text:
# ON THE CONVENTIONALITY OF SIMULTANEITY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Since its birth , there has been a long debate to establish to what extent special relativity, and the hypothesis of constancy of the speed of light, could be considered conventional . It was soon realized by Einstein  that experimentally one can establish the speed of light only by measuring the time of flight of a light beam over a closed path. Indeed, in order to measure the one-way speed of light, the time of departure from a starting point $`O_1`$ and the time of arrival to an ending point $`O_2`$ are needed. A convention to synchronize two distant clocks must be given, but the Einstein convention cannot be used, since it is based on the isotropic assumption which is the fact we wish to prove.

The situation is often illustrated, in the one dimensional case, in the following way (see figure 1).

Let us consider a light beam: it leaves the observer $`O_1`$, reaches $`O_2`$ and, being reflected, it comes back. $`O_1`$, with his clock, measures the total time of flight, $`t_T`$, and verifies the relation $`2\overline{O_1O_2}=ct_T`$. If the speed of light is the same in both directions, the beam is reflected by $`O_2`$ at the time $`t_R=t_T/2`$. This data, once communicated from $`O_1`$ to $`O_2`$, can be used by $`O_2`$ to synchronize his clock with $`O_1`$’s (the Einstein procedure of synchronization). In other words the assumption of isotropy leads to the conclusion that the events A and R are simultaneous, so that the definition of simultaneity suffers from the same conventionality content of the isotropic assumption.

It is often noticed by some authors that this conclusion cannot be drawn essentially for two reasons.

* There may be some way to synchronize distant clocks without using the isotropic assumption, for instance, with a slowly transport of a third clock from $`O_1`$ to $`O_2`$.
* In the above argument we used only one experimental fact, that the speed of light as measured over a closed path is always $`c`$, (hereafter this law111Elsewhere  it is called ”Weyl’s Erfahrungstatsache”, and it is distinguished from the Reichenbach round-trip axiom which states the independence of the round-trip time from the direction of the journey. is referred to, in short, as the “$`L/c`$ law”). Other experimental facts could restrict the allowed values of the speed of light in one direction, eventually leaving us with only the isotropic possibility.

However, the solution suggested in the first point simply replaces the isotropic convention with other equivalent assumptions . It does not exclude the possibility of alternative anisotropic choices. As we shall see, the second argument does not work as well, because there are anisotropic conventions compatible with every physical law, the only price to be paid being a change in their mathematical expression. Moreover, conventions different from the isotropic one can prove to be natural in some contexts such as when the observers live over the surface of a spinning planet (Section 6).

As a first example of an alternative convention let us return to the one dimensional case. Following the supporters of the conventionality of simultaneity, we are able to fix the time reflection, $`t_R=ϵt_T`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the Reichenbach coefficient usually taken in the range $`ϵ(0,1)`$. Once the choice has been made, the speed of light directed right becomes $`c/2ϵ`$ and the one directed left becomes $`c/2(1ϵ)`$. Whatever the choice of $`ϵ`$ is, the $`L/c`$ law is satisfied. The restriction to the one dimensional case however does not clarify the problem, nor exhibits the richness of the possible conventions. Our analysis starts in the following section where we skip to the three dimensional case.

## 2 ANISOTROPY AND INHOMOGENEITY

Let us consider a Euclidean space $`E^3`$ where light propagates on straight lines. A beam of light leaves its starting point $`O_1`$ and through the reflection over suitable mirrors covers a closed path $`\gamma `$ ending in $`O_1`$. If we use a large number of mirrors the path can approximate, as much as we want, a smooth closed curve of arbitrary shape, so that we can assume $`\gamma `$ to be an arbitrary differentiable closed curve. If $`L`$ is the length of the curve, by the $`L/c`$ law, the total travelling time is $`\tau =L/c`$. Let us introduce a field $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ so that $`\times \stackrel{}{A}=0`$ (or, which is the same, $`\stackrel{}{A}=\varphi `$ for a suitable scalar function $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$), then

$$\tau =L/c+_\gamma \stackrel{}{A}d\stackrel{}{l}.$$
(1)
The previous expression can be rewritten

$$\tau =_\gamma dl(\frac{1}{c}+A\mathrm{cos}\theta )=_\gamma \frac{\mathrm{d}l}{v(\stackrel{}{x},\theta )},$$
(2)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{l}`$ and where

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{c\widehat{v}}{1+c\widehat{v}\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})}$$
(3)
is a new modified speed of light. It is anisotropic, in fact its absolute value

depends on the direction $`\widehat{v}`$ (see figure 2). Now it is clear that, if the speed of light has the anisotropic and inhomogeneous value given by Eq. (3), then the $`L/c`$ law is fulfilled. Therefore, the arbitrariness of the speed of light amounts at least to an entire field $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$.

There are more general expressions which verify the $`L/c`$ law for any closed path starting at $`O_1`$. However, if the $`L/c`$ law is verified by any observer, that is for any choice of $`O_1`$, then the most general expression for the velocity is given by Eq. (3). This is proved in the appendix, and is correctly stated by the following

Theorem. Let $`M=E^3\times `$ be a spacetime consisting of a Euclidean space $`E^3`$ endowed with a global time $``$. Suppose that any observer at rest measures with his clock, and along his worldline, a time which differs from the global time $`t`$ only by an additive constant. Suppose moreover that light propagates along straight lines with a finite speed of norm $`f`$,

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}}{\mathrm{d}t}=f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x},t)\widehat{v}.$$
(4)
Finally, assume that two light worldlines coincide if they pass through the same event with the same direction. Then, if the $`L/c`$ law holds:

* In $`M`$ there is a global time variable $`\eta `$ that makes the speed of light isotropic

$$\stackrel{}{w}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }=c\widehat{w}.$$
(5)
The function $`\eta (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is unique up to an additive constant, and of the form

$$\eta =t\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})$$
(6)

* If $`f`$ is continuous in its arguments, the function $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is differentiable, with $`|\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})|<1/c`$, and the speed of light is given by Eq. (3).

Moreover, if light is, for any given direction, the fastest signal222 Experimentally it is possible, for any given direction, to establish unambiguously which of two signals is the fastest. Let the two signals start at the same instant from $`O_1`$ and reach $`O_2`$. Clearly, the first of the two signal that reach $`O_2`$, as measured by $`O_2`$’s clock, is the fastest. This conclusion does not depend on the synchronization of the clocks of $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. that carries information then:

* $`M`$ has a Minkowskian causal structure.

In the proof we construct, using the Einstein synchronization convention, a new global time variable $`\eta `$ which makes the speed of light isotropic. Then we prove that $`\eta `$, like $`t`$, measures the time of clocks at rest (Eq. 6). The other statements follow a).

We notice that the first part of the theorem (firsts two points), applies to whatever signal propagates over straight lines such as, for example, the sound. In that case, with $`c`$ we mean the two-way velocity of the signal.

Statement a) of the theorem is in some respect opposite to statement b). The latter implies the conventionality of the isotropic assumption whereas the former shows that all the freedom in choosing the convention can be eliminated with a time coordinate change. This last circumstance makes the one to one correspondence between the convention in the velocity distribution and the convention in the concept of simultaneity, clear. Two different time variables $`\eta `$ and $`t`$, related by Eq. (6), have indeed, different simultaneity slices.

The theorem, moreover, suggests to replace the postulate of constancy of the speed of light with the $`L/c`$ law which is independent from the synchronization convention used.

Anderson and Stedman , starting from the isotropic convention and making the substitution (6), obtained the conventions expressed by (3). We have shown that even the converse is true: every convention for the velocity of light, allowed by the $`L/c`$ law, takes that form and, hence, every allowed convention can be seen as arising from the isotropic convention by a change in the clocks synchronization. A step in this direction was already made by Anderson et al. \[8, p. 132\] who proved that such a coordinate change exists, provided the $`L/c`$ law holds, and the anisotropy is elliptical \[8, p. 127\]. However, the strong requirement of ellipticity was made a priori, so that a proof of our theorem was still lacking.

We have derived the causal structure of $`M`$ without the need of a spacetime metric. Let, now, $`M`$ be a Lorentzian manifold where light rays propagate over null geodesics. By the theorem, its metric $`\mathrm{d}s^2`$, in the coordinates $`\{\stackrel{}{x},\eta \}`$, must equal Minkowski’s up to a conformal factor (see, for instance, ). If additionally, the metric is required to measure the proper time of clocks at rest ($`\mathrm{d}s=\mathrm{d}\eta `$), then the conformal factor is fixed to unity and the Minkowski metric is completely recovered.

Finally, the reader can verify, following the proofs of the appendix, that the conditions of the theorem can be considerably weakened allowing a generalization of the first part. The space $`E^3`$ may be replaced with a Riemmanian space of $`^3`$ topology where light is no longer required to propagate along the geodesics of the space, but needs only to move in trajectories invariant under inversion of direction. Then in Eq. (3) with $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ we mean $`\mathrm{d}x^i/\mathrm{d}t`$ and with $`\widehat{v}`$ we mean $`\mathrm{d}x^i/\mathrm{d}l`$ where $`\mathrm{d}l^2=h_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j`$ is the metric of the Riemmanian space. Here, we are mainly concerned with the theoretical and experimental foundations of Minkowski spacetime, so as not to discuss this generalization further.

## 3 CONSISTENCE OF ANISOTROPIC CONVENTIONS

We have seen that any possible convention is related to the isotropic one by the coordinate transformation of Eq. (6). This is the fundamental ingredient which allows us to prove our inability to find some physical phenomena ruling out one convention instead of another, as shown in great detail by Anderson et al.  . Let us shortly review their findings; this will justify the use of the word “convention” which, in the present paper, is referred to any scheme allowed by experience.

