But even doubly-degenerate orbits don’t always yield strictly periodic sign-change sequences. For example, the centrophobic ‘banana-pretzel’ orbit, combining a $`(2,1)`$ resonance in the $`x`$$`z`$ plane with a $`(4,3)`$ resonance in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane, yields a ‘ZYXZ\[YZ\]X\[ZY\]ZXYZ’ semi-pattern containing not one but two ambiguously-ordered pairs of symbols. This example suggests that more general pattern-matching methods may be able classify the crossing-sequences generated by arbitrary three-dimensional resonances.

### 4.5 Future developments

There are several ways in which this algorithm could be improved or extended. As just mentioned, one line of attack is to generalize the pattern-scanning process. It seems fairly easy to extend the routine which searches for arbitrary periodic patterns (Section 3.2) to recognise centrophilic as well as centrophobic semi-patterns; this would provide a better safety-net for high-order resonances. It’s also straightforward, in principle, to couple the trajectory-following and pattern-matching routines together so that the latter can call the former as needed for more data to resolve ambiguous cases. This would be more efficient and reliable than first integrating the orbit for a fixed number of sign-changes and then analysing the results.

Another line of attack is to adapt the algorithm to analyse N-body simulations. A simplified version has already been used to classify orbits in merger remnants (Barnes 1998; Bendo & Barnes 2000); however, this version just followed individual trajectories in a frozen approximation of the N-body potential. A more interesting project would be to classify orbits directly from the computed trajectories in a simulation. This could be accomplished by using an N-body code to generate separate sign-changes sequences for all $`N`$ bodies; these sequences could be quickly scanned by pattern-matching algorithms like the one described here. Such techniques could attach a concise historical record to each body in an N-body simulation, nicely complementing the instantaneous snapshots of positions and velocities which currently form the basis for most N-body analysis.

We thank the referee, Dr. P. Palmer, for an open and constructive report, and L. Aguilar, T. de Zeeuw, D. Merritt, and E. Roberts for valuable and encouraging comments on a preliminary draft of this paper. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-8393 and STScI grant GO-06430.03-95A.


text:
# Limits on the low-energy antinucleon annihilations from the Heisenberg principle

## Abstract

Here a short synthesis is presented of the work, developed in the last two years by the Brescia Collaboration, on the phenomenology of antinucleon-nucleon and antinucleon-nucleus annihilation at small momenta (below 300 MeV/c in the laboratory), with special stress on the role of general principles.

Our work in the last two years was mainly devoted to the study of the strong shadowing characterizing $`\overline{p}`$ annihilations onlight nuclei. The nuclear shadowing is evident in the fact that the $`\overline{p}p`$ total annihilation cross sections are larger than the corresponding $`\overline{p}`$D and $`\overline{p}^4`$He ones for $`\overline{p}`$ momenta in the laboratory $`k`$ $`<`$ 70 MeV/c. In previous works we used the word “inversion”. A related phenomenon was studied in antiprotonic atoms and also pionic atoms.

Since “shadowing” can be defined as the amount of departure from the Impulse Approximation, to quantify its real presence we need first to produce an impulse approximation estimation of the measured nuclear data. Not to overrate the shadowing effects, two more points must be taken into account: (1) a correct estimation of Coulomb enhancement effects, and (2) center of mass effects. When data are represented with respect to the center of mass momentum, the shadowing effect is smaller, although apparently all the available nuclear annihilation cross sections become quite similar at $`k_{cm}`$ $`<<`$ 100 MeV/c. To fully understand the relevance of this similarity, we remind that at low energies Coulomb effects are expected to be quite strong and enhance $`\overline{p}^4`$He annihilation rates about twice with respect to $`\overline{p}p`$ ones. This traditional estimate of Coulomb effects is based on the approximation of pointlike particles. Within an optical potential framework we re-calculated these Coulomb corrections, taking into account the finite size of the $`\overline{p}`$ and nuclear charge distributions. One of the results was that the advantage of the Helium charge with respect to the Hydrogen case was not that large, in the laboratory frame. This advantage is however stronger with respect to center of mass momenta. The role of the reference frame can be understood taking into account that low energy exoenergetic reaction cross sections are supposed to be roughly $``$ $`1/k_{cm}`$ for neutral projectiles, and $``$ $`1/k_{cm}^2`$ for charged projectiles. E.g., $`k_{lab}`$ $`=`$ 100 MeV/c means $`k_{cm}`$ $``$ 100 MeV/c for $`\overline{p}^4`$He, and $`k_{cm}`$ $`=`$ 50 MeV/c for $`\overline{p}p`$.

