text:
# Soft modes in two- and eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectrics

## I Introduction

A pseudospin model is usually used to interpret the phase-transition phenomena of order-disorder ferroelectrics such as KH2PO4 in terms of the microscopic atomic interactions. The model describes the ferroelectric phenomena as the motion of active ions in the double-well type potential field. The dynamic properties are generally considered by calculating the frequency of the ferroelectric soft mode. It yields satisfactory results for the second-order ferroelectric phase transition: when the temperature increases, the frequency of the soft mode decreases below the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and increases above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. At the critical temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the frequency is equal to zero, i.e., the ion vibration is frozen. In the previous works, the conventional equation to determine the frequency of the soft mode is expressed as

$$\frac{d𝐒_i_t}{dt}=i[𝐒_i,H]_t,$$
(1)
where $`𝐒_i`$ is the pseudospin of the $`i`$-th ion, $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system, and $`t`$ is the time. $`\mathrm{}_t`$ denotes the temporal thermal averaging. The equation (1) is obtained by making thermal averaging on the quantum mechanics equation

$$\frac{d𝐒_i}{dt}=i[𝐒_i,H].$$
(2)
To obtain Eq. (1) from Eq. (2), an assumption implied here is

$$d𝐒_i_t=d𝐒_i_t,$$
(3)
i.e.,

$$d𝐒_i_t=\underset{\alpha }{}\rho _\alpha d𝐒_{i\alpha },$$
(4)
where $`𝐒_{i\alpha }`$ is the spin of the $`\alpha `$-th eigen state, and $`\rho _\alpha `$ is the statistic weight. However, starting from the original definition of $`𝐒_i_t`$, i.e.,

$$𝐒_i_t=\underset{\alpha }{}\rho _\alpha 𝐒_{i\alpha },$$
(5)
the correct equation should be

$$d𝐒_i_t=\underset{\alpha }{}[\rho _\alpha d𝐒_{i\alpha }+𝐒_{i\alpha }d\rho _\alpha ].$$
(6)
Therefore, one purpose of this article is to investigate the soft mode of the order-disorder ferroelectrics by using Eq. (6) and compare with the results of the conventional method.

Rather different from the normal ferroelectrics, relaxor ferroelectrics (relaxors) experience no macroscopic phase transition at zero external field. However, a strong external electric field can induce a first-order ferroelectric phase transition in the relaxors such as Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 (PMN).  The phase transition and other special characteristics (such as the strong frequency dispersion and the history-dependent polarization behaviors) of relaxors are widely believed to be caused by the random interactions and the random electric fields in the system. Based on the experimental observation that the polar active ions in PMN shift along eight {111}-equivalent directions, an eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric model was presented to explain the induced first-order phase transition. The dynamic properties, however, are not calculated in that work. So, another purpose of this article is to examine the dynamic properties of the phase transition in the eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric system.

## II Methods

In the eigen state space of the operator $`S^z`$, the Hamiltonian of the two-direction pseudospin model can be equivalently expressed as

$$H=\left[\begin{array}{cc}Ep_0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& Ep_0\end{array}\right],$$
(7)
where $`E`$ is the electric field strength, and $`p_0`$ is the magnitude of the dipole moment when an ion locates in a certain potential well. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the tunneling frequency between the two potential wells, whose magnitude is equal to the energy difference between the asymmetric and the symmetric eigen states at zero field. The dipole moment $`p`$ is associated with $`S^z`$ through the relation

$$p=2p_0S^z.$$
(8)
Under the mean field approximation, the interactions upon a certain ion may be represented by an equivalent field, i.e.,

$$Ep_0=J\frac{p}{p_0}+E_{\mathrm{ext}}p_0+E_{\mathrm{rand}}p_0,$$
(9)
where $`p`$ is the thermal average value of the dipole moment, and $`J`$ is the ferroelectric coupling energy between polar ions. $`E_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the applied external electric field, and $`E_{\mathrm{rand}}`$ is the internal random fields in the system. $`E_{\mathrm{rand}}`$ is necessary to explaining the phase transitions in incipient ferroelectrics such as KTaO3:Li,Nb,Na; SrTiO3:Ca or PbTe:Ge with dipole impurities (active ions with random sites and orientations). It comes from the direct interactions of electric dipoles, fields created by point charge defects and aforementioned defects, etc. Random fields are also important to interpreting the special properties of ralaxors such as PMN. The pinning effect in PMN was believed to be induced by the random fields of impurities in the system. In the process of the thermally activated flips of the local spontaneous polarization, the random interactions between polarization microregions are essential in producing the ralaxor characteristics such as the diffused phase transition and the frequency dispersion. It is also revealed that the charged chemical defects and nano-domain textures originating from atomic ordering also give important contributions to the random fields. The real occurrence of long-range ordered phase depends on the competition of the constant-sign ferroelectric coupling and the alternating-sign random fields. The amplitude of random fields is mainly determined by the impurity and the microstructure imhomogeneity in the system. If there are more charge impurities or the microstructure is more inhomogeneous, the random fields are stronger. Random fields coming from different sources have different distribution, but have similar influences. In this article, $`E_{\mathrm{rand}}`$ is assumed to have a Gaussian distribution with a width $`\sigma _\mathrm{e}`$ as

$$\rho (E_{\mathrm{rand}})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{E_{\mathrm{rand}}^2}{2\sigma _\mathrm{e}^2}\right].$$
(10)
The static properties of the system can be easily determined from Eqs. (7-10), which have been discussed extensively previously.

To investigate the dynamic properties of the system, the fluctuation of the electric field

$$dE(t)=dE\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)$$
(11)
is considered. The eigen energy and the eigen polarization (dipole moment) of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) are respectively expressed as

$$E_\pm =\pm \sqrt{(Ep_0)^2+(\mathrm{\Omega }/2)^2},$$
(12)
and

$$p_\pm =\frac{Ep_0}{E_\pm }p_0.$$
(13)
The variation of $`p_\pm `$ induced by $`dE(t)`$ can be calculated in a linear perturbation method of the quantum mechanics, which yields

$$dp_\pm (t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(Ep_0)^2}\frac{E_\pm p_0dE(t)}{4E_\pm ^2(\mathrm{}\omega )^2}p_0.$$
(14)
According to the conventional method \[Eq. (4)\], $`dp_t`$ reads as

$$dp_t=𝑑p_+(t)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_+}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)\rho (E_{\mathrm{rand}})𝑑E_{\mathrm{rand}},$$
(15)
while in the modified method, $`dp_t`$ reads as

$$dp_t=\left\{dp_+(t)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_+}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)+p_+\left[1\mathrm{tanh}^2\left(\frac{E_+}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)\right]\frac{Ep_0^2dE(t)}{k_\mathrm{B}TE_+}\right\}\rho (E_{\mathrm{rand}})𝑑E_{\mathrm{rand}}.$$
(16)
Thus the frequency of the soft mode, $`\omega `$, can be determined from the self-consistent equation

$$p_0dE(t)=J\frac{dp_t}{p_0}.$$
(17)
The dynamic properties of the pseudospin model have been investigated in details by using the conventional method when there is no random field.

For the eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric model, there are eight potential wells along {111}-equivalent directions, and the Hamiltonian is assumed to be the direct sum of four groups of double-well matrix, i.e.,

$$H=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}Ep_0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& Ep_0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}& \frac{1}{3}Ep_0\end{array}\right],$$
(18)
where the factor 1/3 is the cosine of the angle between the dipole moment and the external field when they are not parallel to each other. Other equations similar to the two-direction cases can also be obtained, which are not listed here in order to keep the article concise.

## III Results and Discussions

### A Two-direction pseudospin model

In order to demonstrate the different effects of the conventional and the modified methods, the soft-mode frequency of the two-direction pseudospin model corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J`$ is shown in Fig. 1 when there are no external field and random fields. The dashed line represents the calculation results by using the conventional method, and the solid line represents those calculated by using the modified method. We can see that both the conventional method and the modified method yield the same frequencies of the paraelectric phases ($`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$). The reason is that the polarization and $`z`$-spin of the eigen states in the paraelectric phase are zero \[$`p_\pm =0`$ while $`E=0`$. See Eq. (13)\], so the Eq. (4) is equivalent to Eq. (6) in this case. For the ferroelectric phase, $`(\mathrm{}\omega )^2`$ in the conventional method is proportional to the polarization of the system; $`(\mathrm{}\omega )^2`$ in the modified method is smaller than that in the conventional method. The feature can be understood as follows: under the same drive $`dE(t)`$, the “displacement” $`d𝐒_i_t`$ calculated by Eq. (4) is smaller than that calculated by Eq. (6), i.e., the “elastic” coefficient of the conventional method is larger than that of the modified method, so the vibration frequency in the conventional method is higher than that in the modified method. It should be noted that the frequency decreases to zero at the critical temperature, which is just a unique characteristic of the soft mode theory.