We can express all the known laws of physics in a conventional global time coordinate obtaining a set of physical laws coherent with experience. The set is the one we had developed if, in our history of science, instead of using the isotropic convention we had chosen an anisotropic one. This set is recovered simply by performing a coordinate transformation from the coordinates of the isotropic convention, $`\{\stackrel{}{x},\eta \}`$, to the coordinates of an anisotropic convention, $`\{\stackrel{}{x},t\}`$. For instance, the Gauss law of electromagnetism is written in the anisotropic coordinates

$$\stackrel{}{E}+\varphi \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}=4\pi \rho .$$
(7)
As another example, the velocity of a particle of worldline $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\stackrel{}{w}}{1+\stackrel{}{w}\varphi },\text{ where}\stackrel{}{w}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}}{\mathrm{d}\eta },$$
(8)
and the proper time of the particle is

$$\mathrm{d}\tau =\sqrt{1\frac{\stackrel{}{w}^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{d}\eta =\sqrt{(1\stackrel{}{v}\varphi )^2\frac{\stackrel{}{v}^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(9)
Not every physical law requires a time variable for its formulation. When it is possible, a convention-free formulation clearly reveals the physical meaning of the law. We have already shown that the causal structure is independent from the chosen convention. In $`M=E^3\times `$ we can even define, in a convention-free manner, the “light cone” of an event A,

An event B is said inside the light cone of an event A if there is a path $`\gamma `$

which allows a light beam starting in A, and travelling over $`\gamma `$, to end in B.

As a consequence, the law which states that information cannot propagate faster than light, can be expressed in a convention-free way, too.

In the literature there are theoretical proofs  of the isotropy of the speed of light but all of them use a non-modified law of physics in the process, and no one deals with the problem of velocity inhomogeneity. It is an easy task to “prove” the isotropy of the speed of light if we implicitly use an assumption or a law that holds only in the isotropic convention. For instance, it is easy to prove the isotropy of the speed of light if we use the Gauss law in its standard form. Indeed, its predictions agree with physical phenomena, Eq. (7), only if the velocity of light is isotropic. In the same way, contrary to the claims of Will , it is impossible to experimentally test the isotropy of the speed of light. Many of the experiments he had analyzed have some value as tests of special relativity, but as tests of the isotropy of the speed of light, they are illusions \[8, p. 148\].

## 4 SIMULTANEITY FROM CAUSALITY

In the previous section, we have shown that the laws of physics are simplified in the Einstein convention whereas, in anisotropic conventions, they loose their symmetries. The requirement of some symmetry becomes a way to restrict the allowed conventions to the isotropic one. This is seen even in the causal approach to the conventionality of simultaneity  whose cornerstone is the theorem of Malament . This theorem (see  for a readable account of it) essentially proves that, if the causal structure of spacetime is that of Minkowski, and $`C`$ is the wordline of an observer at rest, the only non trivial equivalence relation (simultaneity relation) invariant under $`C`$-causal automorphisms (diffeomorphisms of spacetime that preserve causal relations and map $`C`$ onto itself) is that of Einstein. Our theorem enforces that of Malament in the following sense. The causal structure of spacetime is non-conventional because it can be tested experimentally. However, Malament takes it for granted that it is Minkowskian, that is, derived from a pseudo-Riemmanian manifold of $`^4`$ topology, where the metric

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=c^2\mathrm{d}t^2\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}^2$$
(10)
vanishes on light worldlines. Now, one may wonder if this belief is well founded. After all, from (10), there also follows that the speed of light is isotropic (by dividing by $`\mathrm{d}t^2`$). In other words we cannot rely on equation (10) to state the causal structure of spacetime because it is only compatible with the isotropic assumption. We need experimental evidence that the causal structure of spacetime is Minkowskian and to do this we cannot rely on speed of light conventions. Alternatively, we need a proof of the independence of the causal structure from the convention chosen. At this point, the last part of our theorem enters. It states that, because of the $`L/c`$ law, the causal structure of spacetime is Minkowskian even if our spacetime $`M=E^3\times `$ is not a Lorentzian manifold333Remember that the causal structure of spacetime follows our theorem without the need of a spacetime metric. Moreover, Malament’s argument uses only the causal structure of Minkowski spacetime.. Malament’s argument then works. We summarize the entire deduction in a scheme

$$\overline{)M=E^3\times \stackrel{L/c\text{law}}{}\begin{array}{c}\text{Minkowskian}\\ \text{causal structure}\end{array}\stackrel{\begin{array}{c}\text{Malament’s}\\ \text{argument}\end{array}}{}\text{Einstein convention.}}$$

Although attractive, in what follows we abandon this approach to the conventionality of simultaneity essentially for one reason. Malament, in order to recover the Einstein convention, requires an invariance principle, namely the invariance of the simultaneity relation under C-automorphisms; but we have seen that a number of physical laws have the same effect if we require some symmetry. There is no physical reason for such a requirement; after all, the concept of simultaneity has to do with clocks not with light (causal structure) and in this regard clocks say that there are a number of viable conventions, those given by Eq. (3). Moreover, Malament’s argument is hard to generalize to the case of observers in generic motion , or to generic spacetimes, because in such contexts C-automorphisms may be absent.

## 5 THE CHOICE OF A GOOD CONVENTION

Once one agrees on the conventional nature of simultaneity, the problem becomes how to find a good convention for the physical context at hand. We suggest three criteria

* Simplicity of the laws of physics.
* Invariance of the convention used under change of the observer.
* Existence of a global time variable.

The first criterion is clear, one has to choose the simplest convention whenever the last two points are satisfied. The second criterion has the following meaning: a convention is good if it is the same for every observer, in such a way that communication among them is possible without referring each time to a subjective choice. This implies that the function $`\varphi `$ must be the same for all observers: indeed, if the observer $`O_1`$ uses the time variable $`t_1=\eta _1\varphi _1`$ and the observer $`O_2`$ uses the time variable $`t_2=\eta _2\varphi _2`$, a communication among them is useless, unless each observer knows the function $`\varphi `$ used by the other. To meet the second point, the set of observers must agree that function $`\varphi `$ be used. Depending on the physical situation, we have to restrict and define the set of observers under which the invariance of the convention holds. This happens in the following example.

So far we have considered only observers at rest, here we look for conventions well suited for moving observers. In this example, our set of observers, under which invariance of the convention must be met, is given by inertial observers. Let us consider the Galilean principle of relativity

(\*) A reference frame in uniform rectilinear motion with respect
to an inertial frame is inertial by itself.

Here, for “inertial frame”, we mean any observer who does not feel inertial forces. This definition, based on detectable forces, avoids any convention and is ideal for our purpose. The function $`\varphi `$, common to all inertial observers, is taken in such a way that the Galilean relativity principle (\*) remains unchanged passing from the time variable $`\eta `$ to the time variable $`t`$. This restricts the allowed conventions to a subset where the relativity principle holds and where the laws of physics happen to be particularly simple. Let $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ be the uniform velocity of an inertial observer, from Eq. (8), we see that in the time variable $`t`$ the inertial observer has a uniform velocity only if $`_\stackrel{}{w}_\stackrel{}{w}\varphi =0`$ which implies444Torretti , already considered this convention for a single observer requiring that Newton’s first law be satisfied. $`\varphi =\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{x}+\text{const.}`$. With this choice, the coordinate transformations from one inertial observer to another form a group. If $`U(a)`$ is the coordinate transformation from $`\{\stackrel{}{x},t\}`$ to $`\{\stackrel{}{x},\eta \}`$ then the coordinate transformation to a second observer of velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is given by

$$G(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{v})=U(a)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{}{w})U(a)$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ are related by Eq. (8). The group of coordinate transformations can be shortly written $`G=U(a)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }U(a)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Lorentz group in the usual representation. We take, $`\stackrel{}{a}=\frac{\alpha }{c}\widehat{i}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant. In one spatial dimension the modified Lorentz transformation becomes

$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (w(v))\{(1+\alpha \beta )x\beta ct\}`$ (12)
$`ct^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (w(v))\{(1\alpha )\beta ct+(1+\alpha \alpha \beta +\alpha ^2\beta )x\},`$ (13)
where

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w}{c}}={\displaystyle \frac{v/c}{1\alpha v/c}},`$ (14)
$`\gamma (w(v))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha v/c}{\sqrt{(1\alpha v/c)^2(v/c)^2}}}.`$ (15)
With the simplest choice, $`\alpha =0`$, we recover the Lorentz transformation.

We mention another interesting convention. Starting from a realistic viewpoint, and with purposes very different from ours -, Selleri  renewed some interest in the absolute synchronization convention , that is on the proposal $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{v}=(\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{x})/c^2`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the velocity of the observer $`O_\stackrel{}{v}`$ with respect to a privileged frame $`O_0`$. This convention, depending on the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ of the observer, is not invariant under change of inertial frame. As a consequence, the laws of physics are not invariant either and the modified Lorentz transformations do not form a group. However, the Galilean relativity principle (\*) remains true because $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{v}`$ is linear in $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. Implicitly, in the previous section, much in the spirit of Mansouri and Sexl , a problem raised by Selleri in his paper  is solved, that of finding how the laws of physics must be written in the absolute synchronization convention and if there is an experiment capable of ruling it out . Nevertheless, we stress, in contrast to him , that the possibility of anisotropic conventions does not imply the inconsistency of special relativity.

The third point requires a wider discussion; we devote the following section to it.