For calculating a PWIA $`\overline{p}`$-nucleus annihilation rate, we need $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`\overline{p}n`$ annihilation rates in a suitable momentum range. The latter have been supposed to be equal to the $`\overline{n}p`$ measured annihilation rates (see fig.3). We have subtracted Coulomb effects from the measured $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation rates, leading to the “uncharged $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation cross section” shown by the solid line in fig.1. After calculating the total nuclear annihilation cross section, the result has been rescaled by the $`nuclear`$ enhancement Coulomb factor. This procedure is needed for the following reasons. When a $`\overline{p}`$ annihilates on a nucleus, the Coulomb forces have two effects: (1) a focusing of the $`\overline{p}`$ wave in the reaction region, and (2) an increase of the $`\overline{p}`$ kinetic energy. Both effects take place on an atomic scale $``$ $`r_B`$ $`>>`$ $`R_{nucleus}`$. So $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`\overline{p}n`$ processes are equally “Coulomb affected” when the proton and neutron are bound to the same nucleus.

Last, the PWIA calculated annihilation cross section has been renormalized to the measured value at $`k`$ $``$ 350 MeV/c. This permits to remove the eclipse effect from the calculations. This effect is well known, and reduces the annihilation rates by a slowly energy dependent factor at all energies, leading to a reaction rate proportional to $`A^{2/3}`$. This effect can be considered a component of the shadowing, but clearly it is not what we are interested in. In fig.2 we show the results of the IA fit on deuteron. We produce three curves. One takes into account the real deuteron composition, the other two assume a deuteron composed by two neutrons or two protons (in both cases with total deuteron electric charge 1). The comparison between the three curves, and between the solid one and the data suggests that (1) not to take into account the actual proton/neutron composition of the nucleus introduces large errors for $`k`$ $`<`$ 200 MeV/c, and (2) remarkable shadowing is anyway present for $`k`$ $`<`$ 100 MeV/c.

Rather independently of the mechanism underlying the annihilation process, it had been previously demonstrated that in the framework of the multiple scattering theory, of variational methods and of optical potential treatments one can predict such shadowing effects. The effect seems to be present also in pionic atoms.

The fact that different methods lead to similar results suggested us to investigate the problem from a more general and qualitative, although less precise, point of view. In our work we have shown that due to the quantum uncertainty principle the $`\overline{n}`$-nucleus cross sections should be almost $`A`$-independent, apart for fluctuations due to nuclear surface effects. Consequently the $`\overline{p}`$-nucleus cross sections should depend on the target because of its electric charge only. The underlying argument is that most of the existing models or phenomenological analyses establish that the annihilation process takes place when the centers of mass of the antinucleon and of the target nucleus are at a relative distance $`d`$ such that $`R_{nucleus}`$ $`<`$ $`d`$ $`<`$ $`R_{nucleus}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ 1 fm (or smaller, depending on the model) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not depend too much on the target. So the annihilation is equivalent to a measurement of the projectile-target relative distance with uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`<`$ 1 fm, and this measurement is incompatible with a relative momentum $`<<`$ 200 MeV/c.

We distinguish between two classes of nuclear reactions. On one side, inelastic reactions where the entire nucleus is involved, as in compound nucleus reactions, but the underlying projectile-nucleon processes are elastic (e.g. neutron induced nuclear reactions). In this case the characteristic reaction region coincides approximately with the target nucleus. Then the uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ coincides approximately with the nuclear radius. On the other side, we find reactions where a strong inelasticity is present at the projectile-nucleon level. In this case reactions deep inside the nuclear volume are rare, the reaction region is a shell at the surface of the target nucleus, with thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is approximately the same for all the possible targets.

The consequence of the limitations imposed by the uncertainty principle is that for antinucleon momenta $`k`$ $`<<`$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the total reaction cross section becomes much smaller than its possible unitarity limit. In the limit of very small momenta this is also established by the well known low energy limit for the phase shifts: $`\delta _l`$ $``$ $`k^{2l+1}`$ for $`k`$ $``$ 0. The unitarity limit is reached when a partial wave is completely absorbed in the reaction process, which means $`exp(i\delta _l)`$ $`=`$ 0, i.e. $`Im(\delta _l)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$, so the unitarity limit cannot be attained at small enough $`k`$. Uncertainty considerations suggest that for $`k`$ $`>>`$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ it is possible, for strong enough reactions, to saturate the unitarity limit, while for $`k`$ $`<<`$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we are in the situation where $`\delta _l`$ $`=`$ $`O(k^{2l+1})`$, whatever the strength of the reaction.

