text:
# Properties of Moyal-Lax Representation

## I. Introduction:

Integrable models , both bosonic as well as supersymmetric , have played important roles in the study of conformal field theories, strings, membranes as well as topological field theories. In recent years, it has become known that string (membrane) theories naturally lead to non-commutative field theories , where usual multiplication of functions is replaced by the star product due to Groenewold , . It is interesting, therefore, to ask if integrable systems can also be described in terms of star products and Moyal brackets . It appears that there are two possible approaches to this problem. In the first method  one can formulate the soliton theory in the non-commutative space-time which is realized using the star product. In the second approach, the star product can be used directly in the Lax operator description - or in the zero-curvature condition -.

In this letter, we follow the second approach and show that it is possible to use the Moyal bracket as the Poisson bracket in the phase space. Such an interpretation allows us to present a Moyal-Lax representation for the soliton system and study such representations systematically. So far, the Moyal bracket has been used to construct only the standard Lax representation for bosonic integrable systems . We show that such brackets can be used to describe nonstandard representations as well. There are many interesting features that emerge from such a representation and we argue that such a representation may, in fact, be more desirable. Among the various interesting features that emerge, we note that the parameter of non-commutativity, in such an analysis, is directly related to the central charge of the second Hamiltonian structure of the system. Furthermore, in such a formulation, the Lax equation has a natural interpretation of a Hamiltonian equation and can be simply derived from an action. Furthermore, such a description naturally leads to the dispersionless limit (in which the models become related to membranes and topological field theories) and thereby allows us to derive the Hamiltonian structures (first, second,…), which has been an open question for quite some time.

## II. Basic Definitions:

Integrable systems are Hamiltonian systems and, therefore, are naturally defined on a phase space. The star product of two functions, on this space, is defined to be

$$A(x,p)B(x,p)=e^{\kappa (_x_{\stackrel{~}{p}}_p_{\stackrel{~}{x}})}A(x,p)B(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{p})|_{\stackrel{~}{x}=x,\stackrel{~}{p}=p}.$$
(1)
The conventional Moyal bracket, then, follows to be

$$\{A(x,p),B(x,p)\}_\kappa =\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(ABBA\right).$$
(2)
Here $`\kappa `$ is the parameter of non-commutativity, which, as we will see, is directly related to the central charge of the second Hamiltonian structure in the case of integrable models. From (1) and (2), it follows immediately that

$$\underset{\kappa 0}{lim}\{A,B\}_\kappa =\{A,B\},$$
(3)
where the last bracket in (3) stands for the standard canonical Poisson bracket.

The star product gives the momentum an operator character. In particular, let us note that for any arbitrary integer $`m,n`$ (positive or negative)

$`p^np^m`$ $`=`$ $`p^{n+m}`$
$`p^nf(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right)(2\kappa )^mf^{(m)}p^{nm},`$ (6)
where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ m\end{array}\right)=\frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!},\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ 0\end{array}\right)=1,$$
(7)
and $`f^{(m)}(x)`$ stands for the $`m`$-th derivative of $`f(x)`$ with respect to $`x`$. We note that these are precisely the relations (up to normalizations) satisfied by the derivative operator.

With these, we can define two classes of Lax operators on the phase space as

$`L_n`$ $`=`$ $`p^n+u_1(x)p^{n1}+u_2(x)p^{n2}+\mathrm{}+u_n(x)`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ $`=`$ $`p^n+u_1(x)p^{n1}+\mathrm{}+u_n(x)+u_{(n+1)}p^1+\mathrm{},`$ (8)
which we can identify respectively with the Lax operator for the generalized KdV hierarchy and the KP hierarchy . In simple terms, we have replaced the space of pseudo-differential operators by polynomials in momentum, which nonetheless inherit an operator structure through the star product and define an algebra. We will call such an algebra the Moyal momentum algebra ($`Mm`$ algebra)111 Notice that our Mm algebra is different from the concept of pseudo-differential operators with the coefficients taken from the Moyal algebra introduced in .. It is easy to check that all the known properties of pseudo-differential operators carry through with suitable redefinitions. For example, for any two arbitrary operators $`A`$ and $`B`$, which are elements of the $`Mm`$ algebra, the residue (the coefficient of the $`p^1`$ term with respect to the Moyal product) of the Moyal bracket can be checked to be a total derivative, namely

$$Res\{A,B\}_\kappa =(_xC).$$
(9)
Consequently, one can define

$$TrA=𝑑xResA,$$
(10)
which is unique (with the usual assumptions of asymptotic fall off) and which satisfies cyclicity.

For a general Lax operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$, it is straightforward to show that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}{t_k}=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{\frac{k}{n}}\right)_m\}_\kappa ,kln,$$
(11)
where $`k,l`$ are integers, defines a consistent Lax equation, provided $`m=0,1,2`$ and that the projections are defined with respect to the star product. Note here that $`A^{\frac{k}{n}}=A^{\frac{1}{n}}A^{\frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{}A^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ involving $`k`$ such factors and the $`n`$-th root is determined formally in a recursive manner. The projection with $`m=0`$ will be denoted by $`()_+`$ and the corresponding equation will be known as the standard Moyal-Lax representation, while the other two cases will be known as non-standard representations. Let us note the important property

$$\underset{\kappa 0}{lim}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}\right)_m=\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}\right)_m,$$
(12)
where the factors on the right hand side are functions on the phase space (not operators). One of the advantages of this method is now obvious, namely, one can go to the Lax representation of the model in the dispersionless limit in a natural manner . In fact, if we consider the limit $`\kappa 0`$, in such a model, it leads to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n}{t}=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_n,\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{\frac{k}{n}}\right)_m\}.$$
(13)
where the bracket on the right hand side is the standard Poisson bracket. With these definitions, one can construct the conserved charges as

$$H_k=Tr\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^{\frac{k}{n}},kln,$$
(14)
where $`k,l`$ are integers, prove that different flows commute and can define Hamiltonian structures in a straightforward manner . Let us illustrate these ideas through some examples.

## III. Examples:

A.) KdV hierarchy:

Let us consider the Lax operator

$$L=p^2+u(x),$$
(15)
then, it is straightforward to calculate (remember the projection is with respect to the star product)

$$\left(L^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_+=p^3+\frac{3}{2}up\frac{2\kappa }{2}u^{(1)},$$
(16)
where $`u^{(1)}=\frac{u}{x}`$.

Therefore, the Moyal-Lax equation

$$\frac{L}{t}=\{L,\left(L^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_+\}_\kappa ,$$
(17)
gives

$$\frac{u}{t}=\left(\kappa u^3+\frac{3}{2}uu^{(1)}\right),$$
(18)
which is the KdV equation and the connection between the parameter of non-commutativity and the central charge begins to emerge. However, we will see a more direct relation when we calculate the Hamiltonian structure. The conserved quantities can be determined in a straightforward manner and the first few have the forms

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`TrL^{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{u}{2}},`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`TrL^{\frac{3}{2}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\frac{u^2}{4}},`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`TrL^{\frac{5}{2}}={\displaystyle 𝑑x(4\kappa u^{(2)}u+u^3)}.`$ (19)
The commutativity of the flows follows directly from the Moyal-Lax representation .

Let us next turn to the question of Hamiltonian structures. First, we define the dual to the Lax operator in (13) by

$$Q=p^2q_2+p^1q_1,$$
(20)
which allows us to define linear functionals as

$`F_Q(L)`$ $`=`$ $`TrLQ={\displaystyle 𝑑xuq_1},`$
$`F_V(L)`$ $`=`$ $`TrLV={\displaystyle 𝑑xuv_1}.`$ (21)
then, one can define, in a standard manner, the first two Hamiltonian structures of the system as

$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_1`$ $`=`$ $`TrL\{Q,V\}_\kappa ,`$
$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_2`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left((\{L,Q\}_\kappa )_+(LV)+(QL)_+\{L,V\}_\kappa \right)`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x(^xRes\{Q,L\}_\kappa )(Res\{V,L\}_\kappa )}.`$
A direct calculations yields

$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_1`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(u(x){\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}u(x)+2\kappa ^2{\displaystyle \frac{^3}{x^3}}\right)\delta (xy),`$ (23)
which are indeed the two Hamiltonian structures of KdV. Furthermore, the parameter of non-commutativity, $`\kappa `$, is now seen to be directly related to the central charge of the second Hamiltonian structure, which is known to be the Virasoro algebra.

B.) Two boson hierarchy:

Let us next consider the Lax operator

$$L=pJ_0+p^1J_1.$$
(24)
it is easy to calculate (projection with respect to the star product)

$$(L^2)_1=p^22J_0p,$$
(25)
which, then yields from the nonstandard Moyal-Lax equation 222Notice that if we take the projection with respect to the usual product (and not the star product), then, the equation becomes inconsistent.

$$\frac{L}{t}=\{(L^2)_1,L\}_\kappa ,$$
(26)
the two boson equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_0}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2J_0+J_0^22\kappa J_0^{^{}})^{^{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_1}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2J_0J_1+2\kappa J_1^{^{}})^{^{}},`$ (27)
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $`x`$. Once again there is already a hint of the relation between the parameter $`\kappa `$ and the central charge which we will see more explicitly soon. The conserved quantities of the system are defined as

$$H_n=TrL^n,$$
(28)
and the first few have the explicit forms

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xJ_1},`$
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle 𝑑xJ_0J_1},`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle 𝑑x(J_1^2+J_0^2J_12\kappa J_0^{^{}}J_1)}.`$ (29)
To study the Hamiltonian structures we define the dual to $`L`$ as

$$Q=q_0+q_1p^1,$$
(30)
so that the linear functionals take the forms

$$F_Q(L)=TrLQ=𝑑x(q_0J_1q_1J_0).$$
(31)
The first two Hamiltonian structures can now be defined in a straightforward manner and have the forms

$$\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_1=TrL\{Q,V\}_\kappa ,$$

$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_2=Tr\left((\{L,Q\}_\kappa )_+(LV)+(QL)_+\{L,V\}_\kappa \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(Res\{Q,L\}_\kappa Res(LVp^1)Res\{V,L\}_\kappa Res(LQp^1)\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑x(^xRes\{Q,L\}_\kappa )(Res\{V,L\}_\kappa )}.`$ (32)
A straightforward calculation yields

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\{J_0,J_0\}_1& \{J_0,J_1\}_1\\ \{J_1,J_0\}_1& \{J_1,J_1\}_1\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ & 0\end{array}\right)\delta (xy),`$ (37)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\{J_0,J_0\}_2& \{J_0,J_1\}_2\\ \{J_1,J_0\}_2& \{J_1,J_1\}_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& J_02\kappa ^2\\ J_0+2\kappa ^2& J_1+J_1\end{array}\right)\delta (xy),`$ (42)
which are the usual Hamiltonian structures of the two boson hierarchy. The second Hamiltonian structure, in particular, is the bosonic limit of the $`N=2`$ twisted superconformal algebra (one has to redefine the basis to make an exact identification)  and the relation between $`\kappa `$ and the central charge of the algebra is now explicit.