## 6 THE EXISTENCE OF A GLOBAL TIME VARIABLE

So far, we have considered only the case in which the $`L/c`$ law holds everywhere; to generalize our treatment the field $`\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is now taken arbitrarily, that is, we remove the condition $`\stackrel{}{A}=\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$. If light has the velocity

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\frac{c\widehat{v}}{1+c\widehat{v}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})},$$
(16)
then the time taken by a light beam to travel round trip over the path $`\gamma `$ is given by

$$\tau =L/c+_\gamma \stackrel{}{A}d\stackrel{}{l},$$
(17)
and the difference from the case in which light travels in the opposite sense is

$$\delta \tau =2_\gamma \stackrel{}{A}d\stackrel{}{l}.$$
(18)
This is a generalized Sagnac effect due to the distribution of velocities, Eq. (16). Being a measurable quantity, if a Sagnac effect is present, every allowed convention must account for it. Hence, in the presence of a Sagnac effect, it is impossible to find a new global time variable which allows the speed of light to be everywhere $`c`$. The existence of a global time variable is very useful, and must be considered one of the main tasks of a good convention, so this excludes the isotropic convention in a number of physical situations. Moreover, if two conventions on the velocity of light are allowed, because they lead to the same correct predictions (Sagnac effect), then their fields are linked to one another by the gauge transformation

$$\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})+\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(19)
In order to see this, take the difference of two $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ fields, then obtain a new field that is rotation-free because its integral over an arbitrary closed path is zero. Measurable quantities, being convention-free quantities, must be gauge invariant. For instance, the rotation $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{x})=\times \stackrel{}{A}`$ is gauge independent and plays the role of the field strength of the gauge theory. It can be measured revealing the Sagnac effect for a closed path in the neighborhood of $`\stackrel{}{x}`$. Again, the gauge transformation (19) follows from a resynchronization of clocks, that is from a transformation in the global time coordinate $`tt+\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$.

Our treatment generalizes Anderson and Stedman’s  who presented the choice of simultaneity, within an inertial frame, as a gauge choice.

In our formalism, the usual non-relativistic Sagnac effect  is obtained once one takes

$$\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{\stackrel{}{\omega }\times \stackrel{}{x}}{c^2},$$
(20)
where $`\omega `$ is the angular velocity of the rotating platform. Indeed, with this choice, one recovers the well known formula

$$\delta \tau =\frac{4S\omega }{c^2},$$
(21)
where $`S`$ is the area of the surface subtended by the curve $`\gamma `$. Eq. (20) is even the best convention that people living on the Earth surface can take, where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is the displacement from the Earth’s axis.

Eq. (20) can be recovered from the general relativistic work of Møller  who proved that an expression like (16) with555Indices are lowered and raised with the spatial metric $`h_{ij}=g_{ij}g_{0i}g_{0j}/g_{00}`$. $`A_i=g_{0i}`$ holds in whatever stationary frame in which $`g_{00}=1`$, where $`x^i=const.`$ is the worldline of a generic observer at rest in the frame. In our case , $`g_{00}=(1\frac{r^2\omega ^2}{c^2})`$, and the previous condition holds, for a given radius, only in the non-relativistic limit. In more general relativistic circumstances, $`g_{00}1`$, the chosen global time variable no longer measures the rate of clocks at rest, and Eq. (16) no longer holds. However, using fiber bundle techniques one can still reveal the gauge nature of simultaneity, as we shall show in a forthcoming paper.

In the present paper we are mainly concerned with the case of a Euclidean space in which the $`L/c`$ law holds, at least locally. In our theorem we proved that $`\stackrel{}{A}=\varphi `$. However, if the $`L/c`$ law does not hold globally, we can only conclude that $`\times \stackrel{}{A}=0`$. In a space not simply connected this does not leave out the possibility of a Sagnac effect, and, as a consequence, this proves that the isotropic convention can be unsuitable even when the $`L/c`$ law locally holds.

Think, as an example, of a large cylindrical spaceship of radius $`R`$ spinning along its axis at angular velocity $`\omega `$. People live on the internal cylindrical surface of the spaceship and $`\omega `$ is chosen to reproduce the gravitational acceleration $`g=\omega ^2R`$. Light and electric signals propagate along the surface. In such a situation the $`L/c`$ law holds locally but a Sagnac effect is present when a light beam travels all around the spaceship.

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

In the first part of the paper we developed the consequences of the $`L/c`$ law. We found that the allowed distributions for the velocity of light are given by Eq. (3), and that each of them can be recovered from the isotropic value via a time coordinate transformation. The relation with a coordinate transformation enabled us to rewrite the laws of physics coherently with the anisotropic convention adopted. This change in their expression clearly does not alter the physical content of the laws, so that a physics based on anisotropic conventions appears to be feasible. Moreover, anisotropic conventions can prove extremely useful, as we showed in the last part of the paper. The approach to the conventionality of simultaneity as a gauge theory seems very attractive and will be the subject of subsequent works. It can be considered a step towards general relativity.

Our analysis of the $`L/c`$ was proved useful even in the causal approach to the conventionality of simultaneity. We showed that, if the $`L/c`$ law holds in a Euclidean space, then the associated spacetime is causally the same as Minkowski spacetime. This result relates convention-free concepts, namely the $`L/c`$ law and the causal structure of spacetime. It justifies Malament’s argument if one wants to base the simultaneity concept on the causal structure. This last approach, however, appears untenable when one skips from Minkowski spacetime to more realistic spacetimes where causal automorphisms are absent.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to thank Bruno Carazza for his kind suggestions and for having shared useful discussions.

## APPENDIX

The theorem requires a lemma.
Lemma. Under the hypothesis of the theorem, let $`O_1`$ be an observer at rest. Let $`t_1`$ be the time measured by the clock of $`O_1`$ along its own worldline $`\stackrel{}{x}_{O_1}=const.`$ From the hypothesis, on the worldline of the observer, we have $`t_1=t+const.`$ where $`t`$ is the global time. Outside the wordline of the observer $`O_1`$ the parameter $`t_1`$ is not yet defined. If $`O_1`$ labels events outside his worldline using the Einstein synchronization convention, then the variable $`t_1`$ becomes a global function: $`t_1=\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. Moreover, $`\varphi _1`$ turns out to be increasing and continuous in $`t`$. For a given $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`t_1`$ takes any real value and the speed of light, in this new variable, becomes $`c`$: $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{x}/\mathrm{d}t_1=c\widehat{v}`$.

Proof of the lemma666This lemma can be generalized in the case of curved spaces. You have simply to read $`\overline{AB}`$ as the length of the trajectory of the light beam from $`A`$ to $`B`$.. Look at figure 3 where the coordinate $`z`$ is omitted for the sake of clarity. Starting from $`O_1`$, and being reflected in $`F`$ and $`G`$, a light beam travels all along the path $`O_1FGO_1`$. $`FG`$ is an infinitesimal displacement and our task is to show that the speed of light over $`FG`$ is $`c`$ if the time used is $`t_1`$. We added to the picture the trajectories of the light rays $`CE`$ and $`HD`$ useful to define $`t_1(D)`$ and $`t_1(E)`$. From our hypothesis

$`c(t_Bt_A)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{FO_1}+\overline{FG}+\overline{O_1G}`$ (22)
$`c(t_Ct_A)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{FO_1}`$ (23)
$`c(t_Bt_H)`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{O_1G}`$ (24)
$`\overline{FG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}(t_B+t_Ht_At_C)=c(t_1(D)t_1(E)).`$ (25)
Or, more explicitly

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}t_1}{\mathrm{d}l}=\frac{1}{c}.$$
(26)
For a given $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`t_1=\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ takes any real value. To see this, integrate the previous equation over closed paths of arbitrary length starting from $`\stackrel{}{x}`$.
The definition of $`\varphi _1`$ implies that $`t_1`$ increases with $`t`$ (because, by hypothesis, two worldlines with the same direction cannot intersect); hence $`\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is invertible and $`t_1`$ can be used to label events. Finally $`\varphi _1`$ is continuous in $`t`$ because, for a given $`\stackrel{}{x}`$, it is increasing in $`t`$ and its image is $``$. The lemma is proved.
Notice that we have not yet shown that the ”time” function $`t_1=\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ measures the flow of time for observers different from $`O_1`$. We are ready to prove the theorem.
Proof of the theorem. Let us prove that a global time variable $`\eta `$ which makes the speed of light isotropic must be unique up to an additive constant. Let $`\gamma `$ be the worldline of a light beam of direction $`\widehat{v}`$. If $`\eta _1`$ makes the speed of light isotropic

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\eta _1}{\mathrm{d}l}=\frac{1}{c},$$
(27)
where $`l`$ is the natural parameter of the projection of $`\gamma `$ on $`E^3`$. Subtracting this equation with the same equation for $`\eta _2`$ we find that $`\eta _1=\eta _2+c(\gamma )`$ for all the events that lie on the worldline $`\gamma `$ of the light beam considered. The constants of two different light beams must be equal if their worldlines intersect. In the coordinates $`\{\stackrel{}{x},\eta _1\}`$ the light cone of an event $`a=(\stackrel{}{x}(a),\eta _1(a))`$ has the usual equation $`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}(a)|=|\eta _1\eta _1(a)|`$, therefore the light cones of two events $`a`$ and $`b`$, intersects. This implies that a light worldline passing through $`a`$ intersects a light worldline passing through $`b`$ and hence that

$$\eta _1(a)\eta _2(a)=\eta _1(b)\eta _2(b)$$
(28)
Making $`b`$ arbitrary, we see that a constant $`c`$ exists such that $`\eta _1=\eta _2+c`$.