On the ground that the projectile wavefunction $`\chi `$ $``$ $`r\mathrm{\Psi }(r)`$ is completely damped within a range $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (i.e $`|\chi |`$ is large for $`r`$ $`>`$ $`R_{nucleus}+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and very small for $`r`$ $`<`$ $`R_{nucleus}`$) it is straightforward to demonstrate that for the scattering length $`\alpha `$ we have (approximately):

$`Im(\alpha )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$`Re(\alpha )`$ $``$ $`+R_{nucleus}`$.

These results derive from the observation that the $`\chi `$ damping requirement implies, for the logarithmic derivative of the projectile wavefunction, $`|\chi ^{}/\chi |`$ $``$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This is an obvious geometrical consequence of the damping requirement $`\chi (R\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`<<`$ $`\chi (R)`$, but in more physical terms it is a consequence of the uncertainty principle. When the absolute value of the logarithmic derivatives of the free motion wavefunction $`|\chi ^{}/\chi |_{r=R_{nucleus}+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`|kcotg\{k(R_{nucleus}+\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )\}|`$ is matched with the corresponding quantity for the wavefunction in the annihilation region $`|\chi ^{}/\chi |_{r=R_{nucleus}+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the previous values for the scattering length are obtained in the limit $`k`$ $`<<`$ $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. An illustration of this is given in fig.3.

A paradoxical consequence is that a smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to what would be a stronger reaction at large energies, so that at low energies “stronger” interactions lead to a smaller reaction rate.

The above values of course are deduced from approximate equations, so they represent just estimates, however they suggest that the antineutron annihilation cross sections should not show a $`systematic`$ increase with the target mass number $`A`$. Such an increase could be present for antiproton annihilations, but because of Coulomb effects only. When going to any specific target nucleus, non-systematic effects will be present, related with the structure of the nuclear surface.

The exposed mechanism has an interesting consequence in the case of optical potential analyses: an increase of the strength of the imaginary part of the optical potential can lead to a decrease of the consequent reaction rate at small momenta. In the above language, an increase in the potential strength leads to a decrease in the size parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, since the absorption of the projectile wavefunction takes place in a shorter range. Also modification of other parameters (radius, diffuseness, etc) leads to consequences that are not necessarily the most obvious ones. A relevant example is given next.

In fig.1 we have shown, together with data, two optical potential fits. The $`\overline{p}p`$ fit uses a slight modification of an optical potential used by another group to fit elastic data at 200-600 MeV/c. It is a Woods-Saxon shape with $`V_I`$ $`=`$ $``$8000 MeV, $`V_R`$ $`=`$ $``$46 MeV, $`R_I`$ $`=`$ 0.52 fm, $`R_R`$ $`=`$ 1.89 fm, $`a_I`$ $`=`$ $`a_R`$ $`=`$ 0.15 fm. The Coulomb potential is the potential of a spherical charge distribution with radius $`R_c`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{R_p^2+R_{\overline{p}}^2}`$ $`=`$ 1.25 fm. The interesting point is that the $`\overline{n}p`$ fit is obtained either by increasing $`V_I`$ to 14000 MeV, or by increasing $`R_I`$ to 0.75 fm (in addition to removing Coulomb effects). In both cases a “more effective” annihilating potential leads to a smaller cross section.

It is interesting to observe that the fit by an $`energy`$ $`independent`$ optical potential can reproduce very well the $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation cross section, and follows the “average” trend of the $`\overline{n}p`$ one, but is unable to reproduce the broad peak that is present at 150-350 MeV/c over this “background”. At very low momenta the $`\overline{n}p`$ cross section rises again, reaching the “uncharged $`\overline{p}p`$” one, represented by the solid line in fig.1. So we speak of a “regular background”, dominant in the $`\overline{p}p`$ case, also relevant in the $`\overline{n}p`$ case, that can be reproduced by an energy independent optical potential, and of a “gap/peak” structure that corresponds to a more complicate physics than pure absorption. This structure is evidently characteristic of the isospin-1 channel.

To conclude, we may say that the nuclear annihilation rates at low energies can be partly explained by the difference between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`\overline{p}n`$ interactions. On the other side, a strong shadowing is present. We think this shadowing to be due to the “inversion” behavior of the strongly absorbing processes at low energies, inversion behavior that can be justified as a manifestation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This also has the consequence that probably, despite appearances, $`\overline{n}p`$ interactions are $`stronger`$ than $`\overline{p}p`$ ones at low energies. We also stress that the ratio between $`\overline{n}p`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation rates presents an oscillating behavior that cannot be justified by regular absorption only.