It is known that the two boson equation reduces to many other integrable models. Without going into details, let us note that if we identify

$$J_0=\frac{q^{^{}}}{q},J_1=\widehat{q}q,$$
(43)
then the Lax operator in (21) can be rewritten as

$$L=q^1\stackrel{~}{L}q,$$
(44)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{L}=p+qp^1\widehat{q}.$$
(45)
In other words, the two Lax operators $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ are related through a gauge transformation. It is now easy to check that the standard Moyal-Lax equation

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{L}}{t}=\{(\stackrel{~}{L})_+^2,\stackrel{~}{L}\}_\kappa ,$$
(46)
leads to the non-linear Schrödinger equation while, with the identification $`\widehat{q}=q`$, the equation

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{L}}{t}=\{(\stackrel{~}{L})_+^3,\stackrel{~}{L}\}_\kappa ,$$
(47)
yields the MKdV equation.

## IV. Moyal-Lax representation as a Hamiltonian Equation:

The conventional Lax equation (in the standard representation)

$$\frac{L}{t_k}=[(L^{\frac{k}{n}})_+,L],$$
(48)
resembles a Hamiltonian equation with $`(L^{\frac{k}{n}})_+`$ reminiscent of the Hamiltonian. However, such a relation cannot be further quantified in the language of pseudo-differential operators. In contrast, we will show now that the Moyal-Lax representation has such a natural interpretation.

For concreteness, let us consider an arbitrary flow in the KdV hierarchy described by

$$\frac{L}{t}=\{L,(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+\}_\kappa .$$
(49)
Let us next consider an action of the form

$$S=𝑑t(p\dot{x}(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+).$$
(50)
The important point to remember, in this, is the fact that $`L=L(p,x)`$, but does not depend on time explicitly. Thus, we can think of $`(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+`$ as the Hamiltonian on the phase space. That this is true follows from the Euler-Lagrange equations of the system, namely

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+}{p}}=\{x,(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+\}_\kappa ,`$
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+}{x}}=\{p,(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+\}_\kappa .`$ (51)
These are indeed Hamiltonian equations with Moyal brackets playing the role of Poisson brackets, provided we identify the Hamiltonian of the system with $`(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+`$. It also follows now that, since $`L`$ is a function on this phase space,

$$\frac{L}{t}=\{L,(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+\}_\kappa .$$
(52)
Namely, the Moyal-Lax equation is indeed a Hamiltonian equation with $`(L^{\frac{2n+1}{2}})_+`$ playing the role of the Hamiltonian. Furthermore, the Moyal-Lax equation, as we have shown, can be derived from an action. Furthermore, although we have shown this for a standard Moyal-Lax representation, it is clear that this derivation will go through for nonstandard representations as well.

## V. Hamiltonian Structures for Dispersionless Systems:

The Moyal-Lax representation, of course, has the built in advantage that one can go to the dispersionless limit of an integrable system by simply taking the limit $`\kappa 0`$. While the Lax representations for various dispersionless integrable models are known -, the determination of the Hamiltonian structures (at least the second) from such a Lax function has remained an open question. The Moyal-Lax representation provides a solution to this problem in a natural way. Let us illustrate this with two examples.

First, let us consider the KdV hierarchy, which in the dispersionless limit, goes over to the Riemann hierarchy . With

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`p^2+u,Q=p^2q_2+p^1q_1,`$
$`F_Q(L)`$ $`=`$ $`TrLQ={\displaystyle 𝑑xuq_1},`$ (53)
we note that the definition of the first two Hamiltonian structures (19) reduces, in the dispersionless limit, to $`(\kappa 0)`$

$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_1`$ $`=`$ $`TrL\{Q,V\},`$
$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_2`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left((\{L,Q\})_+LV+(QL)_+\{L,V\}\right)+`$ (54)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x(^xRes\{Q,L\})(Res\{V,L\})}.`$
A straightforward calculation leads to

$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_1`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\delta (xy),`$
$`\{u(x),u(y)\}_2`$ $`=`$ $`(u(x)+u(y)){\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\delta (xy).`$ (55)
These are indeed the correct Hamiltonian structures of the Riemann equation and while the first structure was already constructed from the Lax function, the construction of the second structure, from the Lax description, was not known so far .

As a second example, let us consider polytropic gas  with $`\gamma =2`$ which can be thought of as the dispersionless limit of the two boson hierarchy. In such a case, the Lax function has the form

$$L=p+u+vp^1.$$
(56)
Defining the dual and the linear functional as

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`q_0+q_1p^1,`$
$`F_Q(L)`$ $`=`$ $`TrLQ={\displaystyle 𝑑x(uq_1+vq_0)},`$ (57)
we note that the definition of the first two Hamiltonian structures follows from the dispersionless limit $`\kappa 0`$ of eqs. (30)-(31) to be

$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_1=TrL\{Q,V\},`$
$`\{F_Q(L),F_V(L)\}_2=Tr\left((\{L,Q\})_+LV+(QL)_+\{L,V\}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(Res\{Q,L\}Res(LVp^1)Res\{V,L\}Res(LQp^1)\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x(^xRes\{Q,L\})(Res\{V,L\})}.`$ (58)
A simple calculation yields

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\{u,u\}_1& \{u,v\}_1\\ \{v,u\}_1& \{v,v\}_1\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ & 0\end{array}\right)\delta (xy),`$ (63)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\{u,u\}_2& \{u,v\}_2\\ \{v,u\}_2& \{v,v\}_2\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& u\\ u& v+v\end{array}\right)\delta (xy).`$ (68)
These are indeed the correct Hamiltonian structures of this model. We would like to emphasize that it was not known so far how to derive the second Hamiltonian structure from the Lax description of the system . We would also like to note here that the Lax function for the polytropic gas with arbitrary, large $`\gamma `$  is highly constrained. Consequently the formulae in (48) need to be modified further (even for the first Hamiltonian structure) and we have not yet analyzed this question.

To summarize, we have studied the properties of Moyal-Lax representation systematically in this letter. In addition to the fact that they allow a smooth passage to the dispersionless models, we have shown that the parameter of non-commutativity is related to the central charge of the second Hamiltonian structure of the system. We have shown that the Moyal-Lax equation can be interpreted as a Hamiltonian equation and can be derived from an action. We have also shown how the Moyal-Lax description leads in a natural manner, in the dispersionless limit, to the Hamiltonian structures of dispersionless integrable models which has been an open question for sometime. In many ways, this alternate description of integrable systems seems more desirable. Properties of the Moyal-Lax representation for supersymmetric integrable systems will be described separately .

## Acknowledgments

One of us (A.D) would like to thank the organizers of the 37th Karpacz Winter School as well as the members of the Institute of Theoretical Physics, Wrocław fort hospitality, where this work was done. This work was supported in part by US DOE Grant No. DE-FG 02-91ER40685 and by NSF-INT-0089589.

Note added: We would like to thank C. Zachos for pointing out to us that the star product is really due to Groenewold . We would also like to thank I. Strachan as well as the referee for bringing , which has some overlap with our work, to our attention.


format: text

text:
# (De)Localization in the Prime Schrödinger Operator

## Acknowledgments

We thank CAPES-DAAD for supporting our visit (PROBRAL Project) to Prof. M. Schreiber’s group at Technische Universität Chemnitz, where part of this work was done. We also thank Prof. W. F. Wreszinski for his patient cooperation. GQP was supported by FAPESP and CRO was partially supported by CNPq.

## Figure Captions

Figure 1. Lyapunov exponent $`\gamma `$ versus energy for the prime Schrödinger operator. a) $`\lambda =0.5`$; b) $`\lambda =1.0`$; c) $`\lambda =3.0`$; d) $`\lambda =6.0`$.

Figure 2. The second moment $`d_2`$ as function of time for a) $`\lambda =0.5`$ and b) $`\lambda =6.0`$. Notice the different scales (for $`\lambda =6.0`$ the time evolution did not reach the basis border).

Figure 3. The second moment $`d_2`$ as function of time for $`\lambda =1.0`$ (base 10 $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}`$ scale). The upper curve was obtained taking into account only the eigenvectors whose eigenvalues were in the range $`[0.6,0.0]`$. Similar for the lower curve, but with eigenvalues in the range $`[1.6,2.0]`$. See also Fig. 1b.

Figure 4. Delocalized band length $`b`$ as function of the potential intensity $`\lambda `$ (base 10 $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}`$ scale). The best fitting line is also shown.


text:
# Gravitational waves from relativistic rotational core collapse

\[

## Abstract

We present results from simulations of axisymmetric relativistic rotational core collapse. The general relativistic hydrodynamic equations are formulated in flux-conservative form and solved using a high-resolution shock-capturing scheme. The Einstein equations are approximated with a conformally flat 3-metric. We use the quadrupole formula to extract waveforms of the gravitational radiation emitted during the collapse. A comparison of our results with those of Newtonian simulations shows that the wave amplitudes agree within 30%. Surprisingly, in some cases, relativistic effects actually diminish the amplitude of the gravitational wave signal. We further find that the parameter range of models suffering multiple coherent bounces due to centrifugal forces is considerably smaller than in Newtonian simulations.