Let $`t_1=\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`t_2=\varphi _2(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ be the functions of the lemma related to the observers $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$. These functions are global time variables which make the speed of light isotropic. From our previous result $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ differ by an additive constant. But $`t_2`$, over the worldline $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}_{O_2}`$, equals the global time variable $`t`$ up to an additive constant and hence, because $`O_2`$ is arbitrary,

$$\varphi _1(\stackrel{}{x},t)=t\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})$$
(29)
for a suitable scalar function $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})`$. This proves a).

Let now $`f`$ be continuous in its arguments. By hypothesis the worldline $`\stackrel{}{x}(t)`$ of a light beam of direction $`\widehat{v}`$ is derivable (see Eq. (4)). This implies that $`t(l)`$ is derivable in the open set $`AS^2\times M`$ where $`f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x},t)>0`$. The lemma shows that $`t_1(l)`$ is derivable too, therefore the same is true for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _1}(\stackrel{}{x}(l))`$ and we obtain

$$_{\widehat{v}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{1}{f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x},t)}\frac{1}{c}\text{in}A.$$
(30)
This proves that $`f`$ is independent of time in $`A`$. Considering only the $`t`$ dependence, $`f`$ takes two values: zero outside $`A`$ and $`c/[1+c_{\widehat{v}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})]`$ inside $`A`$. However, $`f`$ is continuous in $`t`$ and hence independent of time throughout $`S^2\times M`$.
If $`f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x})>0`$ there is a neighborhood of $`\widehat{v}S^2`$ where we can find three linear independent vectors $`\widehat{v}_1,\widehat{v}_2,\widehat{v}_3`$ which verify $`f(\widehat{v}_i,\stackrel{}{x})>0`$. The partial derivatives $`_{\widehat{v}_i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})`$ are continuous in $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ (see Eq. (30)) and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ is differentiable: $`_{\widehat{v}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})=\widehat{v}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})`$.
Let $`BS^2\times E^3`$ be the open subset where $`f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x})>0`$. From Eq. (30),

$$f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{c}{1+c\widehat{v}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})}\text{in}B,$$
(31)
therefore $`fc/[1+c|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})|]`$ in $`B`$. If $`(\widehat{v}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_1)B`$ then $``$ $`\widehat{v}(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x}_1)B`$, indeed, for a given $`\stackrel{}{x}_1`$, there is no continuous function $`f:S^2`$ which is greater than $`c/[1+c|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x}_1)|]`$ in an open subset of $`S^2`$ and zero elsewhere.
Let $`CE^3`$ be the open subset where $`f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x})>0`$. From Eq. (31), because $`f`$ is finite, $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(\stackrel{}{x})|<1/c`$ or $`f(\widehat{v},\stackrel{}{x})>c/2`$ in $`C`$. But $`f`$ is continuous in $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ throughout $`E^3`$ therefore $`C=E^3`$, $`B=S^2\times E^3`$ and $`A=S^2\times M`$. In other words $`f`$ is positive. Eq. (31) proves statement b).

In order to prove c) notice that the causal structure does not depend on the coordinates used to label events. From a) and using the coordinates $`\{\stackrel{}{x},t_1\}`$ we recover the light cone structure of Minkowski spacetime, and since, by hypothesis, light is the fastest signal, the causal structure of $`M`$ coincides with that of Minkowski spacetime.


format: text

text:
# Non-local kinetic simulation of heavy ion collisions

## 1 Introduction

The formation of a neck–like structure in peripheral heavy ion reactions and the impact on the fragmentation mechanism and production of light charged particles has been discussed for a couple of years \- . Theoretical investigations suggest that the neck is not formed in usual heavy ion simulations starting from the Landau equation  or BUU equations  including additional mean field fluctuations derived in  and tested . The inclusion of fluctuations in the Boltzmann (BUU) equation has been investigated resulting in Boltzmann-Langevin pictures \- .

We will take here the point of view that the fluctuations should arise by themselves in a proper kinetic description where all relevant correlations are included in the collision integral. The collision will then cause both a dephasing and fluctuation by itself. This procedure without additional assumption about fluctuations has been given by the nonlocal kinetic theory  and applied to heavy ion collisions in \- . We claim that the derived nonlocal off-set in the collision procedure induces fluctuations in the density and consequently in the mean-field which are similar to the one assumed in Boltzmann Langevin approaches above.

Recent INDRA observation shows an enhancement of emitted matter in the region of almost zero relative velocity which means that matter is stopped during the reaction and stays almost at rest . This enhancement of mid–rapidity distribution can possibly be associated with a pronounced neck formation of matter.

We use for the description the nonlocal kinetic equation  for the one - particle distribution function

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{𝐤}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{𝐤}}={\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐪}{(2\pi )^5\mathrm{}^7}\delta \left(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _2\epsilon _3\epsilon _4+2\mathrm{\Delta }_E\right)\left|𝒯_{ab}\right|^2}=`$
$`\left[f_3f_4\left(1f_1\right)\left(1f_2\right)\left(1f_3\right)\left(1f_4\right)f_1f_2\right],`$ (1)
with Enskog-type shifts of arguments : $`f_1f_a(𝐤,𝐫,t)`$, $`f_2f_b(𝐩,𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }_2,t)`$, $`f_3f_a(𝐤𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }_K,𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }_3,t\mathrm{\Delta }_t)`$ , and $`f_4f_b(𝐩+𝐪\mathrm{\Delta }_K,𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }_4,t\mathrm{\Delta }_t)`$ . The effective scattering measure, the $`𝒯`$-matrix is centred in all shifts. The quasiparticle energy $`\epsilon `$ contains the mean field as well as the correlated self energy. In agreement with , all gradient corrections are given by derivatives of the scattering phase shift $`\varphi =\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{ln}𝒯_{ab}^R(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐤,𝐩,𝐪,t,𝐫)`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\hfill & =& \left(\frac{\varphi }{𝐩}\frac{\varphi }{𝐪}\frac{\varphi }{𝐤}\right)_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_3& =& \frac{\varphi }{𝐤}|_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_4& =& \left(\frac{\varphi }{𝐤}+\frac{\varphi }{𝐪}\right)_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_t\hfill & =& \frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_E& =& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\varphi }{t}|_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_K& =& \frac{1}{2}\frac{\varphi }{𝐫}|_{\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
After derivatives, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s are evaluated at the energy shell $`\mathrm{\Omega }\epsilon _3+\epsilon _4`$. Neglecting these shifts the usual BUU scenario appears. The scattering integral of the non-local kinetic equation derived in  corresponds to the picture of a collision as seen in Figure 1.

Despite its complicated form it is possible to solve this kinetic equation with standard Boltzmann numerical codes and to implement the shifts . To this end we have calculated the shifts for different realistic nuclear potentials . These shifts and the modifications of standard BUU or QMD code are available from the author. The numerical solution of the nonlocal kinetic equation has shown an observable effect in the dynamical particle spectra  as well as in the charge density distribution . The high energetic tails of the spectrum are enhanced due to more energetic two-particle collisions in the early phase of nuclear collision. Therefore the nonlocal corrections lead to an enhanced production of preequilibrium high energetic particles.

Besides the nonlocal shifts and cross section which has been calculated from realistic potentials, the interaction affects, however, the free motion of particles between individual collisions. The dominant effect is due to mean-field forces which bind the nucleus together, accelerating particles close to the surface towards the centre. These mean-field forces are conveniently included via potentials of Skyrme type

$`\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+A\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n_0}}\right)+B\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n_0}}\right)^\sigma .`$ (3)
For a derivation of collision integrals and the Skyrme potential (3) from the same microscopic footing, see .

Beside forces, the interaction also modifies the velocity with which a particle of a given momentum propagates in the system. This effect is known as the mass renormalisation. A numerical implementation of the renormalised mass is rather involved since a plain use of the renormalised mass instead of the free one leads to incorrect currents. Within the Landau concept of quasiparticles, this problem is cured by the back flow, but it is not obvious how to implement the back flow within the BUU simulation scheme. In our studies, we circumvent the problem of back flows using explicit zero-angle collisions to which we add a non-local correction. One can show that indeed the non-local shifts create just the dynamical mass renormalisation if used for the Pauli-rejected events. The incorporation of a nonlocal jump without performing finite angle collisions for such events correspond exactly to the quasiparticle and dynamical mass renormalisation .

Finally, we would like to comment on properties of the proposed simulation scheme. The renormalisation depends on the distribution of particles in surrounding medium. It has four nice properties: (i) the renormalisation vanishes as the local density goes to zero, (ii) the renormalisation vanishes when a high temperature closes the Luttinger gap because all collisions will be at finite angles, (iii) the anisotropy of the quasiparticle velocity in a presence of a non-zero current in medium is automatically covered, and (iv) the backflows connected to the mass renormalisation are covered because both particles jump keeping the centre of mass fixed. Last but not least, the simulation does not require to introduce new time-demanding procedures, one can simply use the scattering events which are merely rejected in standard simulation codes by Pauli-blocking.

## 2 Numerical results

Let us discuss the proposed correction to the local and ideal (no quasiparticle renormalisation) Boltzmann (BUU) simulation. First we introduce the pure nonlocal corrections and then we discuss the quasiparticle renormalisation.

The evolution of the density can be seen in the corresponding left pictures of figure 2 for the BUU (left panel) and nonlocal scenario (middle panel) as well as the additional quasiparticle renormalisation (right panel). We see that the nonlocal scenario leads to a longer and more pronounced neck formation between $`200240`$fm/c while the BUU breaks apart already at $`200`$fm/c.