Figure 2 shows the polarization and the soft-mode frequency of the system under a weak external field $`E_{\mathrm{ext}}=0.005J/p_0`$ when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J`$. It can be seen that the polarization increases continuously when the temperature decreases. The soft-mode frequency does not decrease to the zero value but reach a nonzero minimum. The minimal value of the frequency in the modified method is closer to zero than that in the conventional method. The frequency calculated in the modified method reaches its minimum at $`T_\mathrm{m}^{}=0.95J/k_\mathrm{B}`$, which is a little larger than the temperature at which the polarization changes most quickly, $`T_\mathrm{m}=0.91J/k_\mathrm{B}`$.

The random fields existing in the system have great influence on the properties of disordered ferroelectrics. They can make the critical temperature decrease, and even inhibit the phase transition. The polarization is calculated for the two-direction model with distribution width of random fields $`\sigma _\mathrm{e}=0`$ and 0.3 $`J/p_0`$, respectively, and the results are presented in Fig. 3(a). It is demonstrated that the critical temperature $`T_c`$ decreases from $`0.911`$ to 0.802 $`J/k_\mathrm{B}`$ when the random field width increases from 0 to 0.3 $`J/p_0`$. The figure 3(b) shows the calculated results of the soft-mode frequency when $`\sigma _\mathrm{e}=0.3J/p_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J`$. We observe an extraordinary difference between the results calculated by the two methods: the frequency in the conventional method keeps nonzero while the frequency in the modified method decreases to zero at the critical temperature. From the curve of the polarization in Fig. 3(a) we know that the phase transition is of the second-order type and the symmetry of the system changes at the critical temperature. A zero frequency at the critical temperature is required by the soft mode theory. Thus, Eqs. (1) and (4) used in the past to calculate the frequency are incorrect, while Eq. (6) produces the physically reasonable results.

### B Eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric model

Under the two-body couplings, there is only the second-order phase transition in the two-direction ferroelectric system, while both the second-order and the first-order phase transitions can exist in the eight-direction ferroelectrics. The polarization and the soft-mode frequency in both cooling and heating processes are shown in Fig. 4 for the eight-direction model when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.63J`$. Fig. 4(a) clearly demonstrates the jump of the polarization and the difference of the phase transition temperature between the cooling and heating processes, which indicates that the phase transition is of the first-order type. In a cooling process, the soft mode frequency decreases to zero at the phase transition temperature (over-cooled temperature) and suddenly jumps to the nonzero frequency value of the ferroelectric phase. In a heating process, the cases are similar except that the phase transition occurs at a higher temperature (overheated temperature).

For the relaxor ferroelectrics such as PMN, an external field with proper strength will induce a first-order phase transition. The second-order phase transition occurs in stronger field ranges, and the phase transition vanishes when the field increases further. The curves of the soft-mode frequency at different external fields are depicted in Fig. 5 when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J`$. At the external fields $`E=0.075`$ and 0.095 $`J/p_0`$, the phase transition is of the first-order type (see Ref. 12). There is a jump of frequency at the phase-transition temperature, and a down-pulse reaching the zero value exists above the phase transition temperature. When an external field is applied, the symmetry of the system has already been lowered at high temperatures, and the high and low temperature phases can not be distinguished from the symmetry changing. However, the zero soft-mode frequency at the critical temperature clearly indicates the existence of the phase transition. For $`E=0.115J/p_0`$, the phase transition is of the second-order type, and a down-peak of the frequency is easy to be identified. It is not a “real” phase transition in the sense that the soft-mode frequency does not decrease to zero. The phase transition can only be approximately defined from the rapid change of the polarization or from the minimum of the soft-mode frequency. For a strong field $`E=0.15J/p_0`$, the soft-mode frequency varies rather smoothly, and the softness of frequency is indefinite. In this case, it is difficult to identify any phase transition; in other words, the transition does not exist.

Rather different from the common sense, the random fields with proper distribution width will promote the spontaneous phase transition in the eight-direction ferroelectric system. In Fig. 6, the soft-mode frequencies of the paraelectric phase at different temperatures when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J`$ are given as functions of the width of random fields. With increasing width of the random fields, the frequency decreases first, and then increases. The minimal frequency is reached at a nonzero width. The promotion effect of random fields on the phase transition is demonstrated most clearly in the case of $`T=0.085J/k_\mathrm{B}`$: the random fields with distribution width $`0.276J/p_0<\sigma _\mathrm{e}<0.436J/p_0`$ induce the spontaneous appearance of the ferroelectric phase.

The original motivation of the eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric model is to predict the phase transition in relaxors, but not to explore the dielectric mechanism. It is known that relaxors have a rather broad and smooth spectrum of the relaxation times, and the relaxation time shows a progressive slowing down upon cooling, which results in a transition into a glassy state. A distribution of relaxation time instead of a single frequency of the soft mode should be introduced for fully describing the dielectric properties of relaxors such as the frequency dispersion. The Monte Carlo simulation on the two-direction pseudospin model has been done to explain the dielectric behaviors of relaxors. Thus further works of simulation on the eight-direction model may be helpful for understanding the characteristics of relaxors.

## IV Summaries

In summary, the soft modes in the two-direction and eight-direction order-disorder ferroelectric systems are syudied in this article. We indicate that the conventional method yields incorrect soft-mode frequency of the pseudospin model, and present the valid modified equation. The soft-mode frequency of the ferroelectric phase calculated by the modified method is smaller than the conventional values, while the critical temperature does not vary. When there exists random electric fields, the frequency calculated by the conventional method does not decrease to zero at the critical temperature, which is physically unreasonable. In contrast, the modified method yields the reasonable results. In the eight-direction ferroelectrics, the soft mode of paraelectric phase decreases to zero at the over-cooled temperature. The calculation of the soft modes under external electric fields shows that the frequency decreases to zero at the first-order phase transition temperature although the symmetry of the system has been destroyed at high temperatures. We find that the soft-mode frequency decreases first and then increases with increasing distribution width of the random fields, which testifies the promotion effect of random fields on the spontaneous appearance of the ferroelectric phase.

## Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Chinese National Science Foundation (Grant NO. 59995520) and State Key Program of Basic Research Development (Grant No. G2000067108).


format: text

text:
# Coulomb corrections and multiple 𝑒⁺𝑒⁻ pair production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions

(March 20, 2001)

## Abstract

We consider the problem of Coulomb corrections to the inclusive cross section. We show that these corrections in the limiting case of small charge number of one of the nuclei coincide with those to the exclusive cross section. Within our approach we also obtain the Coulomb corrections for the case of large charge numbers of both nuclei.

In a set of recent publications the process of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions was investigated by different groups of authors. The authors of SW ; McL ; Gre  treated the nuclei as sources of the external field, and calculated the amplitude of the process at a fixed impact parameter using retarded solutions of the Dirac equation. After that the cross section was obtained by the integration over the impact parameter:

$`d\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2d^3pd^3q}{(2\pi )^6\epsilon _p\epsilon _q}}{\displaystyle d^2\rho \left|\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{exp}[i𝐤𝝆]_A(𝐤^{})_B(𝐤)\right|^2}`$ (1)
$``$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(p)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶\text{ }(𝐤𝐩_{})+\gamma _0m}{p_+q_{}(𝐤𝐩_{})^2m^2}}\gamma _{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶\text{ }(𝐤𝐪_{})+\gamma _0m}{p_{}q_+(𝐤𝐪_{})^2m^2}}\gamma _+\right]u(q).`$
Here $`𝐩`$ and $`\epsilon _p`$ ($`𝐪`$ and $`\epsilon _q`$) are the momentum and energy of the electron (positron), $`u(p)`$ and $`u(q)`$ are positive- and negative-energy Dirac spinors, $`𝜶\text{ }=\gamma ^0𝜸`$, $`\gamma _\pm =\gamma ^0\pm \gamma ^z`$, $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are the Dirac matrices, $`p_\pm =\epsilon _p\pm p^z`$, $`q_\pm =\epsilon _q\pm q^z`$, $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`𝐤`$ is a two-dimensional vector lying in the $`xy`$ plane, $`𝐤^{}=𝐪_{}+𝐩_{}𝐤`$, and the function $`(𝚫)`$ is proportional to the electron eikonal scattering amplitude in the Coulomb field:

$$(𝚫)=i\pi Z\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1iZ\alpha )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+iZ\alpha )}\left(\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)^{1iZ\alpha },$$
(2)
where $`Z=Z_{A,B}`$ is the charge number of the nucleus $`A,B`$. The nuclei $`A`$ and $`B`$ are assumed to move in the positive and negative directions of the $`z`$ axis, respectively, and have the Lorentz factors $`\gamma _{A,B}=1/\sqrt{1\beta _{A,B}^2}`$. Using (1) the authors of SW ; McL ; Gre  made the conclusion that the exact cross section coincides with that calculated in the Born approximation, i.e. in the lowest-order perturbation theory with respect to $`\alpha Z_{A,B}`$. The Born cross section can be obtained from (1) by the replacement $`(𝚫)^0(𝚫)=4i\pi Z\alpha /\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The statement about the absence of the Coulomb corrections was criticized in Ser , where in the frame of the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation with respect to one of the nucleus the cross section of the process was expressed via the cross section of $`e^+e^{}`$ pair production by a photon in a Coulomb field Bet . As is well known, the latter contains the Coulomb corrections (higher order terms in $`Z\alpha `$). In our paper LeeM1  we explicitly demonstrated that the following statements are true for the results obtained in SW ; McL ; Gre :

* the expression (1) actually contains the Coulomb corrections. The wrong conclusion on the absence of Coulomb corrections made in SW ; McL ; Gre  is connected with illegal change of the order of integration in repeated integrals before the regularization of integrand.
* it cannot be applied for the calculation of the differential cross section with respect to both $`e^+`$ and $`e^{}`$. The impossibility to interpret (1) as the cross section differential with respect to both particles is connected with the use of wave functions having the improper asymptotic behavior for the problem of pair production (retarded wave functions). This point was later realized by the authors of EichmRG1 .
* the cross section (1) calculated in the lowest order in $`Z_A\alpha `$ ( proportional to $`(Z_A\alpha )^2`$) and integrated over the momenta of at least one particle of the pair contains the Coulomb corrections in $`Z_B\alpha `$ which are in agreement with those obtained in the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation.