\]

Since more than two decades astrophysicists struggle to compute the gravitational wave signal produced by rotational core collapse supernovae (see e.g. ). Besides the coalescence of compact black hole and/or neutron star binaries, these events are considered as one of the most promising (burst) sources to detect gravitational waves . Theoretical predictions have been, and still are, hampered by two major reasons: Firstly, one does not know the rotational state of the core prior to its gravitational collapse, as multi-dimensional evolutionary calculations of rotating stars have not yet been performed. Up to now only quasi-spherical stellar pre-collapse models with a phenomenological description of mixing and angular momentum transport are available . Thus, predictions from rotational core collapse must rely upon extensive parameter studies, i.e., a large set of simulations. Secondly, reliable collapse simulations require a relativistic treatment of the dynamics, as both high densities and velocities together with strong gravitational fields are encountered, as well as the incorporation of a realistic equation of state (EoS) and neutrino transport. All previous studies have either neglected or approximated one or all of these requirements. In addition, most simulations assumed axisymmetry, the fully three-dimensional case still remaining essentially unexplored.

Concerning the gravitational wave signal the two most advanced studies of axisymmetric rotational core collapse to date have either investigated a few Newtonian models with a realistic EoS and simplified neutrino treatment , or a large set of Newtonian models with a simplified EoS and no neutrino transport . These simulations predict that nonspherical core collapse supernovae emit at most $`10^6M_{}c^2`$ ($`M_{}=1.99\times 10^{33}\mathrm{g}`$ is the sun’s mass, and $`c`$ is the speed of light in vacuum) in the form of gravitational radiation, with a maximum quadrupole wave amplitude $`A_{20}^{\mathrm{E2}}10^3\mathrm{cm}`$. For a source at a distance $`R`$ this corresponds to a maximum dimensionless strain $`h10^{23}(10\mathrm{Mpc}/R)`$. Similar maximum signal strengths have been found in non-axisymmetric Newtonian simulations also using a simplified EoS and neglecting neutrino transport .

The present work is a further step to improve the reliability of the prediction of the gravitational wave signal from rotational core collapse. To this end we have performed the first study (to our knowledge) in the relativistic framework, extending the axisymmetric Newtonian core collapse simulations of Zwerger and Müller .

In order to examine a large set of initial conditions we approximate the collapsing core by a rotating polytrope and use a simplified analytic EoS . We neglect all transport effects but include relativistic dynamics in a time-dependent spacetime. The pressure $`P`$ consists of a polytropic part $`P_\mathrm{p}`$ and a thermal part $`P_{\mathrm{th}}`$,

$$P(\rho ,\epsilon )=P_\mathrm{p}+P_{\mathrm{th}}=K\rho ^{\gamma _\mathrm{p}}+\rho \epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{th}}1),$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the rest-mass density, and $`\epsilon =\epsilon _\mathrm{p}+\epsilon _{\mathrm{th}}`$ is the specific internal energy which consists of a polytropic and a thermal contribution. The polytropic constant $`K`$ and the polytropic index $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ change discontinuously at nuclear matter density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{nuc}}=2.0\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, but are otherwise assumed to be independent of $`\rho `$ elsewhere. $`P_{\mathrm{th}}`$ mimics the thermal pressure in the matter heated up by the shock. Writing $`P`$ as a sum of these two terms prevents matter elements from following the same $`P`$$`\rho `$-history during infall and expansion after bounce (for more details see ). In all models we set $`\gamma _{\mathrm{th}}=1.5`$, which corresponds to a mixture of relativistic and nonrelativistic gas.

Initial configurations are rotating relativistic stellar cores in equilibrium computed by means of Hachisu’s self-consistent field method . All initial models are 4/3-polytropes, i.e., $`P=K\rho ^{4/3}`$, with a central density of $`1.0\times 10^{10}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. They rotate according to the differential rotation law specified in , in which a parameter $`A`$ (a length scale) determines the angular momentum distribution. For large values of $`A`$ (compared to the size of the initial model) one obtains almost rigidly rotating configurations, while small values of $`A`$ correspond to strongly differentially rotating ones. This rotation law is the relativistic extension of the Newtonian one in . The second parameter of the initial model is the ratio of the amount of rotational energy to the modulus of the gravitational potential energy, $`\beta =E_{\mathrm{rot}}/|E_{\mathrm{pot}}|`$. The collapse is initiated by suddenly reducing $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ from its initial value 4/3 to some prescribed value in the range $`[1.28,1.325]`$. In all simulations we assume both axial and equatorial plane symmetry, and do not consider any physical angular momentum transport.

The hydrodynamic evolution of a relativistic fluid in an arbitrary spacetime endowed with a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is governed by the local conservation laws of the current density $`J^\mu =\rho u^\mu `$ and the (perfect fluid) stress-energy $`T^{\mu \nu }=\rho hu^\mu u^\nu +Pg^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`u^\mu `$ is the 4-velocity and $`h=1+\epsilon +P/\rho `$ is the specific enthalpy. The conservation laws are the continuity equation $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$ and the Bianchi identities $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$, respectively. To derive the hydrodynamic equations  we introduce a set of conserved variables $`D=\rho W`$ (rest-mass density), $`S_i=\rho hW^2v_i`$ (momentum density) and $`E=\rho hW^2P`$ (total energy density), $`W=\alpha u^0`$ being the relativistic Lorentz factor, in terms of the primitive variables $`(\rho ,v_i,\epsilon )`$, where $`v_i`$ is the 3-velocity. The resulting equations can be written as a first-order flux-conservative hyperbolic system of conservation laws.

The time-dependent metric is evolved using the $`3+1`$ splitting of spacetime. In this formalism the Einstein equations are written as a system of evolution and constraint equations for the 3-metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and the extrinsic curvature $`K^{ij}`$. Unfortunately, achieving long-term stable evolution using the $`3+1`$ system (or improved reformulations) is still an open issue (see  and references therein). Therefore, following  we approximate the spacetime geometry by assuming that the 3-metric is conformally flat, i.e., $`\gamma _{ij}=\varphi ^4\widehat{\gamma }_{ij}`$ where $`\varphi `$ is a conformal factor depending on the coordinates $`x^\mu `$, and where $`\widehat{\gamma }_{ij}`$ is the flat 3-metric. In this approximation, the Einstein equations transform into a system of 5 coupled nonlinear elliptic equations for the conformal factor $`\varphi `$, the lapse function $`\alpha `$ and the shift vector $`\beta ^i`$:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \varphi ^5(\rho hW^2P){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^5K_{ij}K^{ij}}{8}},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\alpha \varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha \varphi ^5(\rho h(3W^22)+5P)+{\displaystyle \frac{7\alpha \varphi ^5K_{ij}K^{ij}}{8}},`$ (3)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\beta ^i`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi \alpha \varphi ^4S^i+2K^{ij}\widehat{}_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\varphi ^6}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{}^i\widehat{}_k\beta ^k,`$ (4)
with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\widehat{}`$ being the flat space Laplace and Nabla operators, respectively.

The above approximation is exact in spherical symmetry. As our focus is to investigate rotational core collapse, where the matter distribution does not deviate too much from spherical symmetry (contrary to binary neutron star mergers ), and as the effect of the gravitational radiation reaction force onto the hydrodynamics is negligible, the conformally flat condition (CFC) appears as an adequate approximation for our purpose. The accuracy of the CFC approximation has been considered by Cook et al. , who find remarkably good results for rapidly rotating relativistic stars in equilibrium, with typical errors for different variables smaller than 5%. However, the quality of the CFC approximation degrades in the case of extremely relativistic nonspherical configurations, e.g., rigidly rotating infinitesimally thin disks of dust .

As off-diagonal elements of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are set to zero in the CFC approximation, the gravitational wave content of the spacetime (the transverse part of the metric tensor) is eliminated. Therefore, to compute the gravitational wave signal we use the Einstein quadrupole formula in a post-processing step.

In order to exploit the hyperbolic and conservative character of the hydrodynamic equations, we have implemented in our code a Godunov-type flux-conservative finite volume scheme based upon the solution of approximate Riemann problems at each cell interface (see, e.g. ). On each time slice, the hydrodynamic data are represented by cell averages of the conserved quantities $`D`$, $`S_i`$ and $`E`$. These are propagated to the next time level by a conservative Runge–Kutta algorithm, which involves the numerical fluxes and sources. The metric equations (24) are discretized on a 2-dimensional grid with a 9-point stencil. A Newton–Raphson iteration scheme is used to obtain the solution for the 5 metric functions. For each metric computation, we have to solve a linear system of equations involving the (sparse) Jacobian matrix of the discretized equations.

We have performed a comprehensive number of tests of our code. Firstly, we have studied its ability to keep rotating neutron stars in equilibrium. To that end we have solved the relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations for rotating axisymmetric polytropes having different central densities, angular momentum profiles, and rotation velocities up to the mass-shedding limit. These initial data were evolved both on a static background metric and in a fully dynamic spacetime, always finding stability of the equilibrium configurations over many rotation periods. Secondly, we have compared the performance of our Eulerian code with a May–White-type Lagrangian artificial viscosity code  in spherical symmetry. When evolving identical initial collapse models with both codes we observe agreement in the evolution of fluid and metric variables within a few percent.