The question arises whether this pronounced neck formation and increase of mid-rapidity distribution is simply occurring by more collisions and corresponding correlations as called in–medium effect. This is however only the case for smaller impact parameters . We see in the next figure 3 the number of collisions per time for the simulation where in the local BUU scenario the cross section has been doubled. The number of collisions is visibly enhanced by doubling the cross section while for the nonlocal scenario we get only a slight enhancement at the beginning and later even lower values with respect to local BUU. The latter fact comes from the earlier decomposition of matter in the nonlocal scenario.

The corresponding transverse and kinetic energies in figure 4 ($`8`$fm impact parameter) show that the transverse and longitudinal energy is almost not changed compared with local BUU. Oppositely the nonlocal scenario leads to an increase of transverse energy of about $`2`$MeV and about $`1`$MeV in longitudinal energy. We conclude that the increase of cross section leads to a higher number of collisions but not to more dissipated energy while the nonlocal scenario does not change the number of collisions much but the energy dissipated during the collisions. Returning to the discussion of pronounced neck formation in figure 2 above we see now that the quality rather than the quantity of collisions is what produces the neck.

Now we can proceed and discuss the charge matter distribution with respect to the velocity. We plotted in figure 2 also the normalised charge distribution versus velocity and see that after $`160`$fm/c we have an appreciable higher mid–rapidity distribution for the nonlocal scenario (mid panel) than the BUU (left panel). Together with the observation that for nonlocal scenario we have a pronounced neck formation we see indeed that the neck formation is accompanied with high mid-velocity distribution of matter. We see in figure 2 (right panel) that the mid–rapidity distribution of matter is once more enhanced for quasiparticle renormalisation in comparison to the nonlocal scenario without quasiparticle renormalisation. The detailed comparison of the time evolutions of the transverse energy for $`8`$fm impact parameter can be seen in figure 5.

We recognise that the transverse energies including quasiparticle renormalisation are similar to the nonlocal scenario and higher than the BUU or BUU with twice the cross section. However please remark that the period of oscillation in the transverse energy which corresponds to a giant resonance becomes larger for the case with quasiparticle renormalisation. Since therefore the energy of this resonance decreases we can conclude that the (nuclear) compressibility has been decreased by the quasiparticle renormalisation. Sometimes this quasiparticle renormalisation has been introduced by momentum dependent mean-fields. The effect is known to soften the equation of state. We see here that we get a dynamical quasiparticle renormalisation and a softening of equation of state. This softening of equation of state is already slightly remarkable when the nonlocal scenario is compared with BUU. With additional quasiparticle renormalisation we see that this is much pronounced.

We want to repeat that the dynamical quasiparticle renormalisation which leads to a softening of the equation of state enhances the mid rapidity distribution. In contrast a mere soft static parametrisation of the mean-field does not change the mid-rapidity emission appreciably .

### 2.1 Comparison with experiments

The BUU simulations will now be compared to one experiment performed with INDRA at GANIL, the $`Ta+Au`$ collision at $`E_{lab}/A=33`$ MeV.

For the identification with experimental data we select events which show a clear one fragment structure. This correspond to events where we have clear target and projectile like residues. Since the used kinetic theory is not capable to describe dynamical fragment formation we believe that these events are the ones which are at least describable within our frame. Next we use impact parameter cuts with respect to the transverse energy since this shows in all simulations a fairly good correlation to the impact parameter. In our numerical results we see almost linear correlations between impact parameter, maximal velocity and the convenient ratio between transverse and total kinetic energy as seen in figure 6.

For each selected experimental transverse energy bin we can plot now the maximum velocity versus the ratio of the transverse to kinetic energy. We see in figure 6 that the numerical velocity damping agrees with the experimental selection only for very peripheral collisions. For such events we plot in the figure 6 the charge density distribution and compare the experiment with the simulation. These charge density distributions have been obtained using the procedure described in reference . The Data are represented by light grey points, the standard BUU calculation by the thin line and the non-local BUU with quasiparticle renormalisation calculation by the thick line. A reasonable agreement is found for the nonlocal scenario including quasiparticle renormalisation while simple BUU fails to reproduce mid–rapidity matter.

## 3 Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics

In order to understand the different thermodynamics induced by nonlocal corrections and therefore virial correlations, we multiply the kinetic equation with $`1,𝐩,\epsilon `$ and obtain the balance for the particle density $`n`$, the momentum density $`J`$ and the energy density $``$, see details in . Please note that besides the mean field (3) we have also a Born correlation term, see ,

The correlational parts of the density, pressure and energy are arising from genuine two-particle correlations beyond Born approximation which are also derived from the balance equations of nonlocal kinetic equations . It has been shown that they establish the complete conservation laws. While these correlated parts are present in the numerical results and can be shown to contribute to the conservation laws we will only discuss the thermodynamical properties in terms of quasiparticle quantities to compare as close as possible with the mean field or local BUU expressions. The discussion of these correlated two - particle quantities is devoted to a separate consideration.

From the distribution function $`f(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$ the local density, current and energy densities are given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}n(𝐫,t)\\ 𝐉(𝐫,t)\\ _K(𝐫,t)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 𝐩\\ p^2/2m\end{array}\right)f(𝐩,𝐫,t)}`$ (4)
which are computed directly from the numerical solution of the kinetic equation in terms of test particles. Please note that the above kinetic energy includes the Fermi motion.

The global variables per particle number like kinetic energy, Fermi energy and collective energy are obtained by spatial integration

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}_K(t)\\ _F(t)\\ _{\mathrm{coll}}(t)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\left(\begin{array}{c}_K(𝐫,t)\\ _f[n(𝐫,t)]n(𝐫,t)\\ J(𝐫,t)^2/mn(𝐫,t)\end{array}\right)/𝑑𝐫n(𝐫,t)}`$ (5)
where we have used the local density approximation . Now we adopt the picture of Fermi liquid theory which connects the temperature with the kinetic energy as

$`_K(t)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}_F(t)+_{\mathrm{coll}}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{4_F(t)}}T(t)^2`$ (6)
from which we deduce the global temperature. The definition of temperature is by no means obvious since it is in principle an equilibrium quantity. One has several possibilities to define a time dependent equivalent temperature which should approach the equilibrium value when the system approaches equilibrium. In  the definition of slope temperatures has been discussed and compared to local space dependent temperature fits of the distribution function of matter. This seems to be a good measure for higher energetic collisions in the relativistic regime. Since we restrict us here to collisions in the Fermi energy domain and do not want to add coalescence models we will not use the slope temperature. Moreover we define the global temperature in terms of global energies which are obtained by local quantities rather than by defining a local temperature itself. This has the advantage that we do not consider local energy fluctuations but only a mean evolution of temperature.

The mean field part of the energy is given by

$`U(t)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\mathrm{qp}}(t)_K(t)^{\mathrm{Born}}(t)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\left(A\frac{n(𝐫,t)^2}{2n_0}+B\frac{n(𝐫,t)^{s+1}}{(s+1)n_0^s}\right)/𝑑𝐫n(𝐫,t)}`$ (7)
from which one deduces the pressure per particle

$`P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(_K(t)_{\mathrm{coll}}(t))+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}^{\mathrm{Born}}(t)+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\left(A\frac{n(𝐫,t)}{2n_0}+B\frac{sn(𝐫,t)^s}{(s+1)n_0^s}\right)/𝑑𝐫n(𝐫,t)}.`$ (8)
In order to compare now the local BUU with the nonlocal BUU scenario we consider the energy which would be the total energy in the local BUU without Coulomb energy

$`(t)=_K(t)_{\mathrm{coll}}(t)+U(t).`$ (9)
This expression does not contain the two - particle correlation energy which is zero for BUU and the Coulomb energy. The reason for considering this energy for dynamical trajectories is that we want to follow the trajectories in the picture of mean field and usual spinodal plots.

To define the density exhibits to some extend a problem. Depending on the considered volume sphere we obtain different global densities. We follow here the point of view that the mean square radius will be used as a sphere to define the global density. This is also supported by the observation that the mean square radius follows the visible compression.

### 3.1 Iso-nothing conditions in equilibrium

Let us first recall the figures of mean field isotherms in equilibrium. We obtain the typical van der Waals curves in figure 7. Since we have neither isothermal nor isochoric nor isobaric conditions in simulations, shortly since we have iso-nothing conditions, we have to find a representation of the phase transition curves which are independent of temperature but which reflect the main features of phase transitions. This can be achieved by the product of energy and pressure density versus energy density in figure 7 below. This plot shows that all instable isotherms exhibit a minimum in the left lower quarter. There the energy is negative denoting bound state conditions but the pressure is already positive which means the system is unstable. The first isotherm above the critical one does not touch this quarter but remains in the right upper quarter where the energy and pressure are both positive and the system is expanding and decomposing unboundly. The left upper quarter denotes negative pressure and energy indicating that the system is bound and stable.

In order to achieve now a temperature independent plot we scale both axes of figure 7 (below) with a temperature dependent polynomial and achieve that all critical isotherms are collapsing on one curve in the left lower quarter. The first isotherms above the critical one does not enter the left lower quarter. We consider this scaling as adequate for iso-nothing conditions. A phase transition should be possible to observe if there occurs a minimum in the left half of this plot at negative energies.

The idea of plotting combinations of pressure and energy is similar to the one of softest point  in analysing QCD phase transitions. There the simple pressure over energy ratio leads to a temperature independent plot due to ultrarelativistic energy - temperature relations. In our case we have a Fermi liquid behaviour at low temperatures and the scaling temperature dependent polynomials, $`f`$ and $`g`$, can be found in  which are producing a temperature independent plot in figure 7.

