text:
# I Sides and opposite angles of amplitude triangles. See text for units. First line denotes Δ𝑆=Δ𝐶 triangle (2); other lines denote Δ𝑆=-Δ𝐶 triangles (9).

TECHNION-PH-2000-28

EFI 2000-34

hep-ph/0010237

October 2000

U-Spin Symmetry in Doubly Cabibbo-Suppressed
Charmed Meson Decays111To be published in Physics Letters B.

Michael Gronau

Department of Physics, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
Technion City, 32000 Haifa, Israel

and

Jonathan L. Rosner

Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

ABSTRACT

> We prove a U-spin amplitude triangle relation among doubly Cabibbo-suppressed (DCS) charmed meson decays, $`D^0K^+\pi ^{},D^0K^0\pi ^0`$ and $`D_s^+K^0K^+`$, congruent to an isospin relation among corresponding Cabibbo-favored (CF) decays. U-spin breaking in relative phases between CF and DCS amplitudes affects time-dependent studies of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing. Comparison of final state phase patterns in DCS and CF amplitude triangles, which can shed some light on these phases, is carried out in a phenomenological framework incorporating resonance contributions.

Recently the CLEO Collaboration reported a measurement of the DCS decay $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ . The measured branching ratio, based on a time-dependent rate measurement, is a substantial advance in sensitivity and is considerably lower than the previous world average . The new world average  (we use $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _c=0.2256\pm 0.0024`$)

$$\frac{(D^0K^+\pi ^{})}{(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)}=(1.47\pm 0.31)\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _c,$$
(1)
is consistent at 90$`\%`$ confidence level with flavor SU(3) symmetry, which predicts a value of $`\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _c`$ for the ratio of branching ratios .

Early predictions based on factorization , in which several SU(3) breaking effects were claimed to accumulate, were larger than the SU(3) limit by a factor of about two to three. An uncertain factor in this estimate is the ratio of form factors $`F_0^{DK}/F_0^{D\pi }`$ at low $`q^2`$, which was taken to be smaller than one, whereas a value slightly larger than one is preferred on theoretical grounds. The present average value obtained from four experiments  is $`F_0^{DK}(0)/F_0^{D\pi }(0)=1.00\pm 0.08`$. The central value implies a factorization prediction of $`1.72\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _c`$ which is consistent with (1). However, the use of factorization in $`D`$ decays has been frequently questioned, most recently in , where nearby resonances at 1430 and around 1800$``$1900 MeV were shown to contribute sizably to $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ .

SU(3) was observed to be badly broken in several singly Cabibbo-suppressed $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ $`D`$ decays . This includes the ratio of amplitudes  $`\sqrt{2}|A(D^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)|/|A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)|=(1.78\pm 0.26)\mathrm{tan}\theta _c`$, which is expected to be $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _c`$ in the SU(3) limit. Since this ratio consists of decay amplitudes to exotic final states involving $`\pi \pi `$ in $`I=2`$ and $`K\pi `$ in $`I=3/2`$, it demonstrates that SU(3) breaking is not due only to resonance contributions. An interesting question is whether SU(3) breaking in DCS $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ processes, which do involve resonances, is in general smaller than in $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays, as seems to be the case in (1). We will study this question in the presence of resonance contributions.

The question of SU(3) breaking in DCS charmed meson decays plays an important role in time-dependent studies of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing. Interference between mixing and decay to “wrong sign” $`K\pi `$ depends on the strong phase difference $`\delta `$ between the amplitudes of $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$. A priori knowledge of $`\delta `$ would simplify the analysis considerably . This phase vanishes in the flavor SU(3) limit . Theoretical estimates of $`\delta `$, based on various assumptions about SU(3) breaking, are strongly model-dependent . Therefore, one seeks model-independent information about this phase, or about any other relative strong phase between corresponding DCS and CF $`D^0`$ decay amplitudes.

In the present Letter we study various tests of SU(3) symmetry in DCS charmed meson decays. We reconsider a variety of U-spin relations  between CF and DCS decay rates, some of which were proposed twenty five years ago . In particular, we prove an amplitude triangle relation among DCS decays, $`D^0K^+\pi ^{},D^0K^0\pi ^0`$ and $`D_s^+K^0K^+`$, congruent to an isospin triangle relation among corresponding CF decays. U-spin breaking would violate this relation, and could modify the final-state phase pattern of DCS processes relative to that of CF decays. A comparison of these two patterns is shown to indirectly shed light on the magnitude of relative final state phases between CF and DCS amplitudes. We study these patterns within a phenomenological framework which incorporates resonant contributions in an SU(3) breaking fashion. Using a range of SU(3) breaking parameters, we show that the phase $`\delta `$ can be as large as about 20 degrees. We point out certain experimental difficulties in measuring final state phases in DCS decays.

The presence of non-trivial relative phases between the amplitudes contributing to certain CF $`D`$ meson decays can be ascertained by constructing amplitude triangles based on experimentally observed decay rates. The subprocess $`csu\overline{d}`$ involves a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transition. The amplitudes of the three two body decays $`D^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$, and $`D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+`$ are governed by two isospin amplitudes corresponding to $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$ final states. Thus, the square roots of the corresponding rates form a triangle

$$A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0)=A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+).$$
(2)
Similar triangle relations hold in quasi two-body decays into a vector and a pseudoscalar meson:

$`A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+),`$ (3)
$`A(D^0\rho ^+K^{})+\sqrt{2}A(D^0\rho ^0\overline{K}^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^0),`$ (4)
and for partial-wave amplitudes $`A_l`$ in decays to two vector mesons:

$$A_l(D^0K^{}\rho ^+)+\sqrt{2}A_l(D^0\overline{K}^0\rho ^0)=A_l(D^+\overline{K}^0\rho ^+),$$
(5)
where relations hold separately for S, P and D-waves.

If a triangle has non-zero area, the two corresponding isospin amplitudes have a non-trivial phase with respect to one another. Using experimental data, $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$ amplitudes were shown  to have relative phases close to $`90^{}`$ for the decays $`D\overline{K}\pi `$ and $`D\overline{K}^{}\pi `$, but near zero for $`D\rho \overline{K}`$.

The isospin decomposition in DCS $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ processes differs from that in CF $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ decays. In the former case the quark subprocess $`cdu\overline{s}`$ involves both $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0`$ and $`1`$ transitions which yield three isospin amplitudes for $`I=1/2`$ and $`I=3/2`$ final states. There are four allowed charge states in $`D^0`$ and $`D^+`$ two body decays: $`D^0K^+\pi ^{},D^0K^0\pi ^0,D^+K^+\pi ^0`$ and $`D^+K^0\pi ^+`$. The four physical amplitudes, which are linear combinations of the three isospin amplitudes, obey a quadrangle relation

$$A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})+\sqrt{2}A(D^0K^0\pi ^0)=A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^+K^+\pi ^0).$$
(6)
Similar quadrangle relations apply to quasi-two body decays into pairs of a vector and pseudoscalar meson:

$`A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})+\sqrt{2}A(D^0K^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^+K^+\pi ^0)`$
$`A(D^0\rho ^{}K^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^0\rho ^0K^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D^+\rho ^+K^0)+\sqrt{2}A(D^+\rho ^0K^+),`$
and to partial-wave amplitudes into $`K^{}\rho `$ states.

These quadrangle relations are quite different from the isospin triangles in CF decays. As we will see now, relations between two sides of the CF triangle (2) and two sides of the DCS quadrangle (6) follow from an approximate U-spin symmetry, thereby permiting in this approximation a triangle construction also for DCS decays. Similar relations are obeyed by S and D wave amplitudes in decays to $`K^{}\rho `$, but do not hold for decays into a vector and a pseudoscalar meson.

A discrete U-spin symmetry transformation, interchanging $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks, implies simple relations between $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ processes . This transformation interchanges the four-quark $`U=1`$ transition operators, $`csu\overline{d}`$ and $`cdu\overline{s}`$, and implies $`D^0D^0,D^+D_s^+`$ and $`\pi ^\pm K^\pm ,\overline{K}^0K^0`$ in initial and final states. The $`\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$ final state is a special case. The two pseudoscalars which are in an S-wave are in a symmetric U-spin state. The $`\overline{K}^0`$ is $`U=1`$, while the $`\pi ^0`$ is a combination of $`U=0`$ and $`U=1`$. In $`D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$ the $`\mathrm{\Delta }U=1`$ transition leads to a $`U=1`$ final state to which only the $`U=0`$ component of the $`\pi ^0`$ contributes. Thus, in $`D^0`$ decay U-spin reflection implies $`\overline{K}^0\pi ^0K^0\pi ^0`$.

A general U-spin prediction is that the ratio of every pair of U-spin related DCS and CF decay amplitudes is given by the CKM factor $`V_{cd}^{}V_{us}/V_{cs}^{}V_{ud}=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c`$. Hence one finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})}{A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^0K^0\pi ^0)}{A(D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)}{A(D_s^+\overline{K}^0K^+)}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D_s^+K^0K^+)}{A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)}}=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c.`$
Note that this not only predicts the ratios of magnitudes for the corresponding amplitudes, but also implies equal final state phases in CF and in DCS decays. In this approximation, the quadrangle relation Eq. (6) breaks into two triangle relations

$`A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})+\sqrt{2}A(D^0K^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D_s^+K^0K^+),`$ (9)
$`A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)+\sqrt{2}A(D^+K^+\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A(D_s^+K^0K^+).`$ (10)
The situation in decays to pairs of a vector and a pseudoscalar meson ($`VP`$), $`DK^{}\pi `$ and $`D\rho K`$, is different. Here the two mesons in the final states are in a P-wave and both $`U=0`$ and $`U=1`$ components of the $`\pi ^0`$ or $`\rho ^0`$ contribute. Consequently, ratios similar to Eq. (8) do not apply to $`VP`$ final states involving these neutral mesons, and the quadrangles (S0.Ex1) do not break into two triangles. Certain ratios of DCS to CF amplitudes are still given in the U-spin symmetry limit by $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^0\rho ^{}K^+)}{A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})}{A(D^0\rho ^+K^{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{A(D^+\rho ^+K^0)}{A(D_s^+K^+\overline{K}^0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{A(D_s^+K^+K^0)}{A(D^+\rho ^+\overline{K}^0)}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)}{A(D_s^+\overline{K}^0K^+)}}={\displaystyle \frac{A(D_s^+K^0K^+)}{A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)}}=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c.`$
The first two ratios can be tested in an ongoing study by the CLEO Collaboration of the Dalitz plot in $`D^0K^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ . The measured value of the penultimate ratio , taking into account an SU(3) breaking phase space factor $`p_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}^3/M_{\mathrm{initial}}^2`$,

$$\frac{|A(D^+K^0\pi ^+)|}{|A(D_s^+\overline{K}^0K^+)|}=(1.25\pm 0.33)\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c,$$
(12)
is in agreement with the above prediction.