Though our paper LeeM1  essentially clarified the situation with the Coulomb corrections, recently the paper McL1  appeared. The authors of McL1  still claim that the expression does not contain the Coulomb corrections. They also pointed out that the expression (1) makes sense only after the integration over the momenta $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ and gives the inclusive cross section $`\sigma _T`$ of pair production being defined as

$$\sigma _Td^2𝝆\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}nP_n,$$
(3)
where $`P_n`$ is the probability to produce exactly $`n`$ pairs in a collision at impact parameter $`𝝆`$. Note that the usual definition of the inclusive cross section, as a sum of cross sections of all possible processes, is different:

$$\sigma _{incl}d^2𝝆\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}P_n.$$
(4)
The probabilities $`P_n`$ are calculated exactly in the external field and their sum in the r.h.s. of (4) is expressed via the vacuum-to-vacuum transition probability $`P_0`$ as $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=1P_0`$.

The cross section $`\sigma _T`$ differs from the exclusive cross section $`\sigma _1`$ of the production of exactly one pair

$$\sigma _1d^2𝝆P_1$$
(5)
The authors of McL1  suppose that this circumstance justifies the absence of the Coulomb corrections in their result.

In the present paper we consider the problem of Coulomb corrections to $`\sigma _T`$ and demonstrate their existence.

Let us show first that difference in the definition of $`\sigma _T`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ can not justify the absence of the Coulomb corrections in the former. Indeed, the expansion of the probability $`P_n`$ in the parameters $`Z_A\alpha `$ and $`Z_B\alpha `$ starts from the term, proportional to $`(Z_A\alpha )^{2n}(Z_B\alpha )^{2n}`$. Therefore the terms $`(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^{2l}`$ with $`l1`$ are contained only in $`P_1`$. Therefore, the terms, quadratic in $`Z_A\alpha `$, in $`\sigma _T`$ and $`\sigma _1`$ should coincide. By means of the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation with respect to the nucleus $`A`$ it is easy to understand that the term in $`\sigma _1`$, quadratic in $`Z_A\alpha `$, contains the Coulomb corrections in the parameter $`Z_B\alpha `$.

Now we pass to the explicit calculations of $`\sigma _T`$. For the sake of simplicity we consider the process in the frame where both nuclei have the same Lorentz factor $`\gamma _A=\gamma _B=\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$. First of all it is worth noting that the integration of (1) with respect to $`𝐩,𝐪`$ and $`𝝆`$ leads to the logarithmic divergence. Of course, this is the consequence of setting $`\beta =1`$ in the light-front approach used in SW ; McL ; Gre . In more accurate approach the regularizing terms proportional to $`1/\gamma ^2`$ should be kept in denominators. In particular, this leads to the regularization of the integrals over $`p_z`$ and $`q_z`$, which is equivalent (with the logarithmic accuracy) to the integration over these variables from $`m\gamma `$ to $`m\gamma `$. For this momenta the velocities of both particles in pair are less than those of the nuclei.

Since the expression (1) is ill-defined, it is possible to perform the mathematical transformations of it only after the regularization. Assuming this regularization to be made in $``$ and $``$ we take the integral over $`𝝆`$. As a result we have for $`\sigma _T`$:

$`\sigma _T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2d^3pd^3q}{(2\pi )^6\epsilon _p\epsilon _q}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}||^2|_A(𝐤^{})|^2|_B(𝐤)|^2}`$ (6)
If one substitutes non-regularized $``$ from (2) into (6) then the Coulomb corrections cancel. However, this substitution is illegal since it leads to the divergence. It was the source of mistake made in SW ; McL ; Gre ; McL1 .

To proceed with the calculations it is convenient to split the expression (6) as

$$\sigma _T=\sigma ^b+\sigma _A^c+\sigma _B^c+\sigma _{AB}^c,$$
(7)
where

$`\begin{array}{c}\sigma ^b\hfill \\ \sigma _B^c\hfill \\ \sigma _{AB}^c\hfill \end{array}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2d^3pd^3q}{(2\pi )^6\epsilon _p\epsilon _q}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}||^2\times \{\begin{array}{c}|_A^0(𝐤^{})|^2|_B^0(𝐤)|^2\hfill \\ |_A^0(𝐤^{})|^2\left[|_B(𝐤)|^2|_B^0(𝐤)|^2\right]\hfill \\ \left[|_A(𝐤^{})|^2|_A^0(𝐤^{})|^2\right]\left[|_B(𝐤)|^2|_B^0(𝐤)|^2\right]\hfill \end{array}}`$ (14)
The term $`\sigma _A^c`$ is obtained from $`\sigma _B^c`$ by obvious substitution. Here $`^0(𝚫)`$, as well as $`(𝚫)`$, is assumed to be regularized in a proper way. In (7) the term $`\sigma ^b`$ is the Born part of $`\sigma _T`$, $`\sigma _A^c`$ and $`\sigma _B^c`$ contain the terms proportional to $`(Z_B\alpha )^2(Z_A\alpha )^{2n}`$ and $`(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^{2n}`$, respectively, $`n2`$. At last, $`\sigma _{AB}^c`$ contains the terms proportional to $`(Z_A\alpha )^n(Z_B\alpha )^l`$ with $`n,l>2`$.

Let us discuss now the regularization. Note that the expression (1) was derived without using specific character of the Coulomb potential. For arbitrary potential $`V(r)`$ we have

$`(𝚫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\rho \mathrm{exp}[i𝝆𝚫]\left\{\mathrm{exp}[i\chi (\rho )]1\right\}},`$ (15)
$`\chi (\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑zV\left(\sqrt{z^2+\rho ^2}\right).`$
The eikonal phase $`\chi (\rho )`$ is finite if $`rV(r)0`$ at $`r\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, under this restriction on the potential we obtain the finite result for $`\sigma _T`$. As known, the correct expression for $`_{A,B}^0(𝚫)`$ for $`\beta <1`$ is

$`_{A,B}^0(𝚫)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i\pi Z_{A,B}\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+a_\pm ^2}},a_\pm =(p_\pm +q_\pm )/2\gamma .`$ (16)
These expressions for $`_{A,B}^0(𝚫)`$ correspond to the choice of effective potential $`V_{A,B}(r)=Z_{A,B}\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[ra_\pm \right]/r`$. The quantity $``$ for this potential reads

$`_{A,B}(𝚫)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑\rho \rho J_0(\rho \mathrm{\Delta })\left\{\mathrm{exp}[2iZ_{A,B}\alpha K_0(\rho a_\pm )]1\right\}},`$ (17)
where $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function and $`K_0`$ is the modified Bessel function of the third kind. Let us emphasize that the regularization of $``$ in (17) is not reduced to the substitution $`𝚫^2𝚫^2+a_\pm ^2`$ in (2) which was suggested in McL .

For all terms in $`\sigma _T`$ the main contribution to the integrals comes from the region of integration

$$|𝐤|,|𝐤^{}|m,|p_z|,|q_z|m\gamma ,|𝐩_{}𝐪_{}|m.$$

According to the first restriction we can expand $``$ with respect to both $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$. Due to the gauge invariance the first non-zero term of this expansion reads $`=k_ik_j^{}M_{ij}`$. Passing to the variables $`𝐤,𝐤^{}`$, and $`𝐫=(𝐩_{}𝐪_{})/2`$, we obtain from (14):

$`\begin{array}{c}\sigma ^b\hfill \\ \sigma _A^c\hfill \\ \sigma _B^c\hfill \\ \sigma _{AB}^c\hfill \end{array}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2dp_zdq_zd^2r}{4(2\pi )^4\epsilon _p\epsilon _q}|M_{ij}|^2\{\begin{array}{c}L_AL_B\hfill \\ G_AL_B\hfill \\ L_AG_B\hfill \\ G_AG_B\hfill \end{array}}`$ (26)
Here

$`L_{A,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐤|<m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}}k^2|_{A,B}^0(𝐤)|^2=8\pi (Z_{A,B}\alpha )^2\mathrm{ln}(m/a_\pm ),`$ (27)
$`G_{A,B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}k^2\left[|_{A,B}(𝐤)|^2|_{A,B}^0(𝐤)|^2\right]}.`$
The functions $`G_{A,B}`$ have been calculated in our paper LeeM1 . It was shown in LeeM1  that, though the main contribution to the integral over $`𝐤`$ in $`G_{A,B}`$ comes from the region $`ka_\pm m`$, where $`|_{A,B}^0(𝐤)|`$ differs from $`|_{A,B}(𝐤)|`$, the quantities $`G_A`$ and $`G_B`$ are universal functions of $`Z_A\alpha `$ and $`Z_B\alpha `$, respectively. They have the form

$`G_{A,B}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi (Z_{A,B}\alpha )^2[\text{Re}\psi (1+iZ_{A,B}\alpha )+C]=8\pi (Z_{A,B}\alpha )^2f(Z_{A,B}\alpha ),`$ (28)
where $`C`$ is the Euler constant, $`\psi (x)=d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)/dx`$.