### 3.2 Simulation results

Let us now inspect the dynamical trajectories for the above defined temperature, density and energy. In figure 8 we have plotted the dynamical trajectories for a charge - symmetric reaction of $`Xe`$ on $`Sn`$ at $`25`$MeV lab - energy. The solution of the nonlocal kinetic equation is compared to the local BUU one. One sees in the temperature versus density plane that the point of highest compression is reached around $`60`$fm/c with a temperature of $`9`$ MeV.

After this point of highest overlap or fusion phase we have an expansion phase where the density and temperature is decreasing. While the compression phase is developing similar for the BUU and for the nonlocal kinetic equation we see now differences in the development. First the temperature of the nonlocal kinetic equation is around $`2`$MeV higher than the local BUU result. This is due to the release of correlation energy into kinetic energy which is not present in the local BUU scenario. After this expansion stage until times of $`120`$fm/c we see that the BUU trajectories come to a rest inside the spinodal region while the nonlocal scenario leads to a further decay. This can be seen by the continuous decrease of density and increase of energy. Since matter is more decomposed with the nonlocal kinetic equation we also heat the system more due to Coulomb acceleration. This leads to the enhancement of temperature compared to BUU. An oscillating behaviour occurs at later times which reflects an interplay between short range correlation and long range Coulomb repulsion. The decomposition leads almost to free gaseous matter after $`300`$fm/c as can be seen in the energy versus density plot.

Please note that although the trajectories seem to equilibrate inside the spinodal region when one considers the temperature versus density plane, we see that in the corresponding energy versus temperature plane the trajectories travel already outside the spinodal region. This underlines the importance to investigate the region of spinodal decomposition in terms of a three dimensional plot instead of a two dimensional one like in the recently discussed caloric curve plots. Different experimental situations lead to different curves as long as the third coordinate (pressure or density) remains undetermined.

The iso-nothing plot analogous to the left lower plot of figure 7 shows that the point of highest compression is linked to a first instability seen as a pronounced minimum of the trajectory in the left quarter. If we do not exceed the Fermi energy domain, this is connected with a pronounced surface emission and connected with anomalous velocity profiles . We will call this phase surface emission instability further on. At $`180`$ fm/c we see a second minimum which is taking place inside the spinodal region. This instability we might now attribute to spinodal decomposition since the trajectories developing slower and remain inside the spinodal region. The BUU shows the same qualitative minima but the matter rebounds and the trajectories move towards negative energies again. In opposition the nonlocal scenario leads to a further decomposition of matter as described above.

In the next figure 9 we have plotted the same reaction as in figure 8 but at higher energy of $`33`$MeV. We recognise a higher compression density and temperature than compared to the lower bombarding energy. Consequently the trajectories develop further towards the unbound region of positive energy after $`300`$fm/c. While the first surface emission instability is strongly pronounced we see that the second minimum in the iso-nothing plot is already weaker indicating that the role of spinodal decomposition is diminished. The trajectories in the temperature versus density plot come still in the spinodal region at rest but travel already outside the spinodal region if the energy versus temperature plot is considered. This shows that the trajectories start to develop too fast to suffer much spinodal decomposition. Oppositely, at energies around the Fermi energy spinodal decomposition might be possible and is presumably connected with anomalous velocity and density profiles .

If we now plot the same reaction at $`50`$MeV in figure 10 we see that the trajectories come at rest outside the spinodal region whatever plot is used and no second minima is seen anymore in the iso-nothing plot. But, the surface emission instability is still very pronounced and is probably here the leading mechanism of matter disintegration.

We might now search for a situation where we have the opposite extreme that is we search for a reaction with as less as possible surface emission instability and as much as possible spinodal decomposition. For this reason we might think on asymmetric reactions since the different sizes of the colliding nuclei might suppress the surface emission. Indeed as can be seen in figure 11 for an asymmetric reaction of $`Ni`$ on $`Au`$ at $`25`$MeV lab-energy with nearly the same total charge as in the reaction before that the surface emission instability is less pronounced while the spinodal instability is much more important. There appears even a third minima showing that the matter suffers spinodal decomposition perhaps more than once if the bombarding energy is low enough and a long oscillating piece of matter is developing.

The higher bombarding energies now show the same qualitative effect which pronounces the surface emission instability and reduces the importance of the spinodal decomposition. Much smaller compression densities and temperatures are reached in these reactions compared to the more symmetric case of $`Xe`$ on $`Sn`$.

## 4 Summary

The extension of BUU simulations by nonlocal shifts and quasiparticle renormalisation has been presented and compared to recent experimental data on mid rapidity charge distributions. It is found that both the nonlocal shifts as well as the quasiparticle renormalisation must be included in order to get the observed mid–rapidity matter enhancement.

The inclusion of quasiparticle renormalisation has been performed by using the normally excluded events by Pauli blocking. Since the quasiparticle renormalisation and corresponding effective mass features can be considered as zero angle collisions they can be realized by nonlocal shifts for the scattering events which are normally rejected. This means that one has to perform the advection step for the cases of Pauli blocked collisions without colliding the particles. Besides giving a better description of experiments, this has the effect of a dynamically softening of equation of state seen in longer oscillations of giant compressional resonance.

In this way we present a combined picture including nonlocal off-sets representing the nonlocal character of scattering, which leads to virial correlations with the quasiparticle renormalisation, and as a result to mean field fluctuations. We propose that no additional stochasticity need to be assumed in order to get realistic fluctuations.

The nonlocal kinetic theory leads to a different nonequilibrium thermodynamics compared to the local BUU. We see basically a higher energetic particle spectra and a higher transversal temperature of $`2`$MeV. This is attributed to the conversion of two-particle correlation energy into kinetic energy which is of course absent in local BUU scenario.

By constructing a temperature independent combination of thermodynamical variables we are able to investigate the signals of phase transitions under iso-nothing conditions. Two mechanisms of instability have been identified: surface emission instability and spinodal decomposition. We predict for the currently investigated reactions seen in table 1 which effect should be the leading one for matter decomposition.

In the reactions with bombarding energies higher than the Fermi energy the fast surface eruption happens outside the spinodal region. For even higher energies there is not enough time for the system to rest at the spinodal region. The trajectories simply move through the spinodal and the system decays before it comes to an equilibrium - like state inside the spinodal region. Around the Fermi energy the spinodal decomposition might occur and is accompanied by an anomalous velocity and density profile .

## 5 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the INDRA collaboration for providing the experimental data.


text:
# Scattering by a contact potential in three and lower dimensionspublished in J. Phys. A 34 (2001) 1911-1918.

## I Introduction

In this paper we consider a very simple problem, the scattering of nonrelativistic particles by a contact potential, which is nonzero (in general infinite) at one point and vanishes elsewhere. More specifically, in three dimensions we consider the potential

$$V(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (r)}{r^\alpha },$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\alpha `$ are real parameters and $`\mu `$ is the mass of the particle. Since this is somewhat difficult to handle in practice, we are actually considering the $`a0`$ limit of the spherical shell potential

$$V_a(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (ra)}{r^\alpha }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (ra)}{a^\alpha }$$
(2)
where $`a>0`$, which is better defined. The latter is a contact potential since in the limit it is nonvanishing (and infinite if $`\alpha 0`$) only at $`r=0`$, though one may think it is different from the former. The interest of such a problem is threefold. First, according to classical mechanics, the scattering cross section for a contact potential in three or two dimensions is obviously zero. In one dimension an incident particle would be bounced back by a contact potential (total reflection) if the potential is infinite at the nonvanishing point. However, the case may be different in quantum mechanics. Second, if a finite cross section is possible in quantum mechanics, one may think that a “larger” infinity (higher singularity) at the nonvanishing point would give a larger cross section, but this turns out to be incorrect. Only a “proper” infinity gives a nonvanishing result. For the above potential, a nonvanishing cross section is obtained only when $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. Third, an exact result is easily available. This is because all phase shifts except $`\delta _0`$ vanish in the limit $`a0`$, which is what is expected for a contact potential.

In the next section we consider the above problem in three dimensions. Instead of the spherical shell potential (2), the contact potential (1) can be approached by some other potential as well. It is then of interest to see whether the same result is obtained. A simple candidate is the square well potential. This is also considered. It turns out that the result is basically the same, except that the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that gives a nonvanishing cross section is different.