Predictions very similar to Eq. (8) hold for ratios of the three partial wave amplitudes in decays to two vector mesons. One simply replaces $`KK^{}`$ and $`\pi \rho `$, excluding final states involving $`\rho ^0`$ in ratios of P-wave amplitudes. Two triangle relations similar to (9) and (10) are obeyed by S and D wave amplitudes, where the two vector mesons are in symmetric U-spin states

$`A_{S,D}(D^0K^+\rho ^{})+\sqrt{2}A_{S,D}(D^0K^0\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{S,D}(D_s^+K^0K^+),`$ (13)
$`A_{S,D}(D^+K^0\rho ^+)+\sqrt{2}A_{S,D}(D^+K^+\rho ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{S,D}(D_s^+K^0K^+).`$ (14)
Finally, U-spin predictions can be generalized to any U-spin related pair of multibody DCS and CF charmed meson decays. For instance, one predicts for the ratio of nonresonant three-body amplitudes

$$\frac{A(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{nonresonant}}}{A(D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+)_{\mathrm{nonresonant}}}=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c.$$
(15)
Taking into account an SU(3) breaking three-body phase space factor of 1.58 in favor of $`D^+`$ decay, the measured value of this ratio

$$\frac{|A(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})_{\mathrm{nonresonant}}|}{|A(D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+)_{\mathrm{nonresonant}}|}=(1.75\pm 0.59)\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c,$$
(16)
is consistent with this prediction although experimental errors are still large. Other predictions , such as $`A(D^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{})/A(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)=A(D_s^+K^+K^+\pi ^{})/A(D_s^+K^+K^{}\pi ^+)=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c`$, where initial and final states in DCS and CF processes are not related by U-spin, do not follow from SU(3) alone but require further dynamical assumptions.

Now let us discuss how U-spin breaking may show up in magnitudes of amplitudes and in their final state phase differences. For this matter consider, for instance, the two U-spin related triangles of Eqs. (2) and (9), where the first triangle follows from isospin symmetry while the second one holds only in the SU(3) symmetry limit. In this limit the two triangles are congruent to each other; the ratio of their corresponding sides is given by a common factor of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c`$.

In order to demonstrate the effect of SU(3) breaking on the pattern of the DCS triangle (9) relative to the CF triangle (2), it is convenient to decompose amplitudes into diagramatic contributions : a color favored “tree” amplitude $`T`$, a “color-suppressed” amplitude C and an “exchange” amplitude $`E`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ amplitudes can be expressed as

$`A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`T+E,\sqrt{2}A(D^0\overline{K}^0\pi ^0)=CE,`$
$`A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`T+C,`$ (17)
while $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ amplitudes are

$`A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c(T^{}+E^{}),\sqrt{2}A(D^0K^0\pi ^0)=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c(C^{}E^{}),`$
$`A(D_s^+K^0K^+)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _c(T^{}+C^{}),`$ (18)
where in the SU(3) limit $`T^{}=T,C^{}=C,E^{}=E`$. We stress again that Eqs. (S0.Ex5) and (S0.Ex6) are equivalent to isospin and SU(3) decompositions, respectively. The above two sets of equations provide a suitable phenomenological framework for incorporating important resonant contributions through the terms $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ .

A successful fit to all CF $`D`$ decays to two pseudoscalars, including decays into $`K\eta `$ and $`K\eta ^{}`$, yields

$$T=2.69,C=1.96e^{i28^{}},E=1.60e^{i114^{}},$$
(19)
where amplitudes are given in units of $`10^6`$ GeV. The sizable magnitude of $`E`$ and its large phase relative to $`T`$ (chosen to be real) prove the importance of nearby resonances. The color-suppressed amplitude $`C`$ acquires a smaller complex phase from rescattering through states fed by $`T`$. We note that also the exotic amplitudes $`A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)`$ and $`A(D_s^+K^0K^+)`$, which do not include resonance contributions, carry final state phases. The lengths of the three sides of the CF triangle (2) from which the amplitudes (19) were obtained  are

$$|T+E|=2.50,|CE|=2.62,|T+C|=1.36,$$
(20)
and the corresponding angles opposite these sides are $`70^{},80^{}`$ and $`30^{}`$, respectively.

SU(3) breaking is introduced in $`T^{}`$ and $`C^{}`$ by assuming factorization and using the above mentioned value $`F_0^{DK}(m_\pi ^2)/F_0^{D\pi }(m_K^2)F_0^{DK}(0)/F_0^{D\pi }(0)=1.0`$ , where a few percent correction due to an extrapolation from the measured value at $`q^2=0`$ is neglected. Thus

$$\frac{T^{}}{T}=\frac{f_KF_0^{D\pi }(m_K^2)(1m_\pi ^2/m_D^2)}{f_\pi F_0^{DK}(m_\pi ^2)(1m_K^2/m_D^2)}=1.31,\frac{C^{}}{C}=1.$$
(21)
For the resonant contribution we assume six possible factors which cover a reasonable range of parameters: (a) $`E^{}=1.3E`$ (b) $`E^{}=0.7E`$ (c) $`E^{}=1.3e^{i30^{}}E`$ (d) $`E^{}=0.7e^{i30^{}}E`$ (e) $`E^{}=1.3e^{i30^{}}E`$ and (f) $`E^{}=0.7e^{i30^{}}E`$. A factor between 0.7 and 1.3 seems adequate for SU(3) breaking in the $`D^0`$ effective couplings to the resonances and to their charge-conjugates. This factor is real for one dominant resonance around 1800-1900 MeV , for which the common phase of $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ depends only on the resonance mass and width. The contribution from the more distant resonance at 1430 MeV was estimated  to be at least a factor two smaller. Even in case that the phase of this contribution is $`90^{}`$ relative to the dominant one, it may change the phase of $`E^{}`$ relative to $`E`$ by no more than $`30^{}`$ which we consider as extreme cases.

The resulting lengths of sides and the angles in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ triangle are shown in Table 1. The four values of $`|T^{}+E^{}|/|T+E|`$ in cases (a)$``$(d) are consistent with the average measurement (1) at one standard deviation, whereas the values (e) and (f) corresponding to a negative SU(3) breaking phase between $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are excluded by the data at a high level of confidence. In the four cases which are consistent with data the angles opposite the three sides $`T^{}+E^{},C^{}E^{}`$ and $`T^{}+C^{}`$ are (a) $`80^{},63^{},37^{}`$ (b) $`96^{},46^{},38^{}`$ (c) $`64^{},61^{},55^{}`$ and (d) $`91^{},41^{},48^{}`$. Comparing this with the above-mentioned angles of the CF triangle, we see that final state phase patterns in DCS and CF amplitude triangles can be quite different. Within the above range of SU(3) breaking parameters corresponding angles in the two triangles differ by as much as $`39^{}`$.

An interesting quantity is the final state phase difference $`\delta =\mathrm{Arg}[(T^{}+E^{})/(T+E)]`$ between $`A(D^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ and $`A(D^0K^{}\pi ^+)`$, which vanishes in the U-spin symmetry limit and which plays an important role in studies of $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixing as mentioned in the introduction. This phase is found to be 0, $`17`$, $`2`$ and $`22`$ degrees in cases (a) (b) (c) and (d), respectively. It can be positive if SU(3) breaking enhances $`E^{}`$ more than $`T^{}`$. Crudely speaking, very different shapes of the CF and DCS triangles would be evidence for a large value of $`|\delta |`$. The magnitude of this phase grows with an increasing difference between the two angles opposite $`CE`$ and $`C^{}E^{}`$. In cases (b) and (d), where this angle difference is $`34^{}`$ and $`39^{}`$, $`\delta `$ is $`17^{}`$ and $`22^{}`$, respectively, about half of this angle difference. The other $`17^{}=\mathrm{Arg}[(T^{}+C^{})/(T+C)]`$ are due to a phase difference between the exotic amplitudes $`A(D_s^+K^0K^+)`$ and $`A(D^+\overline{K}^0\pi ^+)`$. We note that very large values of $`\delta `$, around $`45^{}`$ or larger as envisaged in , cannot be accommodated in our scheme within a reasonable range of SU(3) breaking parameters. Such values would require an SU(3) breaking factor of 2.5 in $`E^{}/E`$.

Finally, we make a few comments on the difficulty of measuring two of the amplitudes in Eq. (9). There is no way to distinguish a $`K^0`$ from a $`\overline{K}^0`$ when it is detected as a $`K_S`$. In CF decays one simply assumes the flavor of a neutral kaon which is an adequate approximation. This would be clearly wrong for DCS decays. Tagging the flavor of a $`K^0`$ through the charged lepton $`\mathrm{}^+`$ in semileptonic decays requires looking at decay times less than a few $`K_S`$ lifetimes, before the $`K_S`$ has decayed away. This reduces the rate by a large factor and does not seem feasible for rare DCS decays.

Alternatively, one may measure the triangles (13) describing DCS decays to two vector mesons in S and D waves, where $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ identifies the flavor of the neutral $`K^{}`$. The structure of these triangles could then be compared with those of (5) for S and D waves. This requires a partial wave analysis through angular distributions of decay products. Such analysis was performed in CF decays , where evidence was found for negligible P-wave amplitudes.

Note added: After the submission of this Letter a new result for the ratio of branching ratios in Eq. (1) appeared  corresponding to a value $`(1.56\pm 0.34)\mathrm{tan}^4\theta _c`$.