In order to pin down the effects of general relativity on rotational core collapse, we have compared relativistic (R) and Newtonian (N) simulations for a large set of initial models. The collapse simulations have been performed in spherical coordinates using a logarithmic radial grid with 200 zones and an equidistant angular grid with 30 zones. Test runs with more angular zones yield similar results. During a typical relativistic simulation the metric is calculated every 100th (10th) time step for a central density smaller (higher) than $`0.1\rho _{\mathrm{nuc}}`$, and extrapolated in between. Comparison with a run where the metric was calculated every 10th (or every) time step showed no significant differences. The total mass $`𝑑V\sqrt{\gamma }D`$ is conserved to better than $`10^3`$ in both relativistic and Newtonian rotational collapse. In spherical symmetry, the mass is conserved up to machine precision in both the Newtonian case, and the relativistic case for a static background metric.

Here we present the results from two representative models (Table I). Note that the initial data slightly differ with respect to the value of $`\beta `$ between the relativistic and Newtonian initial model. The time-evolution of the central density is plotted in Fig. 1. Model A is a strongly differentially rotating core which collapses rapidly ($`t_{\mathrm{bounce}}=38\mathrm{ms}`$) due to the large reduction of $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ from its initial value 4/3 to 1.30. The model bounces at a relatively high density ($`\rho _c(t_{\mathrm{bounce}})=9.3\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$) because the supranuclear EoS was chosen to be extremely soft ($`\gamma _\mathrm{p}(\rho >\rho _{\mathrm{nuc}})=5/3`$). After bounce the rotating core oscillates, in both simulations, with a superposition of various radial and axisymmetric modes. As expected, the oscillation frequencies of the core are higher in the relativistic model due to the higher densities achieved.

On the other hand, model B is initially an almost rigid rotator, which bounces later ($`t_{\mathrm{bounce}}=98\mathrm{ms}`$) than model A due to its larger subnuclear adiabatic index $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}=1.325`$. The collapse is stopped at subnuclear densities ($`\rho _c(t_{\mathrm{bounce}})=3.8\times 10^{13}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$) by the rapid spin-up of the core due to angular momentum conservation. After bounce the core first expands, then begins to collapse once more and rebounces again. The phenomenon of homologous multiple bounces  (which occurs with a period of roughly 40 ms (50 ms) in the relativistic (Newtonian) simulation; see lower panel in Fig. 1) was observed in the Newtonian simulations of Zwerger and Müller  for strongly differentially rotating configurations with a sufficiently large initial value of $`\beta `$ and a subnuclear $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}`$ close to $`4/3`$. However, general relativistic models show distinct multiple bounces only for extremely rapidly and differentially rotating initial models. Most of the Newtonian models of Zwerger and Müller, which bounce at subnuclear densities, reach or even exceed in the relativistic simulations twice the maximum density of the Newtonian models. Thus, in many cases the central density largely exceeds nuclear matter density and the stiffening of the EoS destroys the coherence of the bounce.

The gravitational wave signature of both models is shown in Fig. 2, where we plot the quadrupole wave amplitude $`A_{20}^{\mathrm{E2}}`$ as defined in . For a source at a distance $`R`$ the corresponding dimensionless strain is $`h_{\theta \theta }^{\mathrm{TT}}=8.85\times 10^{24}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (A_{20}^{\mathrm{E2}}/1000)(10\mathrm{Mpc}/R)`$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the line of sight and the rotational axis of the core.

For the rapidly collapsing model A with its soft supranuclear EoS the maximum central density of the relativistic simulation is almost 50% higher than in the Newtonian case. Nevertheless, the gravitational wave amplitude of the relativistic model is lower than that of its Newtonian counterpart. This surprising result can be understood by noting that in the quadrupole formula the gravitational wave amplitude is determined by the second time derivative of the total quadrupole moment of the core, which involves a volume integral where the integrand is proportional to $`\rho r^4`$. Thus a higher central density due to relativistic effects does not necessarily imply a stronger signal. Instead, one must take into account the whole density distribution. In Fig. 3 the profiles of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho r^4`$ at the equator ($`\theta =\pi /2`$) are plotted for both the relativistic and the Newtonian model at the time of bounce. The density profile of the relativistic model is more compact than that of the Newtonian model, whereas the density of the latter model is larger for radii $`\stackrel{>}{}5\mathrm{km}`$ . This gives rise to its larger quadrupole moment (as the deformation of both models is comparable), and hence to its larger gravitational wave amplitude.

In model B the relativistic effects cause the bounce to occur at much higher densities, and the interval between the multiple bounces is also shortened. In this case the gravitational wave amplitude of the relativistic model is actually somewhat larger than in the Newtonian one. As we have already pointed out, general relativistic effects may play a key role in deciding whether a rapidly rotating core bounce will stall at subnuclear density (with a very distinctive gravitational waveform as in model B) or reach nuclear density (with a waveform as in model A). Therefore, relativistic effects have to be taken into account when modeling rotational core collapse. We will investigate this issue further and present more quantitative results in an upcoming article.

As our relativistic simulations yield signal amplitudes similar to Newtonian models, the prospects for detection of rotational core collapse events are also similar. Therefore the predicted signal strength of Galactic events lies within the sensitivity range of the upcoming gravitational wave interferometers . However, extragalactic events seem to be too weak for current detector sensitivities. To further improve the waveforms, 3-dimensional effects and advanced microphysics have to be taken into account.

We appreciate contributions and suggestions from Y. Eriguchi, J.M$`^{\underset{¯}{\text{a}}}`$ Ibáñez, and G. Schäfer. The calculations were carried out at the Rechenzentrum Garching and MPI für Astrophysik, Garching.


text:
# A Molecular Tidal Tail in the Medusa Minor Merger

## 1 Introduction

Although tidal tails are often very gas rich, the gas in most cases is in the form of atomic (HI) gas. Searches for molecular hydrogen in the tails of mergers and interacting galaxies were long unsuccessful (e.g. Smith and Higdon 1994). The molecular gas in a major disk-disk merger becomes heavily concentrated towards the inner kpc in most cases (e.g. Barnes & Hernquist 1996). Thus, an extended CO component in a coalesced, major merger is not expected. Recently, CO emission has, however, been found in tidal dwarf galaxies (TDGs) formed in the extended tails of interacting galaxies and mergers (e.g. Braine et al. 2000). These objects are kinematically distinct and often found at the tip of the tidal tail (Duc & Mirabel 1994). Molecular masses of $`10^710^8`$ M seem to be typical for TDGs. The molecular gas in these TDGs is suggested to form inside the HI clouds, and in this scenario was not expelled from the parent galaxy in molecular form (e.g. Braine et al. 2000). In the M 81 galaxy group, molecular condensations without an apparent stellar component are found in two places (Brouillet et al. 1992; Heithausen & Walter 2000). The latter object is extended over more than $`1^{}`$, and could be a TDG in formation.

A collision between an elliptical and a less-massive spiral is a minor merger that leads to the formation of regular shells. Dynamical simulations of elliptical+spiral (E/S) collisions suggest that, if the gas clouds are treated as particles, a significant amount of the molecular gas may follow the disk stars into the tidal features - instead of becoming concentrated into the central kpc (e.g. Kojima and Noguchi 1997). Thus searching for molecular gas in the tidal tails of minor mergers may be a fruitful approach. In this picture, gas could also be associated with the shells which are otherwise assumed to be gas-free. Indeed, Charmandaris et al. (2000) detect CO emission in the shells of the nearby elliptical Centaurus A — which is believed to be the result of an E/S merger.

The Medusa merger, NGC 4194, (Table 1; Figure 2) ($`L_{\mathrm{IR}}=8.5\times 10^{10}`$ L at $`D`$=39 Mpc) belongs to a class of lower luminosity mergers compared to Ultraluminous IR Galaxies, which have $`L_{\mathrm{IR}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}10^{12}`$ L. The Medusa has an extended region of intense star formation (e.g. Prestwhich et al. 1994; Armus et al. 1990), a feature that might be common for many of these ‘intermediate luminosity’ mergers. As the name indicates, the optical morphology of the Medusa merger is spectacular with a knotty tidal tail stretching out 60′′ (11.3 kpc) north of the main body.

We have studied the central starburst region of this merger in the CO 1-0 line with the OVRO array and the Onsala 20m telescope (see Aalto & Hüttemeister 2000 (AH) and references therein) and found a surprisingly extended molecular cloud distribution (Figure 1). A significant amount of the CO flux resides in dust lanes crossing the centre and curving into the base of the tidal tail. The morphology of the Medusa combined with the extended gas distribution led us to suggest that it is the result of an E/S galaxy collision (AH).

With the intention of investigating the notion that molecular clouds may follow the stars out to great radii in minor mergers we have searched for CO 1–0 emission in the middle and tip of the tidal tail of NGC 4194 with the Onsala 20m telescope. We detect the presence of significant amounts of molecular gas in both positions. The observations are presented in section two and a brief discussion of the implications of the detection in section three.

## 2 Observations and Results

We have obtained single dish spectra of the 1–0 transition of CO in the tidal tail of NGC 4194 with the Onsala 20m telescope in two positions. The observations were carried out in February 2001 and the system temperature was typically 500 K. We alternated between centre velocities 2300 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and 2500 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The spectra were then joined together to get flat baselines and minimize spurious spectrometer signals. The pointing accuracy was checked on SiO masers and was found to be about 2′′. The observed positions, integrated intensities, central velocities and molecular masses can be found in Table 1. The signal in position 1 (mid-tail) is a $`6\sigma `$ detection and in position 2 (tip of tail) we are detecting emission at the $`3\sigma `$ level, due to a higher rms noise and a narrower linewidth. First order baselines have been removed in all cases. For position 2, two bad channels were removed in the raw data at $`v=2250`$ $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. In Figure 2 we show the observed positions and spectra overlayed on an R-band CCD-image (Mazzarella and Boroson 1993). The central spectrum is taken from AH.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Molecular mass

We have used a standard Galactic conversion factor to estimate the mass in both the galaxy centre and in the tail. It is rather unlikely that the same conversion factor is applicable for both regions since the centre emission originates in gas involved in a starburst with associated extreme gas properties (AH). We suspect that the standard conversion factor overestimates the molecular mass in the centre, and underestimates it in the tail. It is difficult to judge by how large a factor the conversion factor varies, but we believe that the gas detected in the tail constitutes a larger fraction of the total H2 mass than the 4% indicated by using the same factor. If the gas in the tail originated in the outskirts of the precursor spiral, a conversion factor calibrated for the outer region of disk galaxies should be appropriate (e.g. Arimoto et al. 1996).