In section III we consider a similar problem in two dimensions. It turns out that the potential of the same form as in three dimensions gives a vanishing cross section for any $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We then consider the $`a0`$ limit of the circular ring potential

$$V_a(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (ra)}{r^\alpha [\mathrm{ln}(r/a_0)]^\beta }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (ra)}{a^\alpha [\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)]^\beta },$$
(3)
where $`a_0`$ is a length scale and $`\beta `$ is another real parameter. We take $`a_0>a`$ (note that we would finally take the limit $`a0`$) such that $`\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)`$ is positive. It turns out that a nonvanishing cross section is obtained only when $`\alpha =1`$, $`\beta =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. We also consider a square well potential that approaches the same contact potential. It turns out that all results are exactly the same as for the above circular ring potential. This is somewhat different from the case in three and one dimensions. In section IV we consider the $`a0`$ limit of the double delta potential in one dimension:

$$V_a(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (xa)+\delta (x+a)}{|x|^\alpha }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{\delta (xa)+\delta (x+a)}{a^\alpha },$$
(4)
where $`a>0`$. When $`\alpha =0`$, this tends to the ordinary $`\delta (x)`$ potential and we indeed get the known result , which is already different from the classical one. Here we are interested in the results for other values of $`\alpha `$. It turns out that $`\alpha <0`$ leads to total transmission. This is an expected result since there is no singularity in this case. When $`\alpha >0`$ one has in general total reflection. This is also expected since the singularity is strong. What is unexpected is, however, when $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ one has total transmission with a phase shift $`\pi `$. When the contact potential is approached by a square well potential, the result is roughly the same. However, in addition to the total transmission with a phase shift $`\pi `$ for some specific values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (not $`1`$), we have true total transmission for some other values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## II Three dimensions

Consider scattering in three dimensions by the spherically symmetric potential (2). If $`a`$ is a constant, this is the ordinary spherical shell potential studied in the literature , and the parameter $`\alpha `$ plays no role. However, here we are interested in the limit $`a0`$, so different $`\alpha `$ would lead to different results. The radial equation for the $`l`$th partial wave is

$$R^{\prime \prime }(r)+\frac{2}{r}R^{}(r)+\left[k^2\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right]R(r)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{a^\alpha }R(a)\delta (ra)=0,l=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`k=\sqrt{2\mu E}/\mathrm{}`$ and $`E>0`$ is the energy of the incident particle. The solution of this equation is

$$R(r)=A_lj_l(kr),r<a,$$
$`(6\mathrm{a})`$
$$R(r)=\mathrm{cos}\delta _lj_l(kr)\mathrm{sin}\delta _ln_l(kr),r>a,$$
$`(6\mathrm{b})`$
where $`\delta _l`$ is the phase shift, $`A_l`$ is a constant, and $`j_l`$ and $`n_l`$ are the spherical Bessel and Neumann functions, respectively. The two parts of the solution must be appropriately connected at $`r=a`$. The connection conditions are

$$R(a^+)=R(a^{}),$$
$`(7\mathrm{a})`$
$$R^{}(a^+)R^{}(a^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{a^\alpha }R(a),$$
$`(7\mathrm{b})`$
where $`a^\pm =a\pm 0`$. Eq. (7b) is obtained by integrating Eq. (5) from $`a^{}`$ to $`a^+`$. Since the jump of $`R^{}(r)`$ at $`r=a`$ is finite we have Eq. (7a). The phase shift is determined by these conditions and the result is

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _l=\frac{b\xi j_l^2(\xi )}{\xi ^{\alpha 1}+b\xi j_l(\xi )n_l(\xi )},$$
(8)
where $`\xi =ka`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Omega }k^{\alpha 1}`$. The scattering amplitude is given in many textbooks of quantum mechanics as

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{2ik}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)[\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _l)1]P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(9)
Though we have an analytic expression for the phase shifts, it is difficult to have a closed result for the scattering amplitude since the summation in Eq. (9) cannot be worked out. Here we are only interested in the limit $`a0`$ (or $`\xi 0`$), however, so the problem is much simpler. If $`\alpha >1`$, the first term in the denominator of Eq. (8) can be neglected in comparison with the second. So we have obviously $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _l0`$ for all $`l`$ and $`f(\theta )0`$. If $`\alpha <1`$ (including negative $`\alpha `$), the second term in the denominator can be neglected in comparison with the first, and the same result is easily achieved. If $`\alpha =1`$, the two terms in the denominator are of the same order. One should be careful in this case. Obviously, the numerator behaves like $`\xi ^{2l+1}`$, while the denominator behaves like $`\xi ^0`$ or, if $`b`$ takes some specific value, like $`\xi ^2`$. So If $`l1`$, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _l0`$. A nonvanishing phase shift is therefore possible only when $`l=0`$, as expected for a contact potential. If $`l=0`$ and $`b1`$, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _00`$ as well, and thus $`f(\theta )0`$. If $`b=1`$, however, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _03/2\xi \mathrm{}`$, so that $`\delta _0=\pi /2,\mathrm{mod}\pi `$. Only in this case do we have a nonvanishing scattering amplitude

$$f(\theta )=\frac{i}{k},$$
(10)
which is of course independent of $`\theta `$. The differential and total cross sections are

$$\sigma (\theta )=\frac{1}{k^2}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\mu ^2v^2},\sigma _t=\frac{4\pi }{k^2}=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{\mu ^2v^2},$$
(11)
where $`v`$ is the classical velocity of the incident particle. Therefore only a contact potential with proper singularity and proper strength gives a nontrivial result. We make some remarks. First, the result is inversely proportional to the incident energy. Second, $`b=1`$ yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ since $`\alpha =1`$. Third, when $`\alpha =1`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _0`$ depends only on $`\xi =ka`$ (not on $`k`$ and $`a`$ separately), so that $`lim_{a0}\mathrm{tan}\delta _0=\mathrm{}`$ for finite $`k`$ implies $`lim_{k0}\mathrm{tan}\delta _0=\mathrm{}`$ for finite $`a`$. According to the analysis of the Levinson theorem \[2-5\], one has in general $`lim_{k0}\mathrm{tan}\delta _0=0`$, only when there exists a half-bound state  with zero energy and $`l=0`$ does the limit become infinite. In fact, the zero-energy solution with $`l=0`$ to Eq. (5) is

$$R(r)=1,r<a,$$
$`(12\mathrm{a})`$
$$R(r)=B_0r^1,r>a,$$
$`(12\mathrm{b})`$
where $`B_0`$ is a constant. The two parts of the solution can be connected by the conditions (7) only when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. This is consistent with the above result. The solution (12) is called a half-bound state because it tends to zero at infinity but is not normalizable.

As pointed out in section I, the contact potential can be approached by some potential other than the above spherical shell one. It is then of interest to see whether the same conclusion is achieved. We consider the spherical square well potential ($`\mathrm{\Omega }<0`$ is assumed for such potentials in all dimensions)

$$V^a(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}3\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/2\mu a^{\alpha +1},\hfill & r<a,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & r>a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
This gives the integration $`V^a(r)d^3x=2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/\mu a^{\alpha 2}`$, the same as given by the spherical shell potential (2). Thus when $`a0`$ they would tend to the same contact potential. The phase shifts for this potential can be easily found. They are determined by

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _l=\frac{\eta j_l(\xi )j_{l+1}(\eta )\xi j_{l+1}(\xi )j_l(\eta )}{\eta n_l(\xi )j_{l+1}(\eta )\xi n_{l+1}(\xi )j_l(\eta )},$$
(14)
where $`\xi `$ is defined as before, and $`\eta =\sqrt{\xi ^23b\xi ^{1\alpha }}`$. Then we let $`\xi 0`$ and analyze the behavior of the phase shifts. After careful calculations, it is found that $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _l0`$ for all $`l`$ if $`\alpha 1`$. Thus a nontrivial result is possible only when $`\alpha =1`$, the same conclusion as before. If $`\alpha =1`$, it can be shown that $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _l0`$ for all $`l0`$. As for $`l=0`$, we have in general $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _00`$, except when $`j_1(\sqrt{3b})=0`$ or $`n_0(\sqrt{3b})=0`$. In the latter case we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _0\xi ^1\mathrm{}`$, and hence the nontrivial results (10) and (11). The above condition is equivalent to $`\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{3b})=0`$ or (note that $`\alpha =1`$)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{(2N1)^2\pi ^2}{12},$$
(15)
where $`N`$ is a natural number. The difference from the previous case is that for the spherical shell potential there is only one specific value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that leads to a nontrivial cross section while in the present case we obtain a series of such values (but the condition $`\alpha =1`$ is the same). This difference is related to the different situation for the appearance of half-bound states with $`l=0`$ (for $`\alpha =1`$ and finite $`a`$). For the spherical shell potential the half-bound state can appear only once when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, while for the square well potential it can appear many times when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ takes on the above values.

## III Two dimensions

In this section we consider a similar problem in two dimensions. We still use ($`r`$, $`\theta `$) for the polar coordinates on the $`xy`$ plane. These should not be confused with those in three dimensions. If one considers a potential of the form (2), it can be shown that the result is trivial in the limit $`a0`$. So we consider the potential (3). The radial wave equation for the $`m`$th partial wave is

$$R^{\prime \prime }(r)+\frac{1}{r}R^{}(r)+\left(k^2\frac{m^2}{r^2}\right)R(r)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{a^\alpha [\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)]^\beta }R(a)\delta (ra)=0,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
The solution of this equation is

$$R(r)=C_mJ_m(kr),r<a,$$
$`(17\mathrm{a})`$
$$R(r)=\mathrm{cos}\delta _mJ_m(kr)\mathrm{sin}\delta _mN_m(kr),r>a,$$
$`(17\mathrm{b})`$
where $`\delta _m`$ is the phase shift, $`C_m`$ is a constant, and $`J_m`$ and $`N_m`$ are the ordinary Bessel and Neumann functions, respectively. The connection conditions at $`r=a`$ are

$$R(a^+)=R(a^{}),$$
$`(18\mathrm{a})`$
$$R^{}(a^+)R^{}(a^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{a^\alpha [\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)]^\beta }R(a).$$
$`(18\mathrm{b})`$
The phase shift is determined by these conditions and the result is