We thank Yuval Grossman, Harry Lipkin, Harry Nelson and Alex Smith for useful discussions, and Mikhail Voloshin for reminding us of the very early papers in Ref. . J. L. R. wishes to thank the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology for gracious hospitality during part of this work. This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy through Grant No. DE FG02 90ER40560 and by the U. S. – Israel Binational Science Foundation through Grant No. 98-00237.


format: text

text:
# Negative differential resistance in nanotube devices

## Abstract

Carbon nanotube junctions are predicted to exhibit negative differential resistance, with very high peak-to-valley current ratios even at room temperature. We treat both nanotube p-n junctions and undoped metal-nanotube-metal junctions, calculating quantum transport through the self-consistent potential within a tight-binding approximation. The undoped junctions in particular may be suitable for device integration.

The scaling of semiconductor devices to ever-smaller sizes is rapidly approaching fundamental limits, spurring the exploration of new materials. Carbon nanotubes (NTs) have particular appeal due to their small size and unique mechanical and electronic properties; and some NT devices have already been reported .

Recent theoretical work on NT devices has focused on simple operations such as rectification , based on thermal excitation of carriers over a potential barrier. However, in NT devices tunneling through the barrier can actually dominate the transport . Such tunneling currents can lead to negative differential resistance (NDR), with a wide range of potential device applications .

Here we show that NT junctions are ideally suited to function as nanoscale NDR device elements. We consider two very different devices — a simple p-n junction, and an entirely new device structure based on metal contacts to an undoped NT. The latter device relies on the nanoscale lateral size of nanotubes and has no analog in bulk devices, illustrating the exciting possibilities that nanotubes present.

In both cases, the direct gap and long tunneling length of the NT contribute to a high peak current, while the strong carbon bonding and small device size reduce the likelihood of any defect levels in the bandgap contributing to excess valley current. Thus the predicted peak/valley current ratios exceed by orders of magnitude those seen in existing devices.

Nanotube p-n junctions have been studied before , although their potential as NDR devices has not been recognized. These simple devices provide an ideal testing ground for general ideas about device operation. For technological applications, however, one would prefer a device that does not require doping and that can be integrated into a multi-level architecture. The metal-NT-metal structure considered here has precisely these desirable attributes.

We first consider a p-n junction made with a semiconducting single-wall NT. Specifically, we treat a (17,0) zigzag NT with a radius of 0.66 nm. (See Ref.  for notation and a general description of the NT atomic structure.) Our qualitative results also apply to other semiconducting NTs. We use a tight-binding Hamiltonian with one $`\pi `$ orbital per carbon atom and a nearest-neighbor matrix element of 2.5 eV , giving a direct band gap of 0.55 eV. We consider NT junctions both in vacuum and embedded in a dielectric material ($`ϵ=`$ 3.9).

Doping of NTs could be accomplished by insertion of atoms inside the tubes  or by substitution into the lattice , and we have considered both methods. We model dopants inside the tube by a line of charge on the tube axis, either positive for n doping or negative for p. (Replacing the line with discrete ions has negligible effect.) A reasonable packing density corresponds to highly degenerate doping, with an atomic doping fraction of about 0.01, and we use this value throughout our calculations. Substitutional doping can be modeled (within a sort of virtual-crystal approximation) by a uniform cylinder of charge on the tube. I-V curves calculated with these two models agree within 1-2% for all applied voltages.

We calculate the current using the method of Ref. . The NT is divided into two semi-infinite “leads” and a “scattering region” 13.3 nm in length. Within the scattering region we use the full self-consistent potential $`U(z)`$, including applied bias and free-carrier screening. The potentials in the leads are taken as constant, and equal to the potentials at the boundaries of the scattering region; and the scattering region is taken long enough to assure the accuracy of this approximation.

To obtain $`U(z)`$, we self-consistently calculate the charge and potential for a periodically repeated cell of 26.6 nm, consisting of p and n regions of equal size. The local density of states on each atomic site is obtained by direct diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. The charge on each site is given by integration of the product of the local density of states and the Fermi function.

This standard method is only directly applicable in equilibrium, and must be adapted for the presence of an applied voltage. In the limit of large junction resistance (low current), the p and n regions are each in internal equilibrium, but with Fermi levels that differ by the applied voltage. We therefore calculate the charge using separate Fermi functions for the two regions. (There is a region near the junction where the Fermi level is undefined; but in the voltage range of interest, this region is fully depleted and contributes negligible free charge regardless of which Fermi level is used.) The accuracy of this approach is discussed further below.

For a given charge $`\sigma (z)`$ (including both electronic and ionic contributions), the electrostatic potential is $`U(z)=\left(R/4\pi ϵ\right)\sigma \left(z^{}\right)G(zz^{})𝑑z^{}`$, where $`G(zz^{})`$ is the electrostatic kernel for a cylinder  and $`R`$ is the NT radius. \[For a tube embedded in a dielectric ($`ϵ1`$), the formula neglects the presence of a hole in the dielectric. A more accurate calculation in the context of the metal-NT-metal device is presented below.\] In our numerical procedure, we start from a charge $`\sigma (z)`$ and obtain $`U(z)`$; the diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian are then shifted by $`eU(z)`$, the electronic charge is re-calculated, and the procedure is iterated to self-consistency.

The tight-binding formalism gives only the total charge associated with a site. To calculate the potential, we must assume a particular spatial distribution of the site charge. In our calculation the charge associated with a “ring” of sites is distributed uniformly over a length $`\xi `$ of the NT cylinder. To test the sensitivity of the results to the spatial distribution, we vary $`\xi `$ from 0.05 nm to 0.5 nm, which includes all physically reasonable values. Over this large range the current varies less than 5%. We expect that the effect of varying the radial extent of the charge or lifting the approximation of cylindrical symmetry would be similarly minor.

The Landauer-Büttiker formula  gives current

$$I=\frac{4e}{h}P(E)[F(EeV/2)F(E+eV/2)]𝑑E.$$
(1)
Here $`P(E)`$ is the electron transmission probability across the scattering region at energy $`E`$, $`V`$ is the applied voltage, and $`F(E)`$ the Fermi function. We keep only the first valence and conduction bands in our calculation because contributions from other bands are negligible here.

Figure 1(a) shows the electrostatic potential energy for a junction in vacuum at zero bias. The potential variation is quite large and sharp: the potential step is 1.08 eV (almost twice the band-gap, due to the highly degenerate doping) and is largely localized to a region of less than 2 nm.

Figure 2 shows the calculated I-V curve for this device at room temperature. For voltages from 0.25 to 0.6 V, the current decreases with increasing voltage. Thus the device exhibits NDR, with an “average” value of $`55`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over this range. Moreover, the peak-to-valley current ratio is very high, of order $`10^4`$. The peak current is large because the NT has a direct gap and the valence and conduction bands have the same rotational symmetry (analogous to having the same transverse wavevector), allowing efficient direct tunneling. The tunneling process does not require defects, phonons, or other scattering mechanisms.

Above 0.6 eV, the only current is from thermionic emission over the potential barrier. This gives an extremely low valley current at room temperature. In conventional semiconductor junctions, there is considerable additional current at the valley voltage due to recombination via defect states in the bandgap . For NTs we expect a very low density of such defects, because of the very strong bonding between carbon atoms. Moreover, there are only a relatively small number of atoms in the actual device region, making it especially unlikely for a defect to be present there.

Figure 2 also shows the I-V curve for the same device embedded in a dielectric (modeled as discussed above). The qualitative behavior is unchanged, with small shifts in the peak and valley voltages. The peak-to-valley ratio is still $``$$`10^4`$.

Our calculation of the charge density is accurate at low current, so the I-V curve has correct value and slope both at low voltage and at the valley voltage. In the range of interest, the maximum error occurs near the current peak. To quantify the accuracy, we consider a complementary approximation that becomes accurate in the limit of high transmission through the junction ($`P1`$), where a negligible fraction of the voltage drop occurs across the junction. In this case the electrons moving left-to-right obey the Fermi distribution of the left lead, while those moving right-to-left obey the distribution of the right lead. Thus the total charge is well approximated by occupying the states according to the arithmetic mean of the two Fermi functions.

This approximation always gives a higher current in the range of interest, because the potential step is affected very little by the voltage. In particular, the peak current is increased by a factor of 2. Since the actual transmission probability at the peak is $`1/2`$, our calculations probably underestimate the peak current but by considerably less than a factor of 2. Thus the NDR performance is even better than that shown in Fig. 2.

The origin of the NDR is similar to that in planar junctions. Under a small applied bias, as in Fig. 1(b), net current is generated due to tunneling of electrons from filled conduction states on the n side to empty valence states on the p side, with a high transmission probability ($``$0.5). The current increases with the applied bias until the Fermi levels align with the band edges on the opposite side of the junction as shown in Fig. 1(c). (This condition for the maximum current is different from that in bulk devices because the NT density of states peaks at the band edge.) Further increase in the voltage reduces the range of energies where valence and conduction band states overlap, leading to the NDR regime where current decreases with increasing voltage. This NDR regime persists until the valence and conduction band edges on opposite sides of the junction align, as in Fig. 1(d). At this point the current across the device is at a minimum. For larger voltages, current transport occurs only through thermal excitation of electrons over the potential step (thermionic emission), and the device current increases exponentially with increasing voltage.

We now consider an NDR device that does not require doping of NTs. As illustrated in Fig. 3(a), the device consists of a semiconducting single-wall NT with each end embedded in a different metal. The metals are spaced apart by a layer of dielectric material.

Conceptually, one can imagine fabricating such a device beginning with a NT growing vertically from a surface , and sequentially depositing a metal, a dielectric, and a second metal. The dielectric may be replaced by a metal-oxidation step, and we assume that the materials do not grow on or wet the NT. Possible fabrication processes are discussed further below.

Because the NT does not form covalent bonds with the metal or dielectric, we focus on the limit of weak metal-NT coupling. Then the matrix elements of the NT Hamiltonian are unaffected by the presence of the metal, but charge transfer between metal and NT (and the resulting electrostatic potential) must still be included.

We take the metal on the right to have a workfunction larger than the NT ionization potential, so that electrons are transferred from the NT valence band to this metal. The metal on the left has a workfunction smaller than the NT electron affinity, so that electrons are transferred from this metal to the NT conduction band. Deep within each contact, the population of the NT bands will be determined by equilibrium with that metal, giving an ohmic contact.