The fact that the CO emission is detected far out in the actual optical tail sets it apart from the tidal CO detection in the minor (disk/disk) merger NGC 2782 — even if the linear distance from the centre of the galaxy may be the same as that for our detection in NGC 4194. In NGC 2782, $`6\times 10^8`$ M of molecular gas are associated with a depression in the optical emission at the base of the eastern tail (Smith et al. 1999).

### 3.2 Dynamics

From our previous high-resolution OVRO map (AH) we see that the inner region of NGC 4194 is rotating with a position angle of 160, where the northern emission is blueshifted (even if the north-eastern part of the emission is moving at too high velocity to fit in the simple rotational pattern). The CO emission in the tidal tail is blueshifted by $``$100 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from the centre gas (see Table 1) and thus appears to be participating in the general rotational pattern of the main body. In contrast, the tidal molecular material of NGC 2782 (Smith et al. 1999) is in apparent counterrotation to the central gas which underlines the difference in merger history between NGC 4194 and NGC 2782.

### 3.3 A molecular tidal tail?

It is tempting to suggest that the tail emission is emerging from a TDG being born. The molecular mass indicated by the detection ($`>8.5\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for the solid detection in the middle of the tidal tail) is compatible with the molecular masses that have been reported to be associated with developed tidal dwarfs in the Arp 105 and Arp 245 systems by Braine et al. (2000), which are $`>1.4\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`>2.2\times 10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$, respectively. However, we suggest that the emission detected is still part of the structure in the main body and belongs to the dust lane traced by CO emission in the northern part of the main body (figure 2). The lane likely continues well into the tidal tail, which is suggested by the blue image in Arp’s catalogue (1966). Thus, the CO emission detected indicates the presence of a molecular tail, perhaps as long as the optical tail. We suggest that while the future destiny of the molecular emission may well be to condense into a dwarf galaxy, this has not yet happened. However, high resolution CO and HI observations together with sensitive optical studies are necessary to determine whether the emission is coming from a distinct dynamical system or not.

### 3.4 The origin of the gas

We suggest that the molecular gas in the tail of the Medusa was brought there in molecular form instead of having formed in situ from atomic material. Although dust lanes and CO emission are not always related, in this particular galaxy there is a very strong correlation (as shown by AH). A big fraction ($`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}`$ 30%) of the CO emission is tracing dust lanes going from the centre all the way into the tidal tail. We suggest that, since the dust lane continues into the tidal tail, the CO continues with it — and that it is part of a molecular structure that followed the stars into the tail, and remained molecular. One could of course argue that the CO-dust correlation breaks down in the tail - but since we are detecting molecular gas in the tail, it is natural to assume that it is associated with the dust.

A single dish HI spectrum (Thuan and Martin 1981) shows the bulk of the HI emission to be redshifted with respect to the tail. From the line profile, we estimate that at most 1/3 of the total HI emission is associated with the tail. However, to determine the origin of the molecular gas in the tail, both high resolution HI and CO maps are necessary. For the H2 to have formed from the HI we expect the CO emission to be associated with column density peaks in the HI distribution. It could be argued that a more large-scale phase transition between HI and H2 has occured in which case a small scale relation between HI and CO would not be expected. However, such phase transitions occur in high pressure environments (such as in centres of galaxies) or in shocks. The tail of the Medusa appears to be too diffuse to provide the right environment for such a transition. Thus, differences in the CO and HI distribution should support the notion that the H2 did not form in situ. Multi-colour images in the optical will help study the structure of the dust and its association to CO in more detail.

The situation in the Medusa is very different from major mergers where the CO emission ends up collected in the inner region of the galaxy and where most of the optical body of the merger is devoid of molecular gas. The CO found in full-blown optical TDGs of such major merger systems (e.g. Braine et al. 2000) is very far from the merger centre and completely detached from it. Thus it may well have a different origin there, i.e. form from the HI tails in situ. The connection between molecular gas in tidal tails like that of the Medusa and TDGs clearly needs to be investigated further.

### 3.5 The fate of the gas

Armus et al. (1990) detect no H$`\alpha `$ emission in the tail of the Medusa, so there is no indication of ongoing star formation in the molecular gas, even if a deeper study will be necessary to determine actual star formation rates. If the molecular gas in the tail of the Medusa is collected in self-gravitating clouds, but quiescent, it may survive for a longer time than the gas in the centre — which is currently being consumed by a starburst. The gas clouds need to be part of a bigger structure, such as a TDG, for them to survive when the tail disperses.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Mazzarella for generously sharing his R-band image of NGC 4194 with us. We thank the Onsala staff for their support during the observations. We also thank the referee, J. Braine, for useful comments and suggestions. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.


text:
# Untitled Document

Discrete Torsion and Branes in M-theory
from Mathematical Viewpoint

Shigenori Seki seki@phys.h.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies

Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

abstract

We study orbifold group actions on locally defined fields upon M-theory branes in a three-form C-fields background. We derive some constraints from the consistency of the orbifold group actions. We show the possibility of the existence of M-theory discrete torsion for the fields on the worldvolume and discuss its features.

March 2001

1. Introduction

NS-NS B-fields are studied in various contexts, particularly noncommutative geometry and discrete torsion. The relation between the noncommutative geometry and the B-fields has been mentioned in  recently. When non-trivial B-fields exist along a D-brane, a gauge theory on the D-brane has noncommutativity. On the other hand discrete torsion was originally pointed out in  and the orbifold group action on a worldvolume gauge theory on D-branes at the orbifold singularity has been studied recently in \[3,,4\] . In this direction a lot of works \[59\] have been done, and this paper also has a great interest in this subject.

Since orbifold theories have twisted sectors, constraints for modular invariance on a one-loop partition function of a closed string on an orbifold $`M/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is a quotient space of a manifold $`M`$ by an orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, induce a degree of freedom, which is called discrete torsion $`ϵ(g,h)U(1)`$ for $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Higher loop modular invariance requires the following constraints

$$\begin{array}{cc}& ϵ(g_1g_2,g_3)=ϵ(g_1,g_3)ϵ(g_2,g_3),\hfill \\ & ϵ(g,h)=ϵ(h,g)^1,\hfill \\ & ϵ(g,g)=1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`ϵ(g,h)`$ is classified by a second group cohomology $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ .

Discrete torsion for open strings has been shown in \[3,,4\]. For the orbifold $`M/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, supersymmetric Yang-Mills fields $`\varphi `$ in the worldvolume gauge theory on D-branes at the orbifold singularities are projected by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as

$$\gamma (g)^1\varphi \gamma (g)=r(g)\varphi ,g\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\gamma (g)`$ is a representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the gauge group and $`r(g)`$ is a space-time action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`\gamma (g)`$ is in a projective representation

$$\gamma (g)\gamma (h)=ϵ(g,h)\gamma (gh).$$

The moduli space of the gauge theory has the same structure as the expectations based on . More studies on non-abelian orbifolds with discrete torsion have been done in \[5,,6\] in terms of Schur Multipliers.

String theories have physical and mathematical aspects. Mathematical understanding of discrete torsion has been proposed in \[1116\], which define the B-fields on each local patch in terms of gerbes and state that discrete torsion is the choice of orbifold group action on the B-fields. Since there exist gauge symmetries, it is in fact not sufficient to define the orbifold action only on the base space. It is necessary to choose the action on fields as well. These remarks include more applications. For example the choice of orbifold group action on vector fields gives rise to degrees of freedom which are known as orbifold Wilson lines.

In Section 2 we briefly review these mathematical aspects of discrete torsion and branes in the string theories. Section 3 is devoted for the calculations of orbifold group actions on fields in M-theory. In Section 4 we present summaries and conclusions with some discussions on problems left for further study.

2. Review of discrete torsion and branes in string theories

In this section we review the mathematical aspects of discrete torsion and branes proposed in \[1113\]. When we define the NS-NS B-fields, we need a two-form field $`B^\alpha `$ on a patch $`U_\alpha `$, a one-form $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta }(U_\alpha U_\beta )`$ and a $`U(1)`$-valued function $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(U_\alpha U_\beta U_\gamma )`$ which satisfy the following equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B^\alpha B^\beta & =dp^{\alpha \beta },\hfill & (2.1)\hfill \\ \hfill p^{\alpha \beta }+p^{\beta \gamma }+p^{\gamma \alpha }& =d\mathrm{log}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma },\hfill & (2.2)\hfill \\ \hfill \delta (q_{\alpha \beta \gamma })& =1.\hfill & (2.3)\hfill \end{array}$$

From Eq.(2.3), in order to preserve Čech cocycle $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ by an orbifold group action $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, up to coboundaries, we require that the pullback of $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ becomes

$$g^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\nu _{\alpha \beta }^g\nu _{\beta \gamma }^g\nu _{\gamma \alpha }^g,$$

where $`\nu _{\alpha \beta }^g`$ are some Čech cochains for each $`g`$. From Eqs.(2.2) and (2.4), we obtain the orbifold group action on $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ as

$$g^{}p^{\alpha \beta }=p^{\alpha \beta }+d\mathrm{log}\nu _{\alpha \beta }^g+\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(g)^\beta ,$$

for some one-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)^\alpha `$. Using Eqs.(2.1) and (2.4), the orbifold group action on $`B^\alpha `$ becomes

$$g^{}B^\alpha =B^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)^\alpha .$$

Expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, $`\nu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2g_3}`$, $`(g_1g_2)^{}p^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`(g_1g_2)^{}B^\alpha `$ respectively in two different ways, we obtain some constraints

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }(g_1g_2)^\alpha & =\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_1)^\alpha d\mathrm{log}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2},\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}& =\nu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\left(g_2^{}\nu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(h_\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)& =\left(g_3^{}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ are some Čech cochains.