Straightforward calculation leads to the following expression for $`|M_{ij}|^2`$:

$$|M_{ij}|^2=\frac{8}{m^2(r^2+m^2)(p_{}+q_{})(p_++q_+)}\left[1\frac{2(r^4+m^4)}{(r^2+m^2)(p_{}+q_{})(p_++q_+)}\right],$$
(29)
where $`p_\pm =\sqrt{p_z^2+r^2+m^2}\pm p_z`$ and similar to $`q_\pm `$. At the derivation of (29) we have performed the summation over the polarizations of both particles in pair. Substituting (29) in (26) and performing the integration with the logarithmic accuracy, we obtain for $`\sigma ^b`$ and $`\sigma _{A,B}^c`$:

$`\sigma ^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{28(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^2}{27\pi m^2}}\mathrm{ln}^3(\gamma ^2),`$ (30)
$`\sigma _A^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{28(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^2}{9\pi m^2}}f(Z_A\alpha )\mathrm{ln}^2(\gamma ^2),`$
$`\sigma _B^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{28(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^2}{9\pi m^2}}f(Z_B\alpha )\mathrm{ln}^2(\gamma ^2).`$
As expected, these results agree with those obtained with the use of the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation. Within our approach we also get the following expression for $`\sigma _{AB}^c`$:

$$\sigma _{AB}^c=\frac{56(Z_A\alpha )^2(Z_B\alpha )^2}{9\pi m^2}f(Z_A\alpha )f(Z_B\alpha )\mathrm{ln}(\gamma ^2)$$
(31)
In the arbitrary frame one should replace $`\gamma ^2\gamma _A\gamma _B`$ in (30) and (31).

Thus we demonstrated that the difference in definitions of the exclusive cross section $`\sigma _1`$ and the inclusive cross section $`\sigma _T`$ can not lead to the cancellation of the Coulomb corrections in the latter. Using the proper regularization of the expression for $`\sigma _T`$ we obtained the result for Coulomb corrections which in the limiting case $`Z_A\alpha 1`$ (or $`Z_B\alpha 1`$) agrees with that obtained in the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation.


text:
# Limitations of the Φ measure of fluctuations in event-by-event analysis

## Abstract

We provide a critical overview of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure of fluctuations and correlations. In particular we show that its discriminating power is rather limited in situations encountered in experiment.

PACS numbers: 25.75.-q 24.60.-k 05.20.-y 05.70.Ln

It is widely recognized that event-by-event analysis of experimental data on multiparticle reactions (and especially studies of fluctuation patterns seen there) provides us with very important and sensitive tool in our attempts to understand dynamics of heavy ion collisions . They are particularly useful in searching for some special features of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) equation of state . The question of the best method of their investigation allowing for the most information to be gathered is therefore of great interest (cf., for example, reviews  and references therein). Some time ago, a novel method of investigation of fluctuations in even-by-event analysis of high energy multiparticle production data was proposed and applied to nuclear collisions . It is based on a suitably defined measure $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_x=\sqrt{\frac{Z^2}{N}}\sqrt{\overline{z^2}}\mathrm{where}Z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}z_i,$$
(1)
which originally was supposed to discriminate wheather or not fluctuations of a given observable $`x`$ is exactly the same for nucleon-nucleon and nucleus-nucleus collisions . Here $`z_i=x_i\overline{x}`$ where $`\overline{x}`$ denotes the mean value of the observable $`x`$ calculated for all particles from all events (the so called inclusive mean) and $`N`$ is the number of particles analysed in the event. In (1) $`N`$ and $`Z^2`$ are averages of event-by-event observables over all events, whereas the last term is the square root of the second moment of the inclusive $`z`$ distribution. By construction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x=0`$ for independently produced particles .

However, application of this method is not free from controversy. When first applied to NA49 data for central $`PbPb`$ collisions at $`158`$ A$``$GeV  it apparently revealed that fluctuations of transverse momentum ($`x=p_T`$) decreased significantly with respect to elementary NN collisions. This in turn has been interpreted as a possible sign of equilibration taking place in heavy ion collisions, providing thus an enviroment for the possible creation of QGP. It was immediately realised that existing models of multiparticle production are leading in that matter to conflicting statements . The more recent NA49 data  reported, however, a new value (almost an order of magnitude greater then the previous one), which was the one corresponding to a pion gas in global equilibrium . A number of attempts followed, trying to clarify the meaning of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (cf., for example,  and references therein.) In the mean time, it was extended to study event-by-event fluctuations of ”chemical” (particle type) composition of produced secondaries , to study azimuthal correlations among them (which are important for studies of flow patterns observed in heavy ion collisions ) and to cover also higher order correlations . Finally, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has been also analysed by means of the nonextensive statistic both for $`p_T`$ correlations  and for fluctuations of chemical composition as well .

In  we have pointed that, if there are some additional fluctuations (not arising from quantum statistics, like those caused by the experimental errors), which add in the same way to both terms in definition (1) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, it would perhaps be better to use another form of it, like for example

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\frac{Z^2}{N}\overline{z^2},$$
(2)
where the variances $`\sigma _x^2`$ would cancel (being present only implicitly). We would like to elaborate on this criticism towards $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (as well as $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) measure in more detail here. Our point is (cf. also ) that inclusive experiments provide us both with single particle distributions $`P(x)`$ (i.e., with information on fluctuations of the $`x`$-values) and with multiplicity distributions $`P(N)`$ (i.e., with information on fluctuations of $`N`$ and, when put together with $`P(x)`$, also with information on correlations between $`x`$-value and multiplicity $`N`$). Also correlations between produced particles (i.e., between $`x`$-values), especially Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) resulting from their statistics, are to a large extend known . Measures $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) depend on all of them, because (notice that $`\overline{z^2}=\sigma _z^2=\sigma _x^2`$)

$$Z^2=\sigma _Z^2=N\sigma _x^2+N(N1)\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)+c(x,N),$$
(3)
where covariance $`\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)=\overline{x_ix_j}\overline{x}_i\overline{x}_j=\rho \sigma _x^2`$, i.e., is given in terms of the variance $`\sigma _x^2`$ of the variable $`x`$ and their mutual correlation coefficient $`\rho `$, while the last term describes the possible correlation between the variable $`x`$ and the multiplicity $`N`$. Notice that assuming, for example, $`x_N`$ for given $`N`$ being given by

$$x_N=\overline{x}\left[1+\alpha \frac{NN}{N}\right]$$
(4)
one gets for correlation term

$$c(x,N)=\alpha ^2\overline{x}^2\left(N^2N^2\right).$$
(5)
Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ is achieved only for independent $`x`$-values, in which case they are also uncorrelated. If this is not the case they are given by:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\sigma _x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{N}}\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)+{\displaystyle \frac{N^2N^2}{N}}\alpha ^2\overline{x}^2}\sqrt{\sigma _x^2}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\sigma _x+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\sigma _x^2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(N1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _N^2}{N}}\right)\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _N^2}{N}}\alpha ^2\overline{x}^2`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sigma _x).`$
Because in reality (neither in experiments nor in models or event generators attempted to describe them) conditions of independence are not fulfilled, $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}0`$ and a question arises: what information do they convey? In particular, can we learn more from event-by-event analysis performing it by means of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) measure rather than by being satisfied with the known inclusive distributions alone? In this respect one should notice that :

* Both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ depend strongly on the multiplicity fluctuations and this dependence vanishes only in the limiting case of a Poisson distribution (for which $`N^2N^2=N`$ and $`N(N1)=N^2`$) where, for example,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=N\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)+\alpha ^2\overline{x}^2.$$
(8)
* Experimental data allow us to study the dependence of $`x_N`$ on the multiplicity $`N`$ in an explicit way. In the case when such correlations are absent, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ measure reduces simply to a two-particle correlation measure

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\left(N1+\frac{\sigma _N^2}{N}\right)\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j).$$
(9)
* The influence of the two-particle correlation term $`\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)`$ depends on the kind of particles involved: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ for Boltzman statistics, $`\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ for fermions and $`\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$ for bosons. However, this type of correlations, especially for BEC for bosons, are subject to extensive experimental and theoretical investigations where one mesures or modells the so called $`2`$particle correlation function $`C_2(x_i,x_j)`$ . Because

$$\mathrm{cov}(x_i,x_j)=𝑑x_i𝑑x_jx_i\frac{dn}{dx_i}x_j\frac{dn}{dx_j}\left[C_2(x_i,x_j)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right],$$
(10)
it means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ measures are nothing but the correlation measure $`C_2`$ averaged over single particle distributions $`dn/dx`$ (i.e., we are in fact not gaining but losing some information contained in $`C_2`$ and $`dn/dx`$ and none of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s provide us with any new information).