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _m=\frac{b\pi J_m^2(\xi )}{2\xi ^{\alpha 1}[\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0)]^\beta +b\pi J_m(\xi )N_m(\xi )},$$
(19)
where $`\xi =ka`$, $`\xi _0=ka_0`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Omega }k^{\alpha 1}`$. The scattering amplitude is given by

$$f(\theta )=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}[\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _{|m|})1]e^{im\theta }.$$
(20)
As before we do not attempt to study the general case in detail, but are interested in the limit $`a0`$ (or $`\xi 0`$) only. If $`\alpha >1`$, the first term in the denominator of Eq. (19) can be neglected in comparison with the second, so we have obviously $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _m0`$ for all $`m`$ and $`f(\theta )0`$. If $`\alpha <1`$ (including negative $`\alpha `$), the second term in the denominator can be neglected in comparison with the first, and the same result is easily achieved. Therefore a nontrivial result is possible only when $`\alpha =1`$. In this case

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _m=\frac{b\pi J_m^2(\xi )}{2[\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0)]^\beta +b\pi J_m(\xi )N_m(\xi )}.$$
(21)
If $`m1`$, the numerator behaves like $`\xi ^{2m}`$, while the denominator behaves like $`\xi ^0`$ if $`\beta <0`$ or like $`[\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0)]^\beta `$ if $`\beta >0`$ (note that the case $`\beta =0`$ leads to a trivial result which has been mentioned at the beginning of this section), so if $`m1`$, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _m0`$. A nonvanishing phase shift is therefore possible only when $`m=0`$, as expected for a contact potential. If $`m=0`$, the numerator behaves like $`\xi ^0`$, while the denominator behaves like $`\mathrm{ln}\xi `$ if $`\beta <1`$ or like $`[\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0)]^\beta `$ if $`\beta >1`$. So if $`\beta 1`$ we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _00`$ as well, and thus $`f(\theta )0`$. If $`\beta =1`$ but $`b1`$, the denominator still behaves like $`\mathrm{ln}\xi `$, so we still have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _00`$, and thus $`f(\theta )0`$. However, if $`\beta =1`$ and $`b=1`$, we have in the limit $`a0`$

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _0=\frac{\pi }{2\gamma +2\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2)},$$
(22)
where $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant, and in this case we have a nonvanishing scattering amplitude

$$f(\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{k}}\frac{1}{2\gamma +2\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2)i\pi },$$
(23)
which is of course independent of $`\theta `$, but note that the result depends on $`a_0`$ or $`\xi _0`$. The differential and total cross sections are

$$\sigma (\theta )=\frac{2\pi }{k[4(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2))^2+\pi ^2]}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{\mu v[4(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2))^2+\pi ^2]},$$
(24)
$$\sigma _t=\frac{4\pi ^2}{k[4(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2))^2+\pi ^2]}=\frac{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}}{\mu v[4(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}(\xi _0/2))^2+\pi ^2]}.$$
(25)
Therefore only when $`\alpha =1`$, $`\beta =1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ do we get a nontrivial result.

As in three dimensions, we then consider the two-dimensional square well potential

$$V^a(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/\mu a^{\alpha +1}[\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)]^\beta ,\hfill & r<a,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & r>a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
This gives the integration $`V^a(r)d^2x=\pi \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/\mu a^{\alpha 1}[\mathrm{ln}(a/a_0)]^\beta `$, the same as given by the circular ring potential (3). Thus when $`a0`$ they would tend to the same contact potential. The phase shifts for this potential can be easily found. They are determined by

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _m=\frac{\eta J_m(\xi )J_{m+1}(\eta )\xi J_{m+1}(\xi )J_m(\eta )}{\eta N_m(\xi )J_{m+1}(\eta )\xi N_{m+1}(\xi )J_m(\eta )},$$
(27)
where $`\xi `$ is defined as before, and $`\eta =\sqrt{\xi ^22b\xi ^{1\alpha }[\mathrm{ln}(\xi /\xi _0)]^\beta }`$. Then we let $`\xi 0`$ and analyze the behavior of the phase shifts. The present situation is somewhat more complicated than that in three dimensions. The various cases with different parameter values should be discussed separately. After careful calculations, it is found that the nontrivial results (22-25) are obtained only when $`\alpha =1`$, $`\beta =1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. This is exactly the same conclusion as for the circular ring potential. Note that the nontrivial result in two dimensions has nothing to do with the existence of half-bound states. Thus the situation is rather different from that in three or one dimensions (see below).

## IV One dimension

Now we turn to the potential (4) in one dimension. For scattering of particles incident from the left, the boundary conditions are

$$\psi (x)=e^{ikx}+Re^{ikx},x<a,$$
$`(28\mathrm{a})`$
$$\psi (x)=Te^{ikx},x>a.$$
$`(28\mathrm{b})`$
Here $`R`$ and $`T`$ are the reflection and transmission amplitudes, respectively. On the other hand, with a given energy (or a given $`k`$), there exist two linearly independent solutions to the Schrödinger equation. Since the potential is an even function of $`x`$, one can choose the two solutions to have definite parity. The even-parity solution has the form

$$\psi _+(x)=A_+\mathrm{cos}kx,|x|<a,$$
$`(29\mathrm{a})`$
$$\psi _+(x)=\mathrm{cos}(k|x|+\delta _+),|x|>a,$$
$`(29\mathrm{b})`$
while the odd-parity one has

$$\psi _{}(x)=A_{}\mathrm{sin}kx,|x|<a,$$
$`(30\mathrm{a})`$
$$\psi _{}(x)=ϵ(x)\mathrm{sin}(k|x|+\delta _{}),|x|>a,$$
$`(30\mathrm{b})`$
where $`A_\pm `$ are constants, $`ϵ(x)`$ is the sign function, and $`\delta _\pm `$ are phase shifts. A scattering solution can be written as a linear combination of $`\psi _\pm `$, so we have

$$R=\frac{1}{2}(e^{i2\delta _+}e^{i2\delta _{}}),$$
$`(31\mathrm{a})`$
$$T=\frac{1}{2}(e^{i2\delta _+}+e^{i2\delta _{}}).$$
$`(31\mathrm{b})`$
The phase shifts are determined by the connection condition at $`x=a`$:

$$\psi (a^+)=\psi (a^{}),$$
$`(32\mathrm{a})`$
$$\psi ^{}(a^+)\psi ^{}(a^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{a^\alpha }\psi (a).$$
$`(32\mathrm{b})`$
The result is

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=\frac{b\mathrm{cos}^2\xi }{\xi ^\alpha +b\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi },$$
$`(33\mathrm{a})`$
$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=\frac{b\mathrm{sin}^2\xi }{\xi ^\alpha +b\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\xi },$$
$`(33\mathrm{b})`$
where $`\xi =ka`$ and $`b=\mathrm{\Omega }k^{\alpha 1}`$. Then we consider the limit $`a0`$ (or $`\xi 0`$). If $`\alpha =0`$, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=b=\mathrm{\Omega }/k`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=0`$. This leads to the known result for an ordinary $`\delta (x)`$ potential . If $`\alpha <0`$, we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=0`$, so that $`R=0`$, $`T=1`$, that is, total transmission. This is an expected result since there is actually no singularity in this case. If $`\alpha >0`$, we have in general $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=0`$, so that $`R=1`$, $`T=0`$, that is, total reflection with a phase shift $`\pi `$ (this is not refered to the above $`\delta _\pm `$). This is also an expected result since the singularity is strong in this case. However, if $`\alpha =1`$ and $`b=1`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$), we have $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=\mathrm{}`$, so that $`R=0`$, $`T=1`$, that is, total transmission with a phase shift $`\pi `$. This is an unexpected result since it is among the cases with strong singularity. We point out that there exists a half-bound state with zero energy and odd parity in this case (for any finite $`a`$).

As in three and two dimensions, we now consider the square well potential

$$V^a(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/2\mu a^{\alpha +1},\hfill & |x|<a,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & |x|>a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
This gives the integration $`V^a(x)𝑑x=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}^2/\mu a^\alpha `$, the same as given by the double delta potential (4). Thus when $`a0`$ they are expected to tend to the same contact potential. The phase shifts for this potential are determined by

$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _+=\frac{\eta \mathrm{tan}\eta \xi \mathrm{tan}\xi }{\xi +\eta \mathrm{tan}\xi \mathrm{tan}\eta },$$
$`(35\mathrm{a})`$
$$\mathrm{tan}\delta _{}=\frac{\xi \mathrm{tan}\eta \eta \mathrm{tan}\xi }{\eta +\xi \mathrm{tan}\xi \mathrm{tan}\eta },$$
$`(35\mathrm{b})`$
where $`\xi `$ is defined as before, and $`\eta =\sqrt{\xi ^2b\xi ^{1\alpha }}`$. Then we let $`\xi 0`$ and analyze the behavior of the phase shifts. After careful calculations, it is found that they lead to expected results when $`\alpha 1`$, and when $`\alpha =1`$ but $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not take on specific values. An unexpected result is obtained when $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ takes on values from one of the two sets given below. The first nontrivial result is $`R=0`$, $`T=1`$, i.e., total transmission with a phase shift $`\pi `$. This is the same as for the double delta potential, but it happens when

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{(2N1)^2\pi ^2}{4},$$
(36)
where $`N`$ is a natural number, which is different from the previous value. Note that there exists a half-bound state with odd parity (for $`\alpha =1`$ and finite $`a`$) when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ takes on any one of the above values. In contrast, for the double delta potential such a state can appear only once when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$. The second nontrivial result is $`R=0`$, $`T=1`$, i.e., true total transmission. This happens when

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=N^2\pi ^2,$$
(37)
where $`N`$ is a natural number. There is no similar result for the double delta potential. Note that there exists a half-bound state with even parity for the square well potential when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ takes on values from this sequence, while for the double delta potential there exists no such state. Thus we see once again that the difference in the unexpected result is related to the different situation for the appearance of half-bound states.

## Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Professor Guang-jiong Ni for encouragement. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.