Orbifold Wilson surfaces $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$ which appear in the one-loop partition function, are the analogues of orbifold Wilson loops and give rise to phases. Now let us take two kinds of definitions of the orbifold group actions. We describe $`h_\alpha ^{g,h}`$ in one definition and $`\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g,h}`$ in the other. In order to consider the difference between these two definitions we use

$$\omega ^{g,h}=\frac{h^{g,h}}{\overline{h}^{g,h}}.$$

Then the phases lead to

$$\left(\omega ^{g,h}\right)\left(\omega ^{h,g}\right)^1.$$

Note that we assume the B-fields are completely trivial so that $`h_\alpha ^{g,h}`$ and $`\omega _\alpha ^{g,h}`$ are globally defined. Eq.(2.4) stands for the phases from the contribution of twisted sectors to the partition function, in other words, it corresponds to discrete torsion introduced in . In fact the phases (2.4) satisfy the conditions (1.1) for the modular invariance.

Next we consider the orbifold group action on $`N`$ coincident D-branes. There are $`U(N)`$ gauge fields, which come from the Chan-Paton factors of open strings ending on the D-branes. Since gauge transformations associate the gauge fields $`A`$ with the B-fields, the gauge fields also should be defined on local patches. From  we can link $`A^\alpha `$ to $`B^\alpha `$ by using the following equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A^\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }A^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }^1d\mathrm{log}g_{\alpha \beta }^1& =p^{\alpha \beta }I,\hfill & (2.4)\hfill \\ \hfill g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }& =q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }I,\hfill & (2.5)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a $`N\times N`$ matrix and $`I`$ is a unit matrix. $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a transition function for the gauge bundle $`A`$ when the B-fields are completely trivial.

From Eqs.(2.4),(2.4),(2.4) and (2.5) the orbifold actions on the gauge fields become

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g^{}A^\alpha & =(\gamma _\alpha ^g)A^\alpha (\gamma _\alpha ^g)^1+(\gamma _\alpha ^g)d(\gamma _\alpha ^g)^1+I\mathrm{\Lambda }(g)^\alpha ,\hfill & (2.6)\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }& =\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left[(\gamma _\alpha ^g)g_{\alpha \beta }(\gamma _\beta ^g)^1\right],\hfill & (2.7)\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`N\times N`$ matrices $`\gamma _\alpha ^g`$. Expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ in two different ways, we obtain a constraint

$$(g_2^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1})(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2})=h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}).$$

Let us consider the completely trivial B-fields given by $`B^\alpha =0`$, $`p^{\alpha \beta }=0`$ and $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=1`$. Then it is meaningful that we set the bundle on the D-branes to be topologically trivial. We can replace the locally defined gauge field $`A^\alpha `$ with a globally defined $`U(N)`$ gauge field $`A`$ and set $`g_{\alpha \beta }=1`$. If furthermore the gauge field $`A`$ is constant, we can assume that $`\gamma ^g`$ and $`h^{g_1,g_2}`$ are constant. From Eq.(2.8) we obtain

$$\left(\gamma ^{g_1}\right)\left(\gamma ^{g_2}\right)=h^{g_1,g_2}\left(\gamma ^{g_1g_2}\right).$$

$`\gamma ^g`$ has a projective representation. And $`h^{g_1,g_2}`$ is classified by $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. These results are in good agreement with \[3,,4\].

3. Discrete torsion and branes in M-theory

In M-theory there exist membranes and M5-branes, and the membranes are considered as three-form C-fields in an eleven dimensional supergravity. Since the C-fields compactified on $`S^1`$ lead to the B-fields in the string theories, membrane twisted sector would derive discrete torsion in M-theory. In the string theories discrete torsion, which is classified by $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, appears as the phases derived from the term $`\mathrm{exp}\left(B\right)`$, while in M-theory the term $`\mathrm{exp}\left(C\right)`$ leads to some phases. In  the phases have been calculated from the contribution of membrane twisted sectors on $`T^3`$ in terms of 2-gerbes and have been classified by a third group cohomology $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$.

In order to define the C-fields on each patch, we need a three-form C-field $`C^\alpha `$ on a patch $`U_\alpha `$, a two-form $`u^{\alpha \beta }`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$, a one-form $`v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and a function $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(U_\alpha U_\beta U_\gamma U_\delta )`$. The forms and the function are related by the following equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill C^\alpha C^\beta & =du^{\alpha \beta },\hfill & (3.1)\hfill \\ \hfill u^{\alpha \beta }+u^{\beta \gamma }+u^{\gamma \alpha }& =dv^{\alpha \beta \gamma },\hfill & (3.2)\hfill \\ \hfill v^{\beta \gamma \delta }v^{\alpha \gamma \delta }+v^{\alpha \beta \delta }v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }& =d\mathrm{log}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta },\hfill & (3.3)\hfill \\ \hfill \delta h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }& =1.\hfill & (3.4)\hfill \end{array}$$

The actions of $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the C-fields described in  are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g^{}C^\alpha & =C^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha ,\hfill & (3.5)\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}u^{\alpha \beta }& =u^{\alpha \beta }+d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\beta ,\hfill & (3.6)\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }& =v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\beta \gamma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\gamma \alpha }\hfill & \\ & +d\mathrm{log}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g,\hfill & (3.7)\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }& =h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\left(\nu _{\beta \gamma \delta }^g\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \gamma \delta }^g\right)^1\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \delta }^g\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g\right)^1,\hfill & (3.8)\hfill \end{array}$$

where, for each element $`g`$ in the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$ are some Čech cochains, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$ are some local one-forms and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha `$ are some local two-forms. And we obtain the constraints ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha & =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_1)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha ,\hfill & (3.9)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^{\alpha \beta }& =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^{\alpha \beta }+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha \hfill & \\ & +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\beta d\mathrm{log}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2},\hfill & (3.10)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_2,g_3)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2g_3)^\alpha & =g_3^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1g_2,g_3)^\alpha \hfill & \\ & +d\mathrm{log}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3},\hfill & (3.11)\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1g_2}& =\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\beta \gamma }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_1,g_2}\right),\hfill & (3.12)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)& =\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\beta ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1,\hfill & (3.13)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3g_4}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3,g_4}\right)& =\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3,g_4}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2,g_3,g_4}\right)\left(g_4^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right).\hfill & (3.14)\hfill \end{array}$$

In the similar way to Section 2 the difference of orbifold group actions $`\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_1,g_3}=\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}/\overline{\gamma }_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ leads to the membrane twisted sector phase on $`T^3`$ and is classified by $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ for the completely trivial C-fields .

Now let us consider the orbifold group actions on fields in a worldvolume theory on branes. When a membrane ends on the branes as a string, the end line is assumed as a two-form field $`B`$ in the worldvolume theory. Since the three-form field $`C`$ is mapped to $`C+dB`$ by gauge transformations, on the analogy of the string theories the B-fields are also to be defined on each local patch in terms of a two-form $`B^\alpha `$, a one-form $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ and a function $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. From  we are able to associate the B-fields with the C-fields as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B^\alpha B^\beta +dp^{\alpha \beta }& =u^{\alpha \beta },\hfill & (3.15)\hfill \\ \hfill p^{\alpha \beta }+p^{\beta \gamma }+p^{\gamma \alpha }+d\mathrm{log}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }& =v^{\alpha \beta \gamma },\hfill & (3.16)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(q_{\beta \gamma \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \gamma \delta }\right)^1\left(q_{\alpha \beta \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right)^1& =h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }.\hfill & (3.17)\hfill \end{array}$$

We calculate the orbifold group actions on the B-fields. Firstly we suppose the action on $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ as

$$g^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(\mu _{\beta \gamma }^g\right)\left(\mu _{\gamma \alpha }^g\right),$$

so that $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is preserved up to coboundaries. $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g`$ are some Čech cochains for each $`g`$. Then the pullback of the left hand side of Eq.(3.17) becomes

$$g^{}\left[\left(q_{\beta \gamma \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \gamma \delta }\right)^1\left(q_{\alpha \beta \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right)^1\right]=\left(q_{\beta \gamma \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \gamma \delta }\right)^1\left(q_{\alpha \beta \delta }\right)\left(q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\right)^1=h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta },$$

while from Eq.(3.8) the pullback of the right hand side of Eq.(3.17) has additional factors $`\nu ^g`$. So we should instead define the orbifold action on $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ as

$$g^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g\right)q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(\mu _{\beta \gamma }^g\right)\left(\mu _{\gamma \alpha }^g\right).$$

From Eqs.(3.7), (3.16) and (3.18) we obtain

$$g^{}p^{\alpha \beta }=p^{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\beta ,$$

for some local one-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha `$. Using Eqs.(3.6), (3.15) and (3.18), we calculate the orbifold group action on $`B^\alpha `$ as

$$g^{}B^\alpha =B^\alpha d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha .$$

$`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha `$ determine the structure of orbifold group action on the B-fields.

If a membrane extends in a two dimensional subspace transverse to the branes and ends on the branes as a point, we can consider the end point as a one-form field $`A`$ in the worldvolume gauge theory on the branes. From  we write down the relations between the B-fields and the A-fields,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A^\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }A^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }^1d\mathrm{log}g_{\alpha \beta }& =p^{\alpha \beta },\hfill & (3.18)\hfill \\ \hfill g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }& =q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }.\hfill & (3.19)\hfill \end{array}$$

$`A^\alpha `$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the data of A-fields described on local patches in the same way as Section 2. We suppose the orbifold group action on $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ as

$$g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\rho _\alpha ^g\right)g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\rho _\beta ^g\right)^1,$$

where $`\rho ^g`$ are some functions. Since from the left hand side of Eq.(3.19) we obtain

$$g^{}\left[g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }\right]=g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }=q_{\alpha \beta \gamma },$$

we need additional factors in Eq.(3.20) in order for the above equation to be consistent with Eq.(3.18). When $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$ is equal to one, we are able to define the orbifold action on $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ as

$$g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^g\right)g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\rho _\beta ^g\right)^1.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$ vanishes, we can obtain the action of $`g`$ on $`A^\alpha `$ as

$$g^{}A^\alpha =\left(\rho _\alpha ^g\right)A^\alpha \left(\rho _\alpha ^g\right)^1+d\mathrm{log}\rho _\alpha ^g+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha .$$

These two requirements, $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }=0`$, are realized, for example, when the C-fields are topologically trivial.