The above remarks, being obvious and essentially known, , have so far not been backed by any convincing numerical illustration. By this we mean calculations using an event generation algorithm which would satisfy all conservation laws (especially energy-momentum conservation) and at the same time model also the BEC. Because both points seem to play a major role in a proper description of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) measure , which was not checked properly , we would like to fill this gap by calculating $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ in simple models of hadronization using an algorithm which preserves both energy-momentum conservation and the original single-particle distributions and models at the same time all features of BEC in such processes . To this end we shall compare $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ measures as function of mean multiplicity $`N^{()}`$ of negatively charged particles for hadronization processes proceeding without and with BEC. Two simple models of hadronizations of mass $`M`$ will be considered: the cascade model (CAS) developed by us recently  (where the whole space-time and phase-space history of the hadronization process is explicitly known) and simple statistical model (MaxEnt) based on information theory approach proposed in  (where details of hadronization are not available; both models were already used in ).

Most of the above mentioned applications of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ measure concerned transverse momenta $`x=p_T`$ , which is always positive. The corresponding variable here would be $`|p|`$ , results for which are shown in Fig. 1. We have found it interesting to enlarge analysis for the variable which can take any sign, as momentum $`p`$ in our case, results for which are shown in Fig. 2. The differences are striking. Whereas behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x=|p|)`$ is similar to that for $`x=p_T`$, that of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x=p)`$ is much more sensitive to the limits imposed by the energy-momentum conservation (both measures are negative here). In both Figs. 1 and 2 we present $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ for CAS and MaxEnt models without and with BEC, in this later case for two different choices of the weights specifying BEC : constant $`P=0.5`$ and Gaussian $`P`$ as discussed in  (which lead to very different BEC patterns). The results are given as functions of the mean multiplicity $`N^{()}`$ of negatively charged secondaries produced in hadronization process of mass $`M`$.

The special feature emerging from our calculation is the fact that the effect caused by BEC is clearly visible in all cases (it is maximal for the case of constant weights because the BEC is maximal there ). To make dependence on BEC more clear we present in Fig. 3 for $`x=|p|`$ case the corresponding differences $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{BEC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{noBEC}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{BEC}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{noBEC}^{}`$. The curves show the best power fits of the type $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }N^{()}^\delta `$ exhibiting very strong and growing dependence of the effect of BEC on $`N^{()}`$. There are some other characteristic features of the results worth attention, namely: $`(i)`$ the scale of effect is different in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ this reflects differences in their definitions (6) and (7); $`(ii)`$ their different dependencies on $`N^{()}`$ indicate that $`\sigma _x`$ plays a significant role here; $`(iii)`$ the completely different behaviours for $`x=p`$ and $`x=|p|`$ (compare Fig. 1 with Fig. 2) illustrate how $`\mathrm{\Phi }_x`$ changes dramatically whether the measured variable is restricted to being positive or not. Because in the second case the role of the energy-momentum constraints is much more important, dependence on this constraint is more pronounced. Notice that points for MaxEnt in Figs. 1 and 2 are consistently higher than for CAS. This should probably be attributed to different ways of imposing conservation laws in both models: they are satisfied globally in the statistical model MaxEnt and locally, in every branching point, in the cascade model CAS. Because of this CAS prefers symmetric distributions in momenta (here forward-backward) whereas MaxEnt allows more frequently for asymmetric ones (for example, when one particle with large momentum is balanced by a bunch of low momenta particles in other hemisphere). The difference between both types of models seen in Fig. 3 originate from different shapes of $`C_2(p_i,p_j)`$ functions, which are broader (what corresponds to smaller ”radius” $`R`$) for CAS type of models.

To conclude: we have demonstrated using numerical algorithm which preserves energy-momentum conservation and at the same time models BEC in multiparticle hadronization that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (and also $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$) measure is very sensitive both to the constraints provided by conservation laws and to the effects of correlations (exemplified here by the BEC). Both features must therefore be carefully accounted for when attempts are made to reach some conclusions concerning new physical effects when using these measures to the event-by-event analysis of data. We have also written down explicit relations between both measures and all other observables (well defined and known in statistics) available from inclusive experiments. They show explicitly that both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s are closely related to inclusive correlation functions. In this respect we believe that no new information is obtained from these measures in comparison with what is available from inclusive measurements.

The partial support of Polish Committee for Scientific Research (grants 2P03B 011 18 and 621/E-78/ SPUB/ CERN/ P-03/ DZ4/99) is acknowledged.

Figure Captions:

* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (in GeV, left panels) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ (in GeV2, right panels) as function of mean (negatively charged) multiplicity $`N^{()}`$ calculated for $`x=|p|`$ for two different hadronization models, CAS and MaxEnt, without and with BEC. Upper panels contain BEC obtained using constant weights, lower panels contain BEC corresponding to Gaussian weights . Black symbols denote CAS and MaxEnt models with BEC, open symbols without BEC. Stars correspond to MaxEnt and circles to CAS models, respectively. Lines are just interpolating between calculated points.
* The same as in Fig. 2 but this time for $`x=p`$.
* Differences between events with and without BEC for $`x=|p|`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ (upper part) and $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ (lower part) for models and BEC weights presented in Fig. 1 (with the same meaning of different symbols). Circles denote CAS and stars MaxEnt models with, respectively, constant (for open symbols) and Gaussian (for full ones) weights for BEC. Lines indicate attempts of best power-like fits of type $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }N^{()}^\delta `$ with $`\delta `$ equal to (going from top) to $`2.0,2.0,1.5,0.7`$ for upper panel and $`3.6,3.6,3.1,2.2`$ for lower panel.


text:
# VLT observations of the peculiar globular cluster NGC 6712, II: luminosity and mass functionsBased on data obtained as part of an ESO Service Mode programme

## 1 Introduction

NGC 6712 ($`\alpha =18^h\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}53}^m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}04.3}^{\prime \prime }`$, $`\delta =08^o\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}42}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}21.5}^{\prime \prime }`$) is a small and sparse globular cluster of intermediate metallicity (concentration ratio $`c=0.9`$ and \[Fe/H\]$`=1.01`$; Harris 1997). Cudworth (1988), in his astrometric and photometric study reaching down to just above the main sequence TO, finds that it is a halo object in spite of its moderately high metallicity. One interesting characteristic of this cluster is the presence in the core of the high luminosity X-ray source (X1850-086) with an optical counterpart (Anderson et al. 1993). This is unexpected for such a loose cluster because most clusters with such sources tend to have a much higher central concentration. To explain this peculiarity, Grindlay et al. (1988) have suggested that the cluster may be currently re-expanding following the phase of core collapse when densities were high enough to allow these binaries to be formed. Our discovery (Ferraro et al., 2000) of the presence in the core of another close binary, a $`UV`$\- and $`H\alpha `$-excess object, most likely a quiescent LMXB or a CV, only adds to the mystery.

Another, possibly connected and potentially even more interesting facet of this cluster’s structure is the fact that the first observations of its MS taken by the VLT during its commissioning period and reported by De Marchi et al. (1999) show a remarkable property of its MF near the half-light radius. This is a clear and continuous drop with decreasing mass starting already at the TO and continuing down to the observation limit at $`0.5`$ M. MFs determined from LFs obtained near the half-light radius are expected to faithfully reflect the shape of the cluster’s global MF (De Marchi et al. 2000; Vesperini & Heggie 1997). For all the other clusters surveyed so far with HST in this mass range, the global MF increases steadily with decreasing mass (Paresce & De Marchi 2000).

As suggested by De Marchi et al. (1999), this may be due to the fact that its Galactic orbit forces the cluster to penetrate deeply into the bulge. With a perigalactic distance smaller than 300 pc, this cluster ventures so frequently and so deeply into the Galactic bulge (Dauphole et al. 1996) that it is likely to have undergone severe tidal shocking during the numerous encounters with both the disk and the bulge during its life-time. The latest Galactic plane crossing could have happened as recently as $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ year ago (Cudworth 1988), which is much smaller than its half-mass relaxation time of 1 Gyr (Harris 1996). It is precisely on this basis that Takahashi & Portegies Zwart (2000) have suggested that NGC 6712 has lost 99 % of its mass during its life-time. And if the effects of this strong interaction have propagated throughout the whole cluster and reached its innermost regions, as such a gigantic mass loss implies, the peculiarly high density of core binaries can be understood and justified for what would otherwise appear an inconsequential cluster.