The electrodes are modeled as semi-infinite ideal metals. The embedded NT creates a cavity of radius $`R+s`$, where $`s`$ represents the van der Waals separation between the NT and the metal. We assume a separation of 0.3 nm, but varying $`s`$ between 0.2 and 0.5 nm has little effect on our results.

For our numerical calculations we again treat a (17,0) NT, self-consistently solving for the potential and charge on the tube at room temperature and calculating the current, as for the p-n junction. The thickness of the dielectric layer separating the electrodes is varied between 2 and 10 nm. The two metal workfunctions are taken to be 1 eV above and below the NT midgap (equivalent to the workfunction of a metallic NT).

The inset in Fig. 3(b) shows the self-consistent band alignment in equilibrium. Because of charge transfer between the metal and NT, the Fermi level is only about 0.1 eV above or below the NT band edge. As for the case of the degenerately doped p-n junction, filled conduction states overlap in energy with empty valence states, permitting tunneling and leading to NDR.

The calculated I-V curves are shown in Fig. 3(b). The peak-to-valley ratio for this device is as high as $`10^7`$ for the 2 nm device, and even the 10 nm device has a peak-to-valley ratio of $`10^5`$. These are orders of magnitude larger than for conventional planar devices , and are comparable or better than recently measured ratios in monolayers . Note that the device operation relies on controlling the potential via the electrostatic boundary conditions, with changes of order 1 eV over distances of order the tunneling length. This is possible only because of the nanoscale lateral dimensions, and has no analog in standard NDR devices.

Many strategies are possible for fabrication of the metal-NT-metal device; and a sketch of one is shown in Fig. 4. This is not intended as a realistic proposal for a specific process, but merely to illustrate the issues and opportunities. The process begins by defining parallel lines of the first metal on a substrate, and laying the NT perpendicular to these lines to create a suspended NT structure \[Fig. 4(a)\]. Then, more of the first metal is deposited on the NT directly over the bottom contacts to create embedded contacts \[Fig. 4(b)\]. (An alternative method is to suspend the tube on insulating supports and grow the metal lines where the NT is suspended.) To create the dielectric layer, either the surface of the first metal is oxidized \[Fig. 4(c)\] or a dielectric is deposited as a blanket to cover the whole system. Lines of the second metal are then deposited in alignment with the first metal lines \[Fig. 4(d)\].

Fabrication of the devices described here poses many practical challenges, but there appear to be no fundamental obstacles in principle. The possibility of integrated fabrication, together with the nanoscale device dimensions, high peak-to-valley ratios, and other desirable properties of NTs, makes these devices attractive candidates for nanoelectronics.

F.L. acknowledges support from the NSERC of Canada.


text:
# Dynamics of Cuspy Triaxial Galaxies with a Supermassive Black Hole

## 1 Unperturbed chaotic orbits tend to be extremely sticky

The results reported here derive from a numerical analysis of orbits in the triaxial Dehnen potentials, where (cf. Merritt & Fridman 1996)

$$\rho (m)=\frac{(3\gamma )}{4\pi abc}m^\gamma (1+m)^{(4\gamma )},$$
(1)
with $`m^2=x^2/a^2+y^2/b^2+z^2/c^2,`$ assuming fixed axis ratios $`c/a=1/2`$ and $`(a^2b^2)/(a^2c^2)=1/2`$ but allowing for a variable cusp index $`0\gamma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$ and a variable black hole mass $`0M_{BH}/M_{gal}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^2`$.

Different segments of the same chaotic orbit can be extremely different in terms of their visual appearance and their degree of exponential sensitivity (Siopis & Kandrup 2000). These differences can be quantified in terms of the sizes of short time Lyapunov exponents (cf. Kandrup & Mahon 1994) or the complexity of their Fourier spectra, i.e., the degree to which the power in an orbit is concentrated near a few special frequencies (cf. Kandrup, Eckstein, & Bradley 1997, Siopis, Eckstein, & Kandrup 1998). Chaotic orbits typically have continuous spectra, but when they look ‘nearly regular’ most of the power is concentrated near a few special frequencies. In agreement with intuition, there is a strong correlation between the complexity of an orbit segment and the value of its largest short time Lyapunov exponent: chaotic orbit segments which look ‘nearly regular’ and have less complex spectra tend also to exhibit comparatively small exponential sensitivity.

If two chaotic orbits in the same connected phase space region are integrated for a sufficiently long time, it appears that they will eventually share the same statistical properties. However, the time required for this can be extremely long. If, for example, a single chaotic initial condition is integrated into the future, it can take as long as $`100,000`$ dynamical times $`t_D`$, or even longer, before the short time Lyapunov exponent exhibits a reasonable convergence towards the true Lyapunov exponent $`\chi `$, as defined in a $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit. The overall rate of convergence can be quantified through an examination of distributions of short time Lyapunov exponents, $`N[\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }t)]`$, generated for ensembles of chaotic orbit segments of varying length $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In the absence of any significant stickiness, the dispersion associated with $`N[\chi ]`$ scales as $`\sigma _\chi (\mathrm{\Delta }t)^p`$ with $`p\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2`$. For very sticky orbits, $`p\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2`$.

Because chaotic orbits are so sticky, one might anticipate that they could be used as building blocks for the construction of self-consistent near-equilibria which, albeit not strictly time-independent, behave as nearly time-independent entities over time intervals long compared with $`t_H`$, the age of the Universe. (In the language of Merritt & Fridman , these would be ‘quasi-equilibria’ involving stochastic building blocks that are only ‘partially mixed.’) However, this supposition relies crucially on the assumption that the statistical properties of chaotic orbit segments are relatively insensitive to the effects of weak perturbations of the form which act on real galaxies. In point of fact, this does not appear to be the case.

## 2 Chaotic orbits can be surprisingly susceptible to very weak perturbations

Orbits in the unperturbed triaxial Dehnen potential were perturbed to mimic various effects to which real stars in real galaxies are typically exposed. Discreteness effects, i.e., gravitational Rutherford scattering between individual stars, were modeled as dynamical friction and white noise, i.e., near-instantaneous kicks. The effects of one or two companion objects or satellite galaxies were modeled as nearly periodic perturbations. The effects of a dense cluster environment were modeled as coloured noise, i.e., random kicks of finite duration. Internal oscillations of the form that might, e.g., be triggered by a close encounter were treated as a superposition of normal, or pseuo-normal, modes that induced a periodic driving and an incoherent combination of more irregular excitations modeled as coloured noise.

The basic conclusion of this investigation (Siopis & Kandrup 2000, Kandrup & Siopis 2000), consistent also with analyses of motions in other two- and three-dimensional potentials (Pogorelov & Kandrup 1999, Kandrup, Pogorelov, & Siopis 2000), is that low amplitude irregularities can have a surprisingly large effect both

$``$ by accelerating diffusion within a given nearly disjoint phase space region; and

$``$ by accelerating diffusion along an Arnold web or through cantori connecting nearly disjoint chaotic phase space regions.

Some of the topological obstructions associated with the Arnold web are extremely robust, so that weak perturbations have a comparatively minimal effect. However, in general such perturbations tend to accelerate dramatically the rate of phase space transport throughout the entire chaotic phase space.

The perturbations act via a resonant coupling between the characteristic frequencies of the perturbations and the frequencies of the orbits. That periodic driving works in this way should be obvious. That noise also involves a resonant coupling can be understood if one recalls (cf. van Kampen 1981) that a superposition of periodic forces combined with random phases is equivalent mathematically to (in general coloured) noise with a nonzero autocorrelation time $`t_c`$.

Within a nearly disjoint phase space region, the perturbations allow microscopic motions which, in a strictly time-independent potential, are prohibited by Liouville’s Theorem. Thus, e.g., it becomes possible for phase space trajectories to cross, which helps a collection of orbits to ‘fuzz out’ on short scales. The perturbations facilitate diffusion through cantori or along the Arnold web by ‘jiggling’ orbits in such a fashion as to help them find phase space holes.

The details of the perturbation appear largely immaterial: all that seems to matter is the amplitude of the perturbations and their characteristic time scales. Even the dependence on amplitude and time scale is comparatively weak. This implies that the details associated with realistic perturbations which might be difficult to extract from observations are largely irrelevant. The overall efficacy of the perturbations scales logarithmically in the amplitude. For time scales $`t_ct_D`$ the perturbations have almost no effect (adiabatic limit). For somewhat shorter time scales, the dependence on $`t_c`$ is again logarithmic.

But what amplitude is required to have a significant effect, e.g., by destabilising nearly time-independent building blocks? Very weak white noise corresponding to relaxation times $`t_R\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^610^7t_D`$ can have appreciable effects within a time as short as $`100t_D`$, a period which, in the inner regions of a cuspy triaxial galaxy would be short compared with $`t_H`$. Alternatively, coloured noise and/or periodic driving corresponding to perturbations of fractional amplitude as small as $`10^3`$ and a characteristic time scale $`t_c`$ as long as $`10t_D`$ can prove important on a time scale $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}t_D`$. Making $`t_c`$ shorter facilitates a stronger resonant coupling between the perturbation and the orbits, thus making the perturbation even more effective.

These results suggest the possibility that galaxies could settle down towards quasi-stationary states which, albeit not true collisionless equilibria, could exist as nearly time-independent entities for times $`t_H`$, at least in the absence of irregularities. This seems especially likely, given the recognition that, for triaxial systems, true equilibria will in general be substantially more complex than the equilibria associated with spherical and axisymmetric configurations. For a generic triaxial system, there is only one global integral, namely the energy $`E`$ or Jacobi integral $`E_J`$, but it well known that equilibria $`f(E)`$ and $`f(E_J)`$ cannot be used to model triaxial systems with a strong central condensation. Unless the system is assumed to be characterised by a very special potential, e.g., an integrable Staeckel potential, it cannot be in a true equilibrium unless that equilibrium involves an intricate balance of ‘local integrals’ (Kandrup 1998). The obvious point, then, is that even if such an intricate balance is hard to achieve, the system could evolve towards an approximate balance involving nearly time-independent building blocks.

More pragmatically, these results would also suggest that, when constructing equilibria using Schwarzschild’s method or any analogue thereof, it would be strongly advisable to work with an orbit library constructed from orbits that have been evolved in the presence of weak noise or some other low amplitude perturbations. Orbits evolved in the presence of such perturbations are more likely to constitute nearly time-independent building blocks and, as such, would seem less likely to be destabilised by weak irregularities associated with discreteness effects and/or a perturbing external environment.