Next we derive some constraints. We calculate $`(g_1g_2)^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ for $`g_1,g_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in two different ways and they become

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_2^{}(g_1^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma })& =\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_2}\right)q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left(g_2^{}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(\mu _{\beta \gamma }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\mu _{\beta \gamma }^{g_1}\right)\left(\mu _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\mu _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_1}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill (g_1g_2)^{}q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }& =\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_2}\right)q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\left(g_2^{}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\beta \gamma }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)\left(\mu _{\beta \gamma }^{g_1g_2}\right)\left(\mu _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_1g_2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Comparing these equations, we read the following constraint

$$\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)=\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1\left(\theta _\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right),$$

where $`\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ are some functions. We also compute the pullbacks of $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`g_1g_2`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_2^{}(g_1^{}p^{\alpha \beta })& =p^{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^\beta \hfill \\ & g_2^{}\left(d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^{\alpha \beta }+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^\alpha g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^\beta ,\hfill \\ \hfill (g_1g_2)^{}p^{\alpha \beta }& =p^{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^\beta \hfill \\ & =p^{\alpha \beta }d\mathrm{log}\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}+d\mathrm{log}\theta _\beta ^{g_1,g_2}d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}g_2^{}\left(d\mathrm{log}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^{\alpha \beta }+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\beta \hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`g_2^{}(g_1^{}p^{\alpha \beta })`$ is equal to $`(g_1g_2)^{}p^{\alpha \beta }`$, we obtain the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^\alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha d\mathrm{log}\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}$$

For $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ we calculate the following pullbacks as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_2^{}(g_1^{}g_{\alpha \beta })& =\left(g_2^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\rho _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\rho _\beta ^{g_2}\right)^1\left(g_2^{}\rho _\beta ^{g_1}\right)^1\hfill \\ & =\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1\left(\theta _\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left(g_2^{}\rho _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\rho _\beta ^{g_2}\right)^1\left(g_2^{}\rho _\beta ^{g_1}\right)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill (g_1g_2)^{}g_{\alpha \beta }& =\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}\right)g_{\alpha \beta }\left(\rho _\beta ^{g_1g_2}\right)^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

From these equations, when $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}`$ becomes one, we can obtain

$$\left(g_2^{}\rho _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)=\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\rho _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}\right).$$

We compare $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{(g_1g_2)g_3}`$ with $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1(g_2g_3)}`$. These two terms become

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu _{\alpha \beta }^{(g_1g_2)g_3}& =\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left((g_2g_3)^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(g_3^{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1\hfill \\ & \times \left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\theta _\beta ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(g_3^{}\theta _\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1(g_2g_3)}& =\left(\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left((g_2g_3)^{}\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)^1\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2,g_3}\right)^1\hfill \\ & \times \left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\theta _\beta ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)^1\left(\theta _\beta ^{g_2,g_3}\right)^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

From these equations and Eq.(3.13) we obtain the constraint

$$\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)=\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\theta _\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right).$$

Note that we have required $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g=1`$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}=1`$ and these conditions are consistent with the constraint (3.12).

4. Conclusions and discussion

A lot of works on orbifolds and discrete torsion have been done in the string theories, but we do not know precisely these subjects in M-theory. So we considered orbifold and discrete torsion in M-theory on the analogy of the string theories.

We used the results shown in , where the three-form C-fields with connections were presented in terms of the three-forms $`C^\alpha `$, the two-forms $`u^{\alpha \beta }`$, the one-forms $`v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and the functions $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ defined on local patches. In  the two-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha `$, the one-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the Čech cochains $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$ were also introduced as the structures describing the actions of orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the C-fields. For the constraints we introduced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha `$, $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}`$ and $`\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$, and the difference of orbifold actions $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ was classified by $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$.

Firstly we studied the two-form fields $`B`$ in the worldvolume gauge theory on the branes. The two-form B-fields are linked to the three-form C-fields, because $`C`$ are transformed into $`C+dB`$ by the gauge transformations. So we also described the B-fields and their connections on local patches by the two-forms $`B^\alpha `$, the one-forms $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the functions $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. We wrote down the relation between the C-fields and the B-fields in Eqs.(3.15), (3.16) and (3.17). From these equations and the orbifold group actions (3.5), (3.6), (3.7) and (3.8) on the C-fields we obtained the actions on the B-fields, which are presented as Eqs.(3.18), (3.18) and (3.18), and then we introduced some Čech cochains $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g`$ and some local one-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^\alpha `$. These factors are the structures constructing the orbifold group actions on the B-fields. Calculating the pullbacks for the actions of $`g_1g_2`$ on $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and $`p^\alpha `$ in two different ways, we derived the constraints (3.20) and (3.20), especially in Eq.(3.20) we added some functions $`\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$. In Eq.(3.20) we are able to find that $`\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ plays a role similar to discrete torsion in the string theories.

Next we considered the one-form fields $`A`$. We also defined the A-fields on local patches in terms of the one-forms $`A^\alpha `$ and the matrices $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. On the analogy of the string theories we described the relationships between the B-fields and the A-fields as Eqs.(3.18) and (3.19). In order to define the orbifold group actions on $`A^\alpha `$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, we needed some conditions for $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$, which are the data for the orbifold group actions on the C-fields. The conditions are that $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$ becomes one and that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$ vanishes. They are satisfied when the C-fields are topologically trivial, that is, when $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=1`$ and $`v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }=0`$. Then we obtained the orbifold group actions (3.20) on $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ from Eqs.(3.18) and (3.19), where we introduced some functions $`\rho _\alpha ^g`$, and the actions (3.20) on $`A^\alpha `$ from Eqs.(3.18), (3.18) and (3.20).

Let us consider the specialized situation so that the C-fields are completely trivial, that is, $`C^\alpha `$ is constant, $`u^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`v^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ vanish and $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is equal to one. Since we can take $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g=1`$ from Eq.(3.8), and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}=1`$ from Eq.(3.12), we replace $`\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ with a globally defined constant $`\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$. We also require that the B-fields are completely trivial, in other words, $`B^\alpha `$ becomes globally constant, $`p^{\alpha \beta }`$ vanishes and $`q_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is equal to one. We can take $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^g=1`$ from Eq.(3.18) and $`\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ are replaced with globally defined $`\theta ^{g_1,g_2}`$ from Eq.(3.20). And we regard the A-fields as the topologically trivial fields. Since $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ becomes one, from Eq.(3.20) we obtain $`\rho _\alpha ^g=\rho _\beta ^g`$. After all Eq.(3.20) leads to

$$\left(\rho ^g\right)\left(\rho ^h\right)=\left(\theta ^{g,h}\right)\left(\rho ^{gh}\right),g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

This equation implies that the representation of orbifold groups $`\rho ^g`$ is projective. This result is similar to Eq.(1.1) shown in \[3,,4\].

We were able to have more interesting features in M-theory. Calculating $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2g_3}`$ in two different ways, we obtained Eq.(3.20). In the situation mentioned above we can define $`\theta _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ and $`\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ as global constants, and from Eq.(3.20) we obtain

$$\left(\theta ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\theta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)=\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\left(\theta ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\theta ^{g_2,g_3}\right),g_1,g_2,g_3\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

We should recall that $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}(=\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}/\overline{\gamma }^{g_1,g_2,g_3})`$ are classified by $`H^3(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. So we assume $`\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ as discrete torsion for the branes in M-theory.

In M-theory there exist membranes and M5-branes. Open membranes have end points and end lines on the M5-branes, and in a gauge theory on the worldvolume of $`N`$ coincident M5-branes we assume the end lines and the end points as two-form tensor fields and one-form gauge fields respectively. So we considered the two-form B-fields and the one-form A-fields in the three-form C-fields background. When the transverse space for the M5-branes is $`𝐑\times 𝐂^2`$, the gauge theory on the worldvolume includes two complex scalars and one real scalars as fluctuations of the M5-branes to the transverse directions. When the M5-branes are located at the singularity of orbifold $`𝐑\times 𝐂^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`𝐂^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is ALE space, the gauge theory becomes a six dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory for large $`N`$ \[18,,19\]. Then a tensor multiplet, a hypermultiplet and a vector multiplet consist of the two-form field and the real scalar field, of the complex scalars and of the one-form field respectively. The moduli space of the Yang-Mills theory on the M5-branes at the orbifold singularity with discrete torsion may have good correspondences to the geometric structure of orbifold on the analogy of \[7,,8\].

Though we know that the end points of open strings have Chan-Paton factors in the string theories, the analogues of Chan-Paton factors as the end lines of open membranes are not clear in M-theory. So we do not know precisely what type of values $`\theta ^{g_1,g_2}`$ and $`\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ are. But at least we are able to suggest that the representation $`\rho ^g`$ of the orbifold group is projective and that the phase $`\theta ^{g_1,g_2}`$ has the structure which are determined by the M-theory discrete torsion $`\gamma ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$.

We will need to make more precise mathematical analyses, for example, quotient stacks \[21,,22\] and K-theory. Dp-branes and M-theory branes are studied in the contexts of K-theory  and twisted K-theory \[24,,25\]. Since the p-branes are realized as (p+1)-form fields in low energy effective actions, there may exist some analogues of discrete torsion for the p-branes and the open p-branes.

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to S. Matsuda for encouragement. This work is supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists (#4783).