In an attempt to clarify this important issue and to better understand the observable effects of tidal interactions, and especially to learn more about the mechanisms leading to the dissolution of globular clusters in the Galaxy and about the possible variation of the cluster IMF with time in general, we have used the great power of the VLT and the FORS1 camera to investigate in more detail the present structure of NGC 6712. The specific objective was to obtain a more precise LF of the MS below the TO at various distances from the centre, so as to evaluate the possible effects of mass segregation on the derived MF. Another important objective was to sample more of the cluster at or near the tidal radius to see whether or not one could detect an excess of low mass stars ejected from the interior and still lightly bound to the cluster and to correct for the numerous field stars expected in the cluster field. In this paper, we report on the results of the analysis of our VLT data set on NGC 6712 with an emphasis on the cluster MS. The analysis of the evolved part of the cluster CMD is the subject of other papers (Ferraro et al. 2000; Paltrinieri et al. 2001).

## 2 Observations and data reduction

Our data consist of images of 5 fields in the $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands, four of which are located as shown in Fig. 1. The fifth field, used as a control field (field F0), is located $`42^{}`$ N of the cluster centre and was imaged using FORS1 in its standard resolution mode of $`0\stackrel{}{.}2`$/pixel.

Because the level of crowding varies considerably from the core of the cluster out to its periphery, our observations were carried out according to the following strategy: the fields covering the external regions of the cluster were imaged at low resolution (plate-scale $`0\stackrel{}{.}2`$/pixel) and cover an area of $`46.2`$ arcmin square each ($`6\stackrel{}{.}8\times 6\stackrel{}{.}8`$); they are located respectively $`5^{}`$ W (field F2), $`8^{}`$ NW (field F3) and $`11^{}`$ W (field F4) of the centre of the cluster; to improve the photometry in the central regions, where the level of crowding is particularly high, we have covered it with images taken in the high resolution mode of FORS1 (plate-scale $`0\stackrel{}{.}1`$/pixel), with a field $`3\stackrel{}{.}4\times 3\stackrel{}{.}4`$ in size (field F1, shown in Fig. 2). To ensure a homogeneous calibration and to transform the coordinates into a common local system from the centre of the cluster out to the more external regions, each field has been selected so as to overlap with at least a neighbouring one.

Since NGC 6712 is situated in the midst of a rich star field at the centre of the Scutum cloud (Sandage 1965), which is one of the highest surface-brightness regions with high space-density gradients of the Milky Way (Karaali 1978), we were anticipating that we would have had to deal with significant foreground contamination and, therefore, took the control field F0 in a region situated well away from the cluster but representing a typical field in that area.

The journal of the observations is reported in Table 1, where the columns represent respectively: the fields covered, the date of each observation, the distance of the fields from the centre of the cluster and their coordinates, and the exposure time for the single images and for each filter. Also listed in Table 1 is the number of stars detected simultaneously in both filters for each observed field (see below).

Except for a small subset of the $`R`$-band images, we have adopted the reduced and calibrated (i.e. bias-subtracted and flat-fielded) data as provided by the standard ESO-VLT pipeline. Some of the raw $`R`$-band data, however, had not been processed through the automated pipeline, and for them we had to run standard IRAF routines following the same recipe employed in the ESO-VLT pipeline. Subsequent data reduction and analysis was done using standard IRAF photometry routines (digiphot.daophot).

Since our goal was to reliably detect the faintest object in these images, for each field and filter we first created a mean frame using all the applicable frames available and then ran the standard digiphot.daofind routine on the average images so obtained to locate the stars. Typical values of the PSF-FWHM are $`0\stackrel{}{.}3`$ and $`0\stackrel{}{.}7`$, respectively at high and low resolution. Although, in principle, we could have also averaged images in different filters, the presence of bad columns in the $`R`$-band frames (usually due to heavily saturated pixels and spikes of the bright stars) suggested that we not follow this approach. With a detection threshold set in the $`V`$ and $`R`$ band typically at $`35\sigma `$ above the local average background level, we obtained two independent coordinate lists for each field (one per filter), which we then fed to the PSF-fitting routine allstar to measure the instrumental magnitude of each object in each filter. We found that a Moffat function gave the best representation of the shape of the PSF, both at high and low resolution.

The positions of the identified objects in each mean $`R`$\- and $`V`$-band image were matched to one another, so as to obtain a final catalogue containing only the positions and magnitudes of the stars common to both filters.

Objects lying in overlapping regions between two adjacent fields were used to determine the transformations between instrumental magnitudes and to translate local frame coordinates to a common coordinate system, with origin at the cluster centre. Typically, about one hundred stars in each overlapping region were used to derive such transformations. Only linear transformations were used to match star measurements, with all magnitudes being referred to those of the high resolution field (F1). For stars in the overlapping region, multiple magnitude measurements were averaged using appropriate weights (which take into account the photometric quality of each field). At the end of this procedure, a homogeneous set of instrumental magnitudes, colours and positions (referred to field F1) were obtained for a total of 106092 stars, in F1, F2, F3 and F4.

Instrumental (F1) magnitudes were finally transformed to the standard Johnson system, using the stars in common with the bright portion of the CMD which has been properly calibrated using 10 standard stars (see Paltrinieri et al. 2001).

Fig. 3 shows the total CMD of the central region of NGC 6712 (field F1). The figure is obtained by merging the deep (180 s long exposure) and the bright (10 s exposure) data covering the core of the cluster. In the following, we deal exclusively with the properties of the cluster MS (from the TO at $`R19`$ to $`R23`$; see Table 1) while the bright portion of the CMD and the properties of the evolved stellar population are discussed elsewhere (Ferraro et al. 2000; Paltrinieri et al. 2001).

### 2.1 Incompleteness corrections

A reliable assessment of the correction for incompleteness is a crucial step because the main goal of this work is to compare with one another the $`R`$-band LFs obtained at different radial distances from the centre of the cluster and to extract in this way information on the underlying global MF. Clearly, the completeness depends on the level of crowding in the observed fields and, therefore, on their location with respect to the cluster centre. In particular, an insufficient or inappropriate correction for crowding will result in the distortion of the stellar LF with a preferential loss of fainter stars and a relative increase of bright and spurious objects. In our case, crowding is not the only source of incompleteness: the distribution in luminosity of the stars is also modified by the large number of hot pixels and bad columns affecting the original images.

To correct our photometry for incompleteness, we ran artificial star tests on both sets of frames ($`V`$ and $`R`$) independently, so as to be able to estimate the overall completeness of our final CMD. First, we applied the artificial star test to the mean $`R`$-band images: artificial stars in each given $`0.5`$ magnitude bin were added randomly to the frames, making sure not to exceed a few percent ($`10\%`$) of the total number of stars actually present in that bin so as to avoid a significant enhancement of image crowding. We then added an equal number of stars at the same positions in the $`V`$-band frames and with a magnitude such that they would fall on the cluster MS. It should be noted that we made the assumption that all artificial stars were to lie on the MS since our intent was to verify the photometric completeness of MS stars. This procedure was repeated for all the bins of each field’s CMD in both filters. To obtain a robust result, we simulated more than 200,000 stars in 250 artificial images for each field.

All pairs of $`V`$ and $`R`$ frames obtained in this way were then subjected to the same analysis used for the original frames, with the result being a catalogue of matching objects, each characterised by a position and a pair of $`V`$ and $`R`$-band magnitudes. Each of these 250 catalogues (one per artificial pair of images) was compared with the catalogue of input artificial stars: an artificial star was considered detected only when its final position and magnitudes were found to coincide with the input catalogue to within $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }y1.5`$ pixel, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mag $`0.3`$. This approach allowed us to build a map showing how photometric completeness varies with position in our frames.

If $`N_{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is the number of recovered stars in a given magnitude bin, and Nsim the number of the simulated stars in the same bin, the ratio $`N_{\mathrm{rec}}/N_{\mathrm{sim}}=\mathrm{\Phi }`$ gives the completeness in that bin for the location considered.

### 2.2 Field subtraction

In addition to correcting for photometric incompleteness, a reliable determination of the LF of NGC 6712 requires that we account for the contamination caused by field stars. We have dealt with this correction in a statistical way by using the comparison field F0, for which we have produced a CMD and assessed photometric incompleteness precisely as we did for all other fields. When it comes to measuring the LF – our final goal – we subtract from the stars found in a given magnitude bin on the cluster CMD the objects detected in the same magnitude bin in an area of equal size on the F0 field. Clearly, both numbers are corrected for their respective photometric incompleteness before doing the subtraction.

By applying the statistical field star subtraction described above, we discovered that stars located in fields F3 and F4 can be considered as belonging to the field because all the objects in the CMD of these fields are statistically compatible with being field stars. We show this in Fig. 4, where we plot the $`R`$-band LF, corrected for incompleteness, as measured in fields F3 and F0 (the solid and dashed lines, respectively). The absence of any significant trend or systematic departures of one function with respect to the other (to within $`2\sigma `$) confirms that there are no residual cluster stars at distances greater than $`5^{}`$ from the cluster centre. As a result of this finding, we decided to consider all stars lying in F3 and F4 as field stars, thus improving the statistical sample of the field, and re-defined the decontamination procedure above using as a comparison field the whole catalogue for F3, F4 and F0 ($`r5^{}`$). This result also shows that the field around NGC 6712 is relatively uniform at our required level of accuracy and further confirms that the statistical decontamination correction that we apply is reliable.