## 3 Why do black holes and cusps trigger chaos?

Numerical computations demonstrate that much of the behaviour associated with chaotic orbit ensembles evolved in the triaxial Dehnen potentials – especially those associated with orbits which, in the absence of a cusp and black hole, would correspond to regular box orbits – can be reproduced by the very simple potential

$$V(x,y,z)=\frac{1}{2}(a^2x^2+b^2y^2+c^2z^2)\frac{GM_{BH}}{\sqrt{r^2+ϵ^2}}V_{gal}+V_{BH},$$
(2)
given as the sum of an anisotropic oscillator and a Plummer potential. Orbits in this potential exhibit the same remarkable stickiness, yield comparable distributions of short time Lyapunov exponents, and again manifest a strong susceptibility towards even very weak perturbations (Kandrup & Sideris 2000).

That this simple toy model can reproduce the qualitative features of the more complicated potential (1) suggests strongly that the results derived for chaotic orbits in the triaxial Dehnen potentials are generic for cuspy triaxial potentials. That the potential is so simple makes it comparatively easy to understand what exactly is going on. As noted, e.g., by Merritt (1998), supermassive black holes in real galaxies are seldom if ever larger than $`1\%`$ the mass of the entire galaxy and the central cuspy region typically corresponds to only a small fraction of the total mass. It follows that, for $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ of order unity, the physically relevant choices of $`V_{BH}`$ entail $`M_{BH}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$. However, the qualitative behaviour in this regime is easily understood by a combination of perturbation theory and common sense.

For $`M_{BH}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ and $`ϵ0`$ in eq. (2), it appears that, except for the very lowest energies (where the potential is essentially Keplerian), essentially all of the orbits are chaotic, but that they tend to behave in a nearly regular fashion nearly all of the time. As the orbit evolves it will usually find itself in a region where $`|V_{BH}||V_{gal}|`$, so that the potential in which it is moving is very nearly integrable and the short time Lyapunov exponents are extremely small. Occasionally, however, the orbit will move comparatively close to the center of the galaxy, so close that $`|V_{BH}|`$ becomes comparable to $`|V_{gal}|`$. When this happens the orbit feels the competing influences of two different potentials of comparable magnitude with very different symmetries and the values of the positive short time Lyapunov exponents increase precipitously. The fact that, for small $`M_{BH}`$, almost all the orbits are chaotic is not difficult to understand. In the limit that $`M_{BH}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$, the orbits all reduce to boxes which densely fill a region in configuration space that includes the origin. One might expect that, for small but nonzero $`M_{BH}`$, the orbits can still pass arbitrarily close to the origin but, for any nonzero $`M_{BH}`$ there is a minimum radius $`r_{min}`$ inside of which $`|V_{BH}|`$ becomes large compared with $`|V_{gal}|`$.

That significant chaos is only triggered when the trajectory passes relatively close to the black hole is illustrated in Figure 1, which exhibits a segment of a chaotic orbit evolved in the potential (2). curve in the top panel exhibits the phase space separation $`|\delta Z|`$ between the original orbit and a perturbed orbit displaced originally by a distance $`|\delta Z|=10^8`$ and periodically renormalised in the usual way (cf. Lichtenberg & Lieberman 1992). The dashed curve shows an analogous plot of $`|\delta Z|`$ for a regular orbit. The lower panel plots $`r(t)`$, the distance from the origin. Most of the time the perturbed and unperturbed orbits remain very close together, with comparatively little systematic exponential divergence. Only when $`r`$ becomes as small as $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.17}`$, so that $`|V_{BH}|`$ becomes as large as $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.88}`$, do the orbits tend to diverge significantly.

This toy model is particularly simple since, in the limit $`M_{BH}0`$, all the orbits are regular boxes. For generic triaxial potentials, in the absence of a cusp or black hole one would expect both centrophilic box orbits and centrophobic tubes. Because the tubes are centrophobic, they should not in general be impacted all that much by the introduction of a cusp or a central black hole. What, does, however, seem to be true is that many of the orbits which, in the absence of a cusp, behave as regular boxes can, in the presence of a cusp or black hole, be converted into orbits which, albeit formally chaotic, behave in a nearly regular fashion much of the time.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are pleased to acknowledge useful collaborations with Brendan Bradley, Barbara Eckstein, Salman Habib, and Elaine Mahon. This research was supported in part by NSF AST-0070809 and by the Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory.


text:
# QCD analysis of 𝐹₂^𝛾(𝑥,𝑄²): an unconventional view 1footnote 11footnote 1Talk given at PHOTON2000 Symposium, Ambleside, UK, August 2000

## Introduction

In jfactor  I have proposed an alternative approach to QCD analysis of $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, and by implication to any hard process involving initial photon, which differs substantially from the conventional one. It builds in part on arguments advocated for a long time by the authors of FKP  and agrees with the approach to calculations of direct photon production at HERA pursued in Maria . This alternative approach is based on two ingredients:

* Clear and systematic separation of genuine QCD effects from those of pure QED origin, which leads to unambiguous and universal definition of the concepts “leading” and “next–to–leading” order of QCD.
* Acknowledgement of the fact that parton distribution functions (PDF) of the photon are proportional to $`\alpha `$ and not, as assumed in the conventional approach, to $`\alpha /\alpha _s`$.

The general expression for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ has the following structure

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`q_{\mathrm{NS}}(M)C_q(Q/M)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\delta _{\mathrm{NS}}C_\gamma +e^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(M)C_q(Q/M)+`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}e^2\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }C_\gamma +e^2G(M)C_G(Q/M)`$
where quark nonsinglet and singlet and gluon distribution functions 222For their definitions as well as other details of the alternative approach, see jfactor . satisfy the evolution equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,M)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}M^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }k_q+P_{qq}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{qG}G,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}G(x,M)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}M^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`k_G+P_{Gq}\mathrm{\Sigma }+P_{GG}G,`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}q_{\mathrm{NS}}(x,M)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}M^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mathrm{NS}}k_q+P_{\mathrm{NS}}q_{\mathrm{NS}},`$ (4)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{NS}}=6n_f\left(e^4e^2^2\right),\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }=6n_fe^2`$. The splitting and coefficient functions $`k_i,C_j`$ can be expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ ($`a(M)\alpha _s(M)/2\pi `$) as

$`k_q(x,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[k_q^{(0)}(x)+a(M)k_q^{(1)}(x)+a^2(M)k_q^{(2)}(x)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (5)
$`k_G(x,M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[a(M)k_G^{(1)}(x)+a^2(M)k_G^{(2)}(x)+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (6)
$`P_{ij}(x,M)`$ $`=`$ $`a(M)P_{ij}^{(0)}(x)+a^2(M)P_{ij}^{(1)}(x)+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
$`C_q(x,Q/M)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (1x)+a(M)C_q^{(1)}(x,Q/M)+a^2(M)C_q^{(2)}(x,Q/M)+\mathrm{},`$ (8)
$`C_G(x,Q/M)`$ $`=`$ $`a(M)C_G^{(1)}(x,Q/M)+a^2(M)C_G^{(2)}(x,Q/M)+\mathrm{},`$ (9)
$`C_\gamma (x,Q/M)`$ $`=`$ $`C_\gamma ^{(0)}(x,Q/M)+a(M)C_\gamma ^{(1)}(x,Q/M)+a^2(M)C_\gamma ^{(2)}(x,Q/M)\mathrm{},`$ (10)
where the lowest order coefficient functions $`k_q^{(0)}`$ and $`C_\gamma ^{(0)}`$

$`k_q^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2+(1x)^2),`$ (11)
$`C_\gamma ^{(0)}(x,Q/M)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(x^2+(1x)^2\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{Q^2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x}}\right]+8x(1x)1`$ (12)
are unique 333Throughout this paper we restrict ourselves to the case of real target photon, although the basic conclusions hold for the virtual photon as well. For the latter, however, the expression for $`C_\gamma ^{(0)}`$ differs slightly from (12). and due entirely to QED coupling of the initial photon to the primary $`q\overline{q}`$ pair. It is their presence what distinguishes hard collisions of photons from those of hadrons. In jfactor  I have discussed conceptual as well as numerical differences between the results obtained within the conventional and alternative approaches for the pointlike part of $`F_2^\gamma `$ in the nonsinglet channel and under the simplifying assumption $`\beta _1=0`$. In this talk I will concentrate on proper definitions of the concepts “leading order” (LO) and “next–to–leading order” (NLO) of QCD and on the discussion of their implications for charm contribution $`F_{2,c}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ to photon structure function, recently measured at LEP OPAL ; Richard .

## Defining leading and next-to-leading orders of QCD

Although the definition of the concepts “LO” and “NLO” in hard collisions of photons is a matter of convention, it is preferable to define them in a way that retains the same basic content these concepts have in collisions of leptons and hadrons. Let me recall, for instance, their meaning in the case of the familiar ratio

$$R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}(Q)\frac{\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma (\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}=\left(3\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}e_i^2\right)\left(1+r(Q)\right).$$
(13)
The prefactor $`R_{\mathrm{QED}}3_{i=1}^{n_f}e_i^2`$ multiplied by unity in the brackets of (13) comes purely from QED, whereas genuine QCD effects are contained in $`r(Q)`$, which is given as expansion in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ as

$$r(Q)=\frac{\alpha _s(M)}{\pi }\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(M)}{2\pi }r_1(Q/M)+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(14)
For the quantity (13) it is a generally accepted practice to include $`R_{\mathrm{QED}}`$ in theoretical expressions but disregard it when defining the “LO” and “NLO” of QCD. For instance, the NLO approximation of (13) implies retaing first two terms in (14), i.e. the first three terms in (13). Let me emphasize that only if at least first two nontrivial powers of $`\alpha _s`$ in (13) are taken into account can this trunctated expansion be associated with a well-defined renormalization scheme. And it is this association what makes in my view the essential feature of the concept “NLO QCD approximation”. The same convention should be adopted for all physical quantities getting contributions from pure QED. I think it is preferable to use the terminology that avoids potential confusion which might arise from mixing orders of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha `$. Note that for both $`R_{\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}}`$ and $`F_{2,c}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, discussed in the next Section, the purely QED contributions $`R_{\mathrm{QED}}`$ and $`F_{2,c}^{\gamma ,\mathrm{QED}}`$ are finite and unique and there is thus no reason why they should be treated differently as far as the definitions of the “LO” and “NLO” of QCD are concerned. The implications of the above considerations for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ are the following:

* As shown in jfactor  the LO QCD expression for $`F_2^\gamma `$ contains in addition to terms included in the conventional LO analysis of $`F_2^\gamma `$ (i.e. those proportional to $`k_q^{(0)}`$ and $`P_{ij}^{(0)}`$), also terms involving $`k_q^{(1)},C_q^{(1)},C_\gamma ^{(0)}`$ and $`C_\gamma ^{(1)}`$. As all these functions are known, there is, however, no obstacle to performing such an analysis. As shown in jfactor  for the pointlike part of $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ in the nonsinglet channel, the results in these two approaches are numerically significantly different, the single most important contribution to this difference coming from $`C_\gamma ^{(1)}`$. The coefficient function $`C_q^{(1)}`$ enters $`F_2^\gamma `$ already at the LO 444Contrary to hadronic collisions, where it appears first at the NLO. due to the fact that it does so in the convolution with purely QED part of quark distribution function of the photon, which has no analogue in hadronic collisions.
* The NLO QCD analysis of $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ requires the knowledge of two quantities, $`k_q^{(2)}`$ and $`C_\gamma ^{(2)}`$, that have not yet been calculated and thus is at the moment impossible to perform. Note, that in the conventional approach $`C_\gamma ^{(0)}`$, which has nothing to do with QCD, appears only at the “NLO”, and $`C_\gamma ^{(1)}`$, which involves evaluation of Feynman diagrams with a single QCD vertex is not used even there!

For clear and unambiguous definition of the terms “LO” (“NLO”) it is thus vital to agree on the basic criterion, namely that they refer to perturbative expansions of physical quantities retaining the first (first two) nontrivial powers of $`\alpha _s`$. The purely QED contribution to $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ is irelevant from this point of view, but may be retained for comparison with experiment as it actually dominates scaling violations of $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ in most of accessible range of $`x`$. To identify genuine QCD effects one has to look for subtler effects than the dominant $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$ rise, like, for instance, the $`x`$-dependence of the slope

$$a(x)\frac{\mathrm{d}F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}Q^2}.$$
(15)
Compared to $`F_2^\mathrm{p}(x,Q^2)`$, for which scaling violations are due entirely to QCD effects, the nonzero slope (15) is by itself no sign of QCD effects, as these are given by the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)a(x)a^{\mathrm{QED}}(x)`$. Fig. 1, based on numbers taken from Richard2 , shows that for $`x0.5`$ the precision of currently available data is insufficient to identify genuine QCD effects, although some indication of the turnover to negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$, expected theoretically, is visible there.

## Charm contribution to $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$

The QCD analysis of $`F_{2,c}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ in the region $`x0.1`$ provides possibly the simplest illustration of the differences between the conventional and alternative approches to hard collisions of photons plb , since $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$ is dominated in this region by the direct photon contribution, $`F_{2,c}^{\mathrm{dir}}`$, which does not involve any PDF. It can be written as

$$F_{2,c}^{\mathrm{dir}}(x,Q^2)=F_{2,c}^{\mathrm{QED}}(x,Q^2)+\alpha _s(Q)F_{2,c}^{(1)}(x,Q^2)+\alpha _s^2(Q)F_{2,c}^{(2)}(x,Q^2)+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
where the coefficients $`F_{2,c}^{(k)},k1`$ are calculable in perturbative QCD and the lowest order term $`F_{2,c}^{(0)}F_{2,c}^{\mathrm{QED}}`$ comes from pure QED diagram in Fig. 2a. In the conventional approach the “NLO” approximation of the direct photon contribution is defined Laenen  by taking the first two terms in (16) including the purely QED contribution $`F_{2,c}^{\mathrm{QED}}`$. However, as argued in the preceding Section, this definition does not have the basic attribute of genuine NLO QCD approximation. The inclusion of direct photon contributions of the order $`\alpha ^2\alpha _s^2`$, coming from diagrams like those in Fig. 2e,g is vital not only for establishing the genuine NLO character of the direct photon contribution itself, but also for ensuring plb  factorization scale invariance of the full expression for $`F_{2,c}^\gamma `$. The latter involves adding the resolved photon contributions up to the order $`\alpha ^2\alpha _s^2`$, coming from diagrams like those in Fig. 2f,h,j.

## Summary and conclusions

The alternative approach to QCD analysis of $`F_2^\gamma `$, proposed recently by the author, differs substantially and in a number of aspects from the conventional one. It satisfies factorization scale invariance in a way that does not rely on physically untenable assumption that quark distribution functions of the photon behave as $`𝒪(\alpha /\alpha _s)`$. The simplest implications of this difference are illustrated on the case of charm contribution to $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, recently measured at LEP.

To be useful phenomenologically the proposed approach needs to be further elaborated by extending it to the singlet sector and merging it with the hadronic contributions. Work on this program is in progress. The NLO QCD analysis in the proposed approach requires evaluation of several so far unknown quantities and is thus currently impossible to perform. In view of the quality and number of experimental data on $`F_2^\gamma `$, this is at the moment no serious drawback and a complete LO QCD analysis seems sufficient for phenomenological purposes.

Work supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under the project LN00A006.


text:
# Deconfinement Through Chiral Transition In 2 Flavour QCD we are grateful for the financial support by the German Science Ministry BMBF under contract No. 06BI902.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Hot QCD matter undergoes two well-defined phase transitions at zero baryon chemical potential depending on the bare quark mass parameter. For ($`m_q=\mathrm{}`$) there is the deconfinement transition associated with the spontaneous breaking of the global center symmetry $`Z_{N_c}SU(N_c)`$ of the pure $`SU(N_c)`$ gauge theory. $`N_c`$ is the number of colours of quarks. The order parameter describing this transition is the expectation value of the Polyakov loop $`L(T)`$. There exists a critical temperature $`T_d`$, with $`L(T)=0TT_d`$ and $`L(T)>0T>T_d`$. This transition is similar to the magnetic transition in $`Z_N`$ spin theories with the magnetization $`m(T)`$ being analogous to $`L(T)`$. The deconfinement transition and the transition in a spin system have same order when the number of colours $`N_c`$ and the number of components of spin $`N`$ are equal . The nature of the deconfinement transition changes with $`N_c`$, for $`N_c=2`$ the transition is second order and for $`N_c3`$ it is first order.

On the other hand for $`m_q=0`$, there is the chiral transition at the critical temperature $`T_x`$ associated with the restoration of chiral symmetry which is spontaneously broken at low temperatures. The order parameter describing this transition is the chiral condensate $`K\overline{\psi }\psi `$. The nature of the chiral transition depends on the number of quark flavours $`N_f`$. For $`N_f=2`$ the transition is second order and first order for $`N_f3`$. In the case of a second order chiral transition the critical behaviour of the chiral condensate are described the critical exponents defined in the following.

$$K(T,m_q=0)(T_xT)^\beta ,T<T_x$$
(1)
while at $`T=T_x`$, it vanishes as

$$K(T_x=0,m_q)m_q^{1/\delta }$$
(2)
when $`m_q0`$. The chiral quark mass susceptibility

$`x_m^K(T,m_q)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{m_q}}\right)_T`$ $``$ $`(\psi \overline{\psi })^2\psi \overline{\psi }^2`$ (3)
$``$ $`|TT_x|^\gamma `$
diverges at $`T=T_x`$ for $`m_q0`$. $`\beta ,\delta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}`$ are the critical exponents. It is believed that for $`N_f=2`$ the chiral transition is in the universality class of $`O(4)`$ according to symmetry arguments , however it is yet to be confirmed by numerical experiments .

Both the symmetries of the Lagrangian, the global $`Z_{N_c}`$ symmetry and the chiral symmetry, are explicitly broken for finite non-zero $`m_q`$. The role of $`m_q`$ for chiral transition is similar to that of an external magnetic field in spin system, so that for large $`m_q`$, the temperature variation of the chiral condensate becomes completely smooth, like the magnetization $`m(T)`$ in spin systems.

It is not clear what role $`m_q`$ plays for the deconfinement transition. One might consider the inverse bare quark mass to play such a symmetry breaking role for deconfinement, which would imply that for $`m_q0`$, the temperature variation of the Polyakov loop expectation value would then become smooth . In lattice studies it is found, however, that this is not the case : even for $`m_q0`$, the Polyakov loop varies sharply with temperature and the corresponding susceptibility ($`L^2L^2`$) peaks sharply at the chiral restoration temperature $`T_x`$, which is considerably lower than $`T_d`$. In somewhat loose terminology, one describes this situation by saying that in QCD for $`m_q0`$, deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration coincide.

To understand the underlying reason for this coincidence of the critical temperature of chiral and deconfinement transitions we propose that the explicit breaking of the $`Z_N`$ symmetry is due to the effective external field which is inverse of the constituent quark mass $`m_Q`$ . It is believed that the constituent quark mass depends on the chiral condensate $`K`$, however, the exact dependence is not yet known. If the non-Goldstone hadron masses are related to the chiral condensate, e.g., if the nucleon mass is given by

$$M_n3m_QK^{1/3},$$
(4)
then chiral symmetry restoration with $`K0`$ gives rise to a sudden large increase of the external field $`H1/m_Q`$, forcing the Polyakov loop to take a large non-zero value. We want to argue that it is this effect which causes a sharp variation of the Polyakov loop $`L(T)`$ at $`T_x<T_d`$, with the temperature dependence of $`L(T)`$ governed by that of the chiral condensate $`K(T)`$, which is in general different from that obtained in pure gauge theory at $`T_d`$.

Although we believe that this interplay of chiral symmetry will in general do not depend on the value of $`N_f`$ and $`N_c`$, for simplicity and to compare with lattice results, we consider $`N_f=2`$ and $`N_c=3`$ . As we have already mentioned in this case the chiral transition is second order in the chiral limit, and deconfinement is first order in the limit of infinite heavy quarks.