References

relax N.Seiberg and E.Witten, “String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry”, JHEP 9909 (1999) 032, hep-th/9908142. relax C.Vafa, “Modular Invariance and Discrete Torsion on Orbifolds”, Nucl.Phys. B273 (1986) 592. relax M.Douglas, “D-branes and Discrete Torsion”, hep-th/9807235. relax M.Douglas and B.Fiol, “D-branes and Discrete Torsion II”, hep-th/9903031. relax B.Feng, A.Hanany, Y.He and N.Prezas, “Discrete Torsion, Non-Abelian Orbifolds and the Schur Multiplier”, JHEP 0101 (2001) 033, hep-th/0010023. relax B.Feng, A.Hanany, Y.He and N.Prezas, “Discrete Torsion, Covering Groups and Quiver Diagrams”, hep-th/0011192. relax D.Berenstein and R.Leigh, “Discrete Torsion, AdS/CFT and Duality”, JHEP 0001 (2000) 038, hep-th/0001055. relax D.Berenstein and R.Leigh, “Non-Commutative Calabi-Yau Manifolds”, Phys.Lett. B499 (2001) 207, hep-th/0009209. relax K.Dasgupta, S.Hyun, K.Oh and R.Tatar, “Conifolds with Discrete Torsion and Noncommutativity”, JHEP 0009 (2000) 043, hep-th/0008091. relax C.Vafa and E.Witten, “On Orbifold with Discrete Torsion”, J.Geom.Phys. 15 (1995) 189, hep-th/9409188. relax E.Sharpe, “Discrete Torsion and Gerbes I”, hep-th/9909108. relax E.Sharpe, “Discrete Torsion and Gerbes II”, hep-th/9909120. relax E.Sharpe, “Discrete Torsion”, hep-th/0008154. relax E.Sharpe, “Analogues of Discrete Torsion for the M-theory Three-form”, hep-th/0008170. relax E.Sharpe, “Discrete Torsion in Perturbative Heterotic String Theory”, hep-th/0008184. relax E.Sharpe, “Recent Developments in Discrete Torsion”, Phys.Lett. B498 (2001) 104, hep-th/0008191. relax D.Freed and E.Witten, “Anomalies in String Theory with D-branes”, hep-th/9907189. relax S.Ferrara, A.Kehagias, H.Partouche and A.Zaffaroni, “Membranes and Fivebranes with Lower Supersymmetry and their AdS Supergravity Duals”, Phys.Lett. B431 (1998) 42, hep-th/9803109. relax C.Ahn, K.Oh and R.Tatar, “Orbifolds $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ and Six Dimensional (0,1) SCFT”, Phys.Lett. B442 (1998) 109, hep-th/9804093. relax S.Seki, work in progress. relax E.Sharpe, “String Orbifolds and Quotient Stacks”, hep-th/0102211. relax E.Sharpe, “Quotient Stacks and String Orbifolds”, hep-th/0103008. relax E.Witten, “D-branes and K-theory”, JHEP 9812 (1998) 019, hep-th/9810188. relax A.Kapustin, “D-branes in a Topologically Nontrivial B-field”, Adv.Theor.Math.Phys. 4 (2001) 127, hep-th/9909089. relax D.Diaconescu, G.Moore and E.Witten, “$`E_8`$ Gauge Theory, and a Derivation of K-theory from M-theory”, hep-th/0005090.


text:
# Models for RHIC and LHC: New Developments

## 1 Open Problems

With the start of the RHIC program to investigate nucleus-nucleus collisions at very high energies, there is an increasing need of computational tools in order to provide a clear interpretation of the data. The situation is not satisfactory in the sense that there exists a nice theory (QCD) but we are not able to treat nuclear collisions strictly within this framework, and on the other hand there are simple models, which can be applied easily but which have no solid theoretical basis. A good compromise is provided by effective theories, which are not derived from first principles, but which are nevertheless self-consistent and calculable. A candidate seems to be the Gribov-Regge approach, and – being formally quite similar – the eikonalized parton model. Here, however, some inconsistencies occur, which we are going to discuss in the following, before we provide a solution to the problem.

Gribov-Regge theory  is by construction a multiple scattering theory. The elementary interactions are realized by complex objects called “Pomerons”, who’s precise nature is not known, and which are therefore simply parameterized, with a couple of parameters to be determined by experiment . Even in hadron-hadron scattering, several of these Pomerons are exchanged in parallel (the cross section for exchanging a given number of Pomerons is called”topological cross section”). Simple formulas can be derived for the (topological) cross sections, expressed in terms of the Pomeron parameters.

In order to calculate exclusive particle production, one needs to know how to share the energy between the individual elementary interactions in case of multiple scattering. We do not want to discuss the different recipes used to do the energy sharing (in particular in Monte Carlo applications). The point is, whatever procedure is used, this is not taken into account in the calculation of cross sections discussed above ,. So, actually, one is using two different models for cross section calculations and for treating particle production. Taking energy conservation into account in exactly the same way will modify the (topological) cross section results considerably.

Being another popular approach, the parton model  amounts to presenting the partons of projectile and target by momentum distribution functions, $`f_i`$ and $`f_j`$, and calculating inclusive cross sections for the production of parton jets as a convolution of these distribution functions with the elementary parton-parton cross section $`d\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}/dp_{}^2`$, where $`i,j`$ represent parton flavors. This simple factorization formula is the result of cancelations of complicated diagrams and hides therefore the complicated multiple scattering structure of the reaction, which is finally recovered via some unitarization procedure. The latter one makes the approach formally equivalent to the Gribov-Regge one and one therefore encounters the same conceptual problems (see above).

## 2 A Solution: Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory

As a solution of the above-mentioned problems, we present a new approach which we call “Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory”: we have a consistent treatment for calculating (topological) cross sections and particle production considering energy conservation in both cases; in addition, we introduce hard processes in a natural way.

The basic guideline of our approach is theoretical consistency. We cannot derive everything from first principles, but we use rigorously the language of field theory to make sure not to violate basic laws of physics, which is easily done in more phenomenological treatments (see discussion above).

Let us consider nucleus-nucleus ($`AB`$) scattering. In the Glauber-Gribov approach , the nucleus-nucleus scattering amplitude is defined by the sum of contributions of diagrams, corresponding to multiple elementary scattering processes between parton constituents of projectile and target nucleons. These elementary scatterings are the sum of soft, semi-hard, and hard contributions: $`T_{22}=T_{\mathrm{soft}}+T_{\mathrm{semi}}+T_{\mathrm{hard}}`$. A corresponding relation holds for the inelastic amplitude $`T_{2X}`$. A cut elementary diagram will be graphically represented by a vertical dashed line, whereas the elastic amplitude by an unbroken line:

$`=T_{22}`$,   $`=_X(T_{2X})`$$`(T_{2X})^{}`$.

This is very handy for treating the nuclear scattering model. We define the model via the elastic scattering amplitude $`T_{ABAB}`$ which is assumed to consist of purely parallel elementary interactions between partonic constituents. The amplitude is therefore a sum of such terms. One has to be careful about energy conservation: all the partonic constituents leaving a nucleon have to share the momentum of the nucleon. So in the explicit formula one has an integration over momentum fractions of the partons, taking care of momentum conservation. Having defined elastic scattering, inelastic scattering and particle production is practically given, if one employs a quantum mechanically self-consistent picture. Let us now consider inelastic scattering: one has of course the same parallel structure, just some of the elementary interactions may be inelastic, some elastic. The inelastic amplitude being a sum over many terms – $`T_{ABX}=_iT_{ABX}^{(i)}`$ – has to be squared and summed over final states in order to get the inelastic cross section, which provides interference terms $`_X(T_{ABX}^{(i)})(T_{ABX}^{(j)})^{}`$, which can be conveniently expressed in terms of the cut and uncut elementary diagrams, as shown in fig. 1. So we are doing nothing more than following basic rules of quantum mechanics.

Of course a diagram with 3 inelastic elementary interactions does not interfere with the one with 300, because the final states are different. So it makes sense to define classes $`K`$ of interference terms (cut diagrams) contributing to the same final state, as all diagrams with a certain number of inelastic interactions and with fixed momentum fractions of the corresponding partonic constituents. One then sums over all terms within each class $`K`$, and obtains for the inelastic cross section

$$\sigma _{AB}(s)=d^2b\underset{K}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(s,b)}(K)$$

where we use the symbolic notation $`d^2b=d^2b_0d^{2A}b_A\rho (b_A)d^{2B}b_B\rho (b_B)`$ which means integration over impact parameter $`b_0`$ and in addition averaging over nuclear coordinates for projectile and target. The variable $`K`$ is characterized by $`AB`$ numbers $`m_k`$ representing the number of cut elementary diagrams for each possible pair of nucleons and all the momentum fractions $`x^+`$ and $`x^{}`$ of all these elementary interactions (so $`K`$ is a partly discrete and partly continuous variable, and $``$ is meant to represent $``$). This is the really new and very important feature of our approach: we keep explicitly the dependence on the longitudinal momenta, assuring energy conservation at any level of our calculation.

The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ actually very difficult and technical, but it can be done and we refer the interested reader to the literature .

The quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(s,b)}(K)`$ can now be interpreted as the probability to produce a configuration $`K`$ at given $`s`$ and $`b`$. So we have a solid basis for applying Monte Carlo techniques: one generates configurations $`K`$ according to the probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and one may then calculate mean values of observables by averaging Monte Carlo samples. The problem is that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represents a very high dimensional probability distribution, and it is not obvious how to deal with it. We decided to develop powerful Markov chain techniques  in order to avoid to introduce additional approximations.

## 3 Summary

We provide a new formulation of the multiple scattering mechanism in nucleus-nucleus scattering, where the basic guideline is theoretical consistency. We avoid in this way many of the problems encountered in present day models. We also introduce the necessary numerical techniques to apply the formalism in order to perform practical calculations.

This work has been funded in part by the IN2P3/CNRS (PICS 580) and the Russian Foundation of Basic Researches (RFBR-98-02-22024).