We, therefore, regarded only the F1 and F2 fields as containing cluster stars. Because of the richness of our sample of stars, we decided to investigate the variation of the LF as a function of distance on a scale smaller than the typical size of a frame. We have, thus, divided our combined photometric catalogue into a number of annuli which are centered on the cluster centre and whose size increases with distance so as to guarantee a similar number of objects in each of them. Table 2 lists the five annuli A1 – A5 that we have used, whose positions are also marked in Fig. 1. The columns in Table 2 represent, respectively, the position and size of these annuli and the number of objects measured before ($`N`$) and after ($`N_S`$) the statistical decontamination. $`N`$ is the number of objects in the range $`19<R<22`$ in each annulus before subtraction for field stars, while $`N_S`$ is the number of objects after that subtraction in the same range (selected so as to have photometric completeness always $`>50\%`$ in each annulus). Correction for photometric incompleteness is always applied before performing the subtraction. We note here that annulus A3 is not properly annular in shape, in that it extends from a radius of $`96^{\prime \prime }`$ all the way to the edge of field F 1. The outer radius given in Table 2 ($`105^{\prime \prime }`$) is that which an annulus of equivalent area would have.

We did not use the innermost regions of the cluster ($`r60^{\prime \prime }`$), as the high level of crowding and the large ensuing incompleteness would have resulted in a poor determination of the LF. Moreover, we did not include a region between annuli A3 and A4 because the level of crowding there is too high for the low resolution of the FORS1 camera at $`0\stackrel{}{.}2`$/pixel and a standard seeing quality of FWHM$`0\stackrel{}{.}6`$.

## 3 The luminosity function

We have determined the $`R`$-band LF in each one of the annuli A1 – A5 by counting the number of stars in bins of 0.5 magnitude each as a function of the $`R`$ magnitude and correcting these values for photometric incompleteness (see Sect. 2 above). The same procedure was applied to the comparison fields, and the number of stars found in this way was subtracted from the LF of annuli A1 – A5, after having properly rescaled it so as to account for the different area covered by the annuli and by the comparison field.

Analysis of the LF of annuli A4 and A5 suggests that, in the region covered by these annuli, the cluster population starts to become negligible with respect to the field (see Table 2), and the completeness drops severely below 50 % at $`R>22`$. In particular, the LF of annulus A5 oscillates statistically around zero. In the following we, therefore, focus our investigation only on the region covered by the first three annuli. The LF obtained in this way in annuli A1 – A3 are listed in Table 3 and shown graphically in Fig. 5 (boxes). Error bars in Fig. 5 reflect the total error associated with each bin and include both the Poisson statistical error and the uncertainty due to the correction for incompleteness:

$$\sigma _{bin}=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{N\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the number of stars before correction for incompleteness, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the completeness factor and the associated errors (ranging from $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Phi }0.01`$ to $`0.03`$). We note here that the equation above provides a conservative (upper limit) estimate of the uncertainty and is based on the formalism developed by Bolte (1989). To account for the errors introduced by the statistical subtraction of the comparison field, we have combined in quadrature the $`\sigma _{bin}`$ of each annulus with that of the comparison field. It should also be noted here that, the very good agreement between the field LFs shown in Fig. 4 and measured $`40^{}`$ away from one another suggests that our LFs are not likely to be affected by local fluctuations in the distribution of contaminating field stars.

Inspection of Fig. 5 immediately reveals that the three LFs, measured at different radial distances from the centre of the cluster in the range $`60^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`105^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`0.77r_h`$ to $`1.34r_h`$), are rather similar to one another: except for a modest increase with decreasing luminosity up to R $`20.5`$, they are substantially flat or slightly decreasing down to $`R23`$, where the completeness drops below $`50`$ %.

An interesting check is to compare the LF in our annuli with that derived by De Marchi et al. (1999) in a region of the cluster at a slightly larger radial distance ($`r=135^{\prime \prime }`$) and located within our zone of avoidance (see Sect. 2) between annuli A3 and A4. This comparison is shown in Fig. 5, in units of absolute $`R`$-band magnitude. To convert our measurements from $`R`$ to $`M_R`$ we have adopted a distance modulus in the $`R`$ band of $`(mM)_R=15.33`$ (see Paltrinieri et al. 2001), which differs only marginally from the value of $`(mM)_R=15.31`$ used by De Marchi et al. (1999). An inspection of this figure confirms that for NGC 6712 the LFs obtained at different radial distances from the centre have a similar shape and, over the magnitude range common to all of them, they are consistent with one another within the quoted errors in the region from $`60^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`135^{\prime \prime }`$.

This result is reassuring in that it confirms the validity of the inverted MF found by De Marchi et al. (1999; see Sect. 5 below). One should note here that De Marchi et al. could not use a comparison field to correct their LF for field star contamination and, because of this, they suggest that the number of stars in their LF was likely to be over-estimated at the faint end, since the field LF is expected to increase steadily with magnitude. As it turns out, however, field stars account for a small fraction of the total stellar population in these regions, with cluster stars being from $`4`$ to $`2`$ times more numerous at $`R21.5`$ (respectively in annuli A1 and A3). This fact, coupled with the slow rate of increase of the field LF with magnitude (see Fig. 4), makes field star contamination in the TC field not sufficient to significantly alter the shape of the LF.

## 4 The global mass function

In Fig. 6, we compare the local MF obtained in annuli A1 – A3 using FORS1 with that measured by De Marchi et al. (1999) with the TC at $`r=135^{\prime \prime }`$. Rather than converting the three individual LFs of annuli A1–A3 into MFs, we have first combined them into one single function by averaging their values in each magnitude bin, and have taken the standard deviation as a measure of the associated uncertainty (error bars). We have done that for compatibility with the approach used by De Marchi et al. (1999) for the LF obtained with the TC, and because the LFs of the three annuli are very similar to one another. In all cases (FORS1 and TC), we have obtained the MF by dividing the corresponding average LF by the derivative of the mass–luminosity (ML) relation appropriate for the metallicity of NGC 6712 (\[Fe/H\]$`=1.01`$; Harris 1997).

We plot here the results obtained using the ML relation of Baraffe et al. (1997), but using the models of Cassisi et al. (2000) would have yielded an almost identical result. The MFs derived in this way are shown in Fig. 6, where boxes connected by dashed lines represent the average of the MF in annuli A1 – A3 (upper curve) and in the TC field (lower curve), whereas the thick solid lines show the best fitting power-law MF, with index $`\alpha =0.9`$ and $`\alpha =1.5`$, respectively for the FORS1 data (upper curve) and TC data (lower curve). We should note here, however, that ignoring the data-point at $`0.4`$ M in the lower curve would result in two MFs that agree perfectly well with one another, within the errors, and the best fitting power-law to the TC data would also have $`\alpha 0.9`$ (this agreement is hardly surprising as it was already implied by the remarkable similarity of the LF). Regardless of the last data-point, however, the net result in both cases is that the number of stars decreases steadily with mass.

This result gives strong support to the claim of De Marchi et al. that there is a relative deficiency of low mass stars with respect to the stars at the TO ($`M0.75`$ M), although our data do not reach deep enough to see whether this observed drop continues all the way to $`0.3`$ M where all known GC feature a peak in their MF (Paresce & De Marchi 2000) before plunging to the H-burning limit.

The dynamical evolution of a cluster depends on both the interaction among the stars in the cluster, which locally modifies the distribution of masses (internal dynamics, i.e. mass segregation), and on the interaction with the Galaxy. In our particular case, even though NGC 6712 is likely to have experienced strong tidal shocks during its life-time (De Marchi et al. 1999; Takahashi & Portegies Zwart 2000), one wonders whether the almost identical LFs (and ensuing MFs) that we observe at the various radial distances as shown in Fig. 5 can be ascribed to the internal two-body relaxation mechanism.

To address this issue more specifically, we have simulated the dynamical structure of the cluster using a multi-mass Michie–King model constructed with an approach close to that of Gunn & Griffin (1979), as extensively described in Meylan (1987; 1988), and following the technique developed more recently by Pulone et al. (1999) and De Marchi et al. (2000), to whom we refer the reader for further details.

Each model is characterized by three structural parameters describing, respectively, the scale radius ($`r_c`$), the scale velocity ($`v_s`$), the central value of the gravitational potential ($`W_o`$), and a global MF of the form $`dNm^\alpha `$, where the exponent $`\alpha `$ would equal $`2.35`$ in the case of Salpeter’s IMF. Stellar masses have been distributed into nineteen different mass classes, covering MS stars, white dwarfs (WDs) and other heavy remnants. All stars lighter than $`0.8M_{}`$ have been considered still on their MS, while heavier stars with initial masses in the range $`8.5100`$ M have been assigned a final mass of $`1.4`$ M. WD have been subdivided into three mass classes, following the prescriptions of Meylan (1987; 1988) and assigned to the corresponding MS mass using the relations presented by Weidemann (1988) and Bragaglia et al. (1995). The lower mass limit is assumed to be $`0.085`$ M. As already shown by Meylan (1987), the exact value of different mass cutoffs does not significantly influence the result of the dynamical modelling.