As indicated above, we now take the $`Z_N`$ structure of QCD to be that of $`Z_N`$ spin theory in an external field $`H`$, determined by the constituent quark mass. From Eq. (4), $`H`$ and hence also the Polyakov loop thus become functions of $`K`$: the quark mass dependence of $`L`$ enters through $`K(T,m_q)`$, with $`L(T,K)`$. In spin systems with external field, the magnetization $`m(T,H)`$ is for $`H0`$ an analytic function of $`T`$ and $`H`$. We therefore assume that $`L(T,K)`$ is for $`\mathrm{}>K>0`$ an analytic function of $`T`$ and $`K`$, with the quark mass dependence of $`L`$ entering through $`K(T,m_q)`$.

Once the effective external field for deconfinement depends on the chiral condensate $`K`$, the critical behavior of the chiral condensate will be reflected in the behavior of the Polyakov loop at $`T=T_x`$. For a first order chiral transition with a jump in the chiral condensate across the chiral transition, there will be a discontinuity in the effective external field giving rise to a discontinuity in the Polyakov loop across the chiral transition point -. To go further one can write down for the variation of Polyakov loop $`L`$,

$$dL=\left(\frac{L}{T}\right)_KdT+\left(\frac{L}{K}\right)_TdK.$$
(5)
From this we can calculate the variation of the Polyakov loop with respect to $`m_q`$ and temperature T as follows,

$$x_m^L=\left(\frac{L}{m_q}\right)_T=\left(\frac{L}{K}\right)_T\left(\frac{K}{m_q}\right)_T$$
(6)
and

$$x_T^L=\left(\frac{L}{T}\right)_{m_q}=\left(\frac{L}{T}\right)_K+\left(\frac{L}{K}\right)_T\left(\frac{K}{T}\right)_{m_q}.$$
(7)
Both these response functions of the Polyakov loop diverge at $`T=T_x`$ in the chiral limit $`m_q=0`$, since the chiral susceptibilities $`x_m^K=(K/m_q)_T`$ and $`x_T^K=(K/T)_{m_q}`$ diverge in this limit.

In , the chiral susceptibilities $`x_T^K`$ and $`x_m^K`$ were studied on an $`8^3\times 4`$ lattice for quark masses $`m_qa=0.075,0.0375`$ and 0.02. Results for $`x_T^K`$ and $`x_m^K`$ are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively, as functions of the effective temperature variable $`T\kappa =6/g^2`$, where $`g`$ denotes the coupling in the QCD Lagrangian. The peak heights of both these response functions increase with decreasing quark mass, which indicates the divergence in the chiral limit $`m_q0`$. In Figs. 3 and 4, we show the corresponding results for the Polyakov loop susceptibilities. They also peak sharply, the

peak positions coincide with those for the chiral susceptibilities, and here as well the peak height increases with decreasing quark mass. The observed behavior therefore provides clear support for the divergence of the temperature and quark mass derivatives of the Polyakov loop at $`T_x`$ in the chiral limit.

A direct comparison of the functional behavior, ideally of the relevant critical exponents, for the two cases becomes difficult for two reasons. The chiral susceptibilities do not at present lead to the predicted $`O(4)`$ exponents; this may indicate that the quark masses are still too large for pure critical behavior. The Polyakov loop susceptibilities contain in addition unknown non-singular factors $`(L/T)_K`$ and $`(L/K)_T`$, which will modify the non-singular $`m_q`$-dependence relative to that of the chiral susceptibilities. Lattice studies for smaller quark masses would therefore be very helpful.

In summary, we have shown that chiral symmetry restoration, with the resulting sudden change in an effective constituent quark mass, leads to a suddenly increasing external field which aligns the Polyakov loops at $`T=T_x<T_d`$ and thus produces a strong explicit breaking of the $`Z_N`$ symmetry of the gauge field part of the Lagrangian. This effect makes chiral symmetry restoration ‘coincide’ with deconfinement. The resulting predictions for diverging Polyakov loop susceptibilities are found to be well supported by finite temperature lattice calculations for full QCD with two flavours of light quarks.


text:
# A Binary Millisecond Pulsar in Globular Cluster NGC6544

## 1 Introduction

Globular clusters are rich sources of radio pulsars. Since the discovery of the first pulsar in a cluster by Lyne et al. (1987), a series of deep searches have accumulated almost 50 pulsars in globular clusters, with the majority of these being binary millisecond pulsars (MSPs). See Lyne (1995) and Kulkarni & Anderson (1996) for reviews.

Fruchter & Goss (1990; 2000, hereafter FG00) used the Very Large Array (VLA) to detect steep-spectrum radio sources, which are likely pulsars, in numerous globular clusters. They discovered a relatively bright point-like source within $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ of the optical center of cluster NGC6544 ($`1.2\pm 0.1`$ mJy at 20 cm and $`6.5\pm 0.8`$ mJy at 90 cm). Biggs & Lyne (1996) searched NGC6544 at 50 cm as part of a survey of globular clusters and found no pulsars down to a limiting flux density of $`4`$ mJy.

It has been argued that Doppler smearing from orbital motion could explain the lack of detection of pulsations from the pulsar-like sources found in VLA surveys (FG00). The sensitivities of observations whose durations exceed even a few percent of the orbital period may be drastically reduced for traditional analyses (Johnston & Kulkarni, 1991). Various schemes have been developed to correct, at least partially, for this loss of sensitivity when the Doppler effect of the orbital motion can be approximated as a constant frequency derivative (e.g. Middleditch & Kristian, 1984; Anderson et al., 1990; Wood et al., 1991). These “acceleration” searches have met with significant success, including the discovery of nine new binary MSPs in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae (Camilo et al., 2000).

We have discovered a binary MSP in NGC6544 using Fourier-domain techniques to correct for pulsar orbital motion. This pulsar is almost certainly the radio source reported by FG00 near the center of the cluster. Results from our single observation indicate that this object shares many of the properties displayed by the burgeoning class of eclipsing binary MSPs. These systems are characterised by short orbital periods ($`P_b110`$ hours) and very low-mass companions ($`m_2\mathrm{sin}i\stackrel{<}{}0.05\text{M}_{}`$(Rasio et al., 2000; Nice et al., 2000). D’Amico et al. (2000) independently discovered this pulsar and report the results of follow-up observations.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

We observed NGC6544, a dense core-collapsed globular cluster, on 1998 February 7 with the multibeam data acquisition system on the Parkes radio telescope in Australia. Signals from each of two orthogonal linear polarizations were measured and summed from 256 contiguous 0.25 MHz wide channels centered at 1332 MHz. Each channel was one-bit sampled at 8 kHz and written to magnetic tape. The full observation comprised 28.9 minutes of data. Staveley-Smith et al. (1996) and Lyne et al. (2000) discuss the observing system in detail.

Since no pulsars were known in this cluster before our observation, we searched a wide range of possible dispersion measures (DMs) for candidate signals. We dedispersed the data into time series of 13865600 points using 600 trial DMs from 0 to 600 pc cm-3, in increments of 1 pc cm-3. This stepsize allowed a worst-case dispersion smearing over our bandwidth of $`0.1`$ ms. After barycentering the data using the JPL DE200 ephemeris (Standish, 1982), we performed a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on each time series and saved the resultant spectra to disk.

Traditional time-domain acceleration searches are performed by stretching or compressing a time series to compensate for a constant frequency derivative and then Fourier transforming the resulting series. We have developed a Fourier-domain acceleration search (S. Ransom & S. Eikenberry 2000, in preparation) to compute the coherent Fourier response over portions of the frequency–frequency derivative ($`f`$$`\dot{f}`$) plane using only local Fourier amplitudes from an FFT of the whole dataset. Similar techniques were described in Middleditch et al. (1993).

The method correlates a predicted Fourier response with a subset of the complex Fourier amplitudes in the initial full-length FFT. We effectively apply a matched filter to the data which “sweeps up” all of the signal power that the orbital motion spreads over nearby frequency bins.

Fourier-domain acceleration searches offer several significant advantages over their time-domain counterparts:

1. Fourier methods do not require stretching or compressing the time series. Time-domain stretching or compressing is usually performed using linear interpolation, which changes the statistics of the data. Portions of the data are effectively two-bin averaged which decreases sensitivity to high frequency signals.
2. Time-domain techniques require a full-length FFT for each trial acceleration. For very long integrations (which are common in cluster searches) that do not fit into the computer’s core memory, FFTs take orders-of-magnitude more time to compute than usual (e.g. Bailey, 1990). The Fourier technique requires only a single full-length FFT for each observation (or trial DM).
3. Correlations using only localized Fourier amplitudes are fast and memory efficient. The correlations can always be performed in core memory and are calculated efficiently using short FFTs and pre-computed response templates. The memory locality also allows efficient parallelization of Fourier-domain searches.
4. The Fourier-domain method allows the calculatation of only independent $`f`$$`\dot{f}`$ trials. With time-domain techniques, as described by Camilo et al. (2000), any choice of acceleration stepsize results in either under- or over-sampling accelerations for the vast majority of frequencies searched. This amounts to loss of sensitivity or wasted CPU cycles respectively. A small amount of over-sampling can be incorporated to eliminate “scalloping” in both the $`f`$ and $`\dot{f}`$ directions (see e.g. van der Klis 1989).

We performed Fourier-domain acceleration searches on each of the long FFTs looking for signals that drifted by up to 100 Fourier frequency bins during the observation. If we define $`z`$ to be the number of Fourier bins that the pulsar frequency ($`f_o`$) drifts over the course of an integration, the corresponding average acceleration of the pulsar is $`a=zc/(T^2f_o)`$, where $`T`$ is the total integration time. For this observation, a frequency drift of 100 Fourier bins corresponds to an acceleration of 500 m s-2 for a 10 Hz signal or 5 m s-2 for a 1000 Hz signal. Since most known binary pulsars show maximal accelerations of only a few m s-2, we were sensitive to all but the most exotic binaries or pulsars with spin periods ($`P_{spin}`$) much less than $`2`$ ms. Pulse profiles of strong candidates were folded at a series of trial DMs, frequencies, and frequency derivatives around the acceleration search values in order to maximize the signal-to-noise.

Figure 1 — An $`18\sigma `$ (single trial) detection of the 1.7 hour binary PSR J1807$``$2459 in the globular cluster NGC6544 using a Fourier-domain “acceleration” search. Contour intervals correspond to 30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 times the average local power level. The intrinsic pulsar period and $`\dot{f}=0`$ (which corresponds to an un-accelerated FFT of the data) are marked by the solid black lines. The dashed line is the predicted “path” of the pulsar given the orbital solution in Table 1. During the 28.9 minute observation, the pulsar moved from $`11`$ o’clock to $`3`$ o’clock on the ellipse. The peak’s slight offset from the ellipse and the presence of “shoulders” indicate that the constant $`\dot{f}`$ assumption of the acceleration search could not fully correct for the orbital motion during this observation.

## 3 Results

We detected a strong pulsar candidate (power/average local power $`165`$ corresponding to a single trial significance of $`18\sigma `$) at a DM of 134 pc cm-3. The average frequency was 326.85895 Hz and the signal had drifted by 8.6 Fourier bins ($`a=2.6`$ m s-2) during the observation (see Figure 1). Search techniques that do not account for acceleration would have detected the signal at about $`34`$ times the average local power level, corresponding to an $`8\sigma `$ detection.

Optimization of the candidate by pulse-folding produced a narrow pulsar-like profile at a localized maximum in DM of 134 pc cm-3 indicating that the signal was almost certainly not due to terrestrial interference. The Taylor & Cordes (1993) free-electron model gives an estimated distance of 3.3 kpc ($`25`$% error) for this DM in the direction of NGC6544, in fair agreement with the published cluster distance of $`2.6`$ kpc obtained by fitting the mean V magnitudes of horizontal branch stars (Harris, 1996).

We estimated a pulsar flux density at 1332 MHz of $`1.3\pm 0.4`$ mJy by comparing the integrated pulsed flux and observed noise to the predicted system noise level given a system sensitivity and total system temperature of $`T_{tot}T_{sys}+T_{sky}`$. The multibeam system has a cold-sky $`T_{sys}21`$K and a sensitivity of 1.36 Jy K-1. Haslam et al. (1982) measured a sky temperature at 408 MHz in the direction of NGC6544 of $`T_{sky}260`$K. Assuming a spectral index of $`2.6`$, which is typical for this region (Lawson et al., 1987), we obtain $`T_{sky}12`$K and $`T_{tot}33`$K at 1332 MHz. FG00 reported a 20 cm flux density of $`1.2\pm 0.1`$ mJy and a spectral index of $`1.1`$ between 90 cm and 20 cm which corresponds to a flux density of $`1.4\pm 0.1`$ mJy at 1332 MHz. Our measured flux density agrees with that of FG00 within the errors, suggesting that the pulsar may be the previously unidentified point source near the core of NGC6544. Since the DM-based distance estimate for the pulsar matches published values for NGC6544, cluster membership is very likely.

The relatively large signal acceleration indicates that the pulsar is in a short period binary with a low-mass companion. These systems, almost without exception, have eccentricities very near to zero due to tidal circularization (see e.g. Phinney & Kulkarni 1994 and Rasio & Heggie 1995).

Figure 2 — Orbital fit for PSR J1807$``$2459 assuming an eccentricity of zero. The error-bars plotted are $`\pm 2\sigma `$ uncertainties in the pulse arrival times. An eclipse, if present, should occur near True Anomaly$`=90^{}`$, which corresponds to superior conjunction. The apparent lack of an eclipse could be due to the relatively high observing frequency (1332 MHz). The inset plot shows the observed pulse profile after folding with the best-fit orbital ephemeris and pulsar frequency. The error-bar indicates $`\pm 2\sigma `$ uncertainties in the profile values.

Figure 3 — Error ellipses (from inner to outer of $`1\sigma `$, $`2\sigma `$, and $`3\sigma `$) for the orbital period and semi-major axis of PSR J1807$``$2459. The large covariance is due to the fact that the observation covered only $`30\%`$ of the orbital period.

In order to study the assumption that the pulsar is a member of a low-mass binary with an eccentricity of zero, we split the observation into 16 equal-length parts and folded the data in each at the nominal pulsar frequency. We determined phase offsets for each of the pulse arrival times and performed a Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares fit of a circular orbit (i.e. sinusoid) to the phase offsets. The results are tabulated in Table 1 and the residuals and error ellipses of the fit are shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively.

| Table 1 | |
| --- | --- |
| Parameters for PSR J1807$``$2459 | |
| Parameter | Value |
| Right Ascensionaafootnotemark:  (J2000) | 18h 07m 20$`\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}`$36(2) |
| Declinationaafootnotemark:  (J2000) | $`24^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}59}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}52}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}6(4)`$ |
| Dispersion Measure (pc cm-3) | 134(2) |
| Flux Density at 1332 MHz (mJy) | 1.3(4) |
| Pulse FWHM at 1332 MHz (%) | 11(3) |
| Pulsar Period (s) | 0.003059447(2) |
| Epoch (MJD) | 50851.9 |
| Orbital Period (days) | 0.070(3) |
| Projected Semi-Major Axis (lt-s) | 0.0116(8) |
| Eccentricitybbfootnotemark: | 0.0 |
| Epoch of Periastron (MJD) | 50851.887(1) |
| Mass Function ($`\text{M}_{}`$) | $`3.4(5)\times 10^7`$ |
| Companion Mass Limitccfootnotemark:  ($`\text{M}_{}`$) | $`0.009`$ |
| $`^a`$A. Fruchter 2000, private communication. | |
| --- | --- |
| Fruchter & Goss discovered an error in the 20 cm | |
| position reported in FG00. The corrected position | |
| shown above will appear in an erratum. | |
| $`^b`$Parameter assumed to be exactly zero. See §3. | |
| $`^c`$Assuming a pulsar mass of $`m_1=1.4\text{M}_{}`$. | |
| Note — Numbers in parentheses represent 2$`\sigma `$ | |
| uncertainties in the last digit quoted. | |

We found no other candidates in our search of NGC6544 to a limiting flux density of $`1.1`$ mJy for 1 ms period signals and $`0.5`$ mJy for periods $`\stackrel{>}{}10`$ ms.

## 4 Discussion

There are currently eight binary pulsar systems that display similar orbital characteristics to those of PSR J1807$``$2459: PSR B1957$`+`$20 (Fruchter et al., 1988) and PSR J2051$``$0827 (Stappers et al., 1996) in the Galactic disk, PSR J1910$`+`$0004 in NGC6760 (Deich et al., 1993), and pulsars 47 Tuc I, J, O, P, and R (Camilo et al., 2000). Each of these systems displays a pulse period of a few milliseconds, an orbital period of 1-10 hours, and a very low-mass companion ($`m_2\mathrm{sin}i\stackrel{<}{}0.05\text{M}_{}`$). Some of these systems display radio eclipses, particularly at longer wavelengths (i.e. 50-90 cm).

Our current 1332-MHz data show no evidence for an eclipse (see Figure 4) at or near superior conjunction, but we cannot rule out the possiblity of eclipses at longer wavelengths. Pulsars J2051$``$0827 and 47 Tuc J show eclipses at radio wavelengths between 50-90 cm, but are detected at all orbital phases at 20 cm, scintillation permitting (Stappers et al., 1996; Camilo et al., 2000). PSR J1910$`+`$0004 in NGC6760 was detected at all orbital phases at 20 cm, but Deich et al. (1993) could not rule out short duration eclipses or eclipses at longer wavelengths.

Most formation theories for short-period binary MSPs in globular clusters involve dynamical interactions with primordial binaries which have been shown to exist in significant numbers (Hut et al., 1992). Rasio et al. (2000) describe a recent variant of the standard “spin-up” model (see Phinney & Kulkarni, 1994, for a review) using an exchange interaction between a neutron star (NS) and a hard primordial binary containing at least one relatively massive main sequence (MS) star ($``$ 1-3 $`\text{M}_{}`$). If the exchange interaction results in a binary containing the NS and the massive MS star, the system enters a common-envelope (CE) phase once the MS star evolves and fills its Roche lobe. At the end of the CE phase, the NS emerges with a very low-mass companion in a very short period circular orbit. Systems with orbital periods $`P_b\stackrel{<}{}8`$ hours undergo evolution due to gravitational radiation and enter a second phase of mass transfer that spins the NS up to millisecond periods.

The scenario described by Rasio et al. (2000) is possible only if the exchange interactions occurred at a time when massive MS stars were still present in the cluster. The NSs and primordial binaries must also have undergone mass segregation and ended up near the cluster core before the MS stars evolved. The timescale for mass segregation is the half-mass relaxation time, which for NGC6544 is $`200`$ Myr (Harris, 1996). This is significantly less than the MS lifetime of a 1-3 $`\text{M}_{}`$ star and implies that this scenario may have produced PSR J1807$``$2459.

Alternatives to “spin-up” models exist in which the NS is created either by accretion induced collapse of a white dwarf (WD) (e.g. Bailyn & Grindlay, 1990), or the coalescence of a pair of massive WDs (Chen & Leonard, 1993). Pairs of primordial binaries interact to produce hard binaries which contain a massive WD or WDs that these models require. The NSs that result from these models are born spinning rapidly ($`P_{spin}210`$ ms), have relatively weak ($`10^910^{10}`$ G) magnetic fields characteristic of MSPs, and may have low-mass companions in very short period orbits. Interestingly, these systems could be the progenitors of the low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) rather than their descendants (Chen et al., 1993).

Future observations of PSR J1807$``$2459 will lead to improved measurements of rotational and orbital parameters, an estimate of or upper limit to the orbital eccentricity, and perhaps information about the circumstellar medium if eclipses are detected. Rasio et al. (2000) predict that many similar systems must exist in the globular cluster system — some with orbital periods as short as $`15`$ min. If recent successes such as the 20 cm searches of 47 Tucanae (Camilo et al., 2000) are any indication, this prediction will soon be put to the test. The ever-increasing speed of computers and improved algorithms for binary pulsar detection (e.g. Ransom, 2000) will allow the analysis of extremely long observations (i.e. days or weeks) that should reveal even the weakest of pulsars in the tightest of binaries.

We would like to thank Vicky Kaspi, Josh Grindlay, Giovanni Fazio, and Nichi D’Amico for useful discussions. FC is supported by NASA grant NAG 5-3229. SE is supported by a NSF CAREER grant.