In order to fit the structural parameters of NGC 6712, two different mass function exponents have been adopted: $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}`$ for stellar masses in the range $`0.8100`$ M, and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ms}}`$ for MS stars below $`0.8`$ M. We have furthermore assumed complete isotropy in the velocity distribution.

From the parameter space, we have considered only those models characterised by a surface brightness profile (SBP), a velocity dispersion profile (VDP) and a mass-to-light ($`M/L`$) ratio which would simultaneously agree well with their corresponding observed values. We have further constrained the choice among the best fitting dynamical models with the smallest reduced chi-squares, by imposing the condition that the four observed LFs (A1–A3 and TC) had to be simultaneously fitted by their theoretical counterparts as predicted by the mass stratification of the dynamical structure of the cluster (see Pulone et al. 1999 and De Marchi et al. 2000 for an extensive description of this technique). As regards the SBP of NGC 6712, in our simulations we have followed the approach of Trager et al. (1985) and have used its Chebyshev polynomial fit as evaluated on our own data (see Fig. 8), while for the VDP we have used the mean values obtained by Grindlay et al. (1988) within about three core radii. The value of $`M/L=0.7`$ has also been taken from Grindlay et al. (1988).

Thanks to the many observational constraints that we force our model to satisfy, we are able to considerably reduce the space in which parameters can range. The best fitting set of parameters requires the indexes of a power-law global MF $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ms}}`$ to take on values respectively around $`2.3`$ (the Salpeter slope) and $`0.9`$, as shown in Fig. 7. The line of sight velocity dispersion at the centre is in this case $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}=4.3`$ km s-1 and the derived mass–luminosity ratio turns out to be $`M/L=0.74`$, in perfect agreement with Grindlay et al.’s (1988) values $`\sigma _\mathrm{v}=4`$ km s-1 and $`M/L=0.7`$. The key result here, then, is that the global MF of NGC 6712 is indeed an inverted function, i.e. one that decreases with decreasing mass below $`0.8`$ M. The other parameter values of the best fitting model are: core radius $`r_\mathrm{c}=1^{}`$, half-light radius $`r_{\mathrm{hl}}=1\stackrel{}{.}8`$, tidal radius $`r_\mathrm{t}=5\stackrel{}{.}2`$, concentration ratio $`c=0.7`$, total mass of the cluster $`M_{\mathrm{cl}}=7\times 10^4`$ M, mass fraction in heavy remnants $`f=0.6`$.

A large fraction of mass in the form of white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes such as the one that we find here might be surprising. Heavy remnants are usually thought to account for up to 20 – 30 % of the mass of a cluster (Meylan & Heggie 1997), whereas our result suggests at least twice as many. The amount of heavy remnants depends here exclusively on the shape of the IMF for stars more massive than $`0.8`$ M$``$. Because the latter have already evolved off the MS and are no longer observable, the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}`$ is not as strongly constrained in our model as is that that of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ms}}`$ for less massive stars. If, for instance, a value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}=6`$ were used, the fraction of heavy remnants could be brought down to $`25\%`$. Besides being highly suspicious in a mass range where all known stellar populations display a Salpeter-like IMF (see e.g. Kroupa 2001), such a steep MF exponent would also strongly affect the $`M/L`$ ratio, forcing it to take on the value of $`0.2`$, which is very discordant with the $`M/L=0.7`$ measured by Grindlay et al. (1988). We, therefore, leave the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{up}}`$ unchanged and consider in the next section the observational consequences that the ensuing large fraction of heavy remnants implies.

The key result here, nevertheless, is that the current global MF of NGC 6712 is indeed an inverted function, i.e. one that decreases with decreasing mass, starting at least from $`0.8`$ M. Although all clusters whose LF has been studied in the core show an inverted local MF there (as a result of mass segregation: see e.g. Paresce et al. 1995; King et al. 1995; De Marchi & Paresce 1996), NGC 6712 is the only known cluster so far to feature an inverted MF on a global scale. McClure et al. (1985) and Smith et al. (1986) have observed a LF that drops with decreasing luminosity in the halo clusters E 3 (see also Veronesi et al. 1996) and Palomar 5, respectively. The actual shape of the corresponding global MF, however, is not known, as only a single field is available in each cluster. These objects are, nonetheless, very interesting and should be studied using deeper, higher resolution photometry at several locations in the clusters to properly address the effects of mass segregation.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

As Fig. 7 confirms, the observed (small) variation of the shape of the LF with distance from the cluster centre is fully consistent with the mechanism of mass segregation ensuing from energy equipartition as currently understood in many other clusters (Meylan & Heggie 1997). We, therefore, cannot hold internal dynamical evolution responsible for the observed inverted global MF in NGC 6712: such a mechanism, in fact, could only account for the inverted MF near the core of the cluster, but not elsewhere (see De Marchi et al. 2000).

There remain, thus, only two ways to explain the inverted global MF of this cluster, as already proposed by De Marchi et al. (1999). Namely, either NGC 6712 was born with an inverted IMF, at least for stars less massive than $`0.8`$ M, or the interaction with the tidal field of the Galaxy (and more specifically disk and bulge shocking through its frequent and repeated perigalacticon passages) has imparted a strong modification to the stellar population of this cluster during its life-time, as its orbit forces it to penetrate deeply into the bulge at its disk crossings.

Although the former hypothesis cannot be completely ruled out, it is highly unsatisfactory as it would explain one anomaly — the inverted global MF — by invoking another one, namely an inverted IMF. A careful investigation of the deep LF of a dozen GCs by Paresce & De Marchi (2000) shows no evidence of such an inverted IMF. Their sample does, admittedly, only cover $`10\%`$ of the total population of GC, but it contains clusters in widely different orbits and dynamical states so that it can be regarded as representative of the whole Galactic GC system. Still, the hypothesis of an inverted IMF cannot be excluded, at least until the origin of the inverted LF observed long ago in E 3 (McClure et al. 1985) and Pal 5 (Smith et al. 1986) is understood (see Sect. 4 above).

On the other hand, there seems to be more solid observational and theoretical support for the latter hypothesis, namely that the cluster has suffered severe tidal stripping which has remarkably altered its stellar population. Recent calculations of the orbit of NGC 6712 and consequent destruction rate by Gnedin & Ostriker (1997) and Dinescu et al. (1999) clearly suggest that it has one of the highest destruction rates of a large sample of Galactic GC and that it is one of the few objects for which the tidal-shock rate is higher than its two-body relaxation rate. One would, thus, expect that the strong tidal interaction during the disk crossings and the consequent tidal shocking should provoke a continuous loss of low-mass stars, especially from beyond the half-light radius, and a consequent rapid change of the stellar mass distribution. Precisely on this basis, Takahashi & Portegies Zwart (2000) have suggested that NGC 6712 has lost 99 % of its mass during its life-time and that it is now obviously only a pale remnant of its initial much more massive condition.

One might wonder, however, how the internal dynamics of a cluster which has suffered such a tremendous mass loss could still conform so well to the predictions of standard two-body relaxation and energy equipartition as Fig. 7 indicates. Johnston et al. (1999), on the other hand, have shown that the tidal stripping operated by the Galaxy on a GC results in a steady differential loss of stars (light stars being dislodged more easily than massive ones) with the consequent continuous decrease of the exponent $`\alpha `$ of the global MF and the ensuing flattening of the latter. Although the inclination of the cluster’s orbit determines the rate at which the MF exponent decreases, all orbits with perigalacticon within a few kpc of the Galactic centre are exposed to this erosion. For clusters such as NGC 6712, whose orbit is mostly contained within the disk (Dauphole et al. 1996), the heating due to disk and bulge shocking is diluted over a long time, comparable with the dynamical relaxation time of the cluster itself.111We note here that the half-mass relaxation time of $`t_{\mathrm{hm}}1`$ Gyr quoted by Harris (1996) is most likely an over-estimate for NGC 6712. A value of 1 Gyr is approximately the average $`t_{\mathrm{hm}}`$ for all GCs, and NGC 6712 is far less populous and smaller than the average Galactic cluster. It is, thus, not unreasonable that two-body relaxation can proceed almost undisturbed, and it does so on a continuously varying mass spectrum.

A natural consequence of tidal stripping is the formation of tidal tails surrounding the cluster (Grillmair et al. 1995). While the latter might be relatively easy to identify around clusters on highly inclined orbits and currently well away from the Galactic plane, looking for extra-tidal populations around NGC 6712 is very difficult, because of its orbit and current location in the Galaxy, and even more so because the surface brightness of this excess of stars which might have been ejected from the interior but are still loosely bound to it is expected to be about 4 orders of magnitude lower than in the core (Johnston et al. 1999). We have, nevertheless, searched the region near the cluster’s tidal radius ($`>5^{}`$) but, not surprisingly, the radial density profile that we have measured does not reveal any obvious over-density near the cluster’s boundary (see Fig. 8). On the other hand, we were forced to limit our investigation to stars in the range $`19.5<R<20.5`$ (i.e. to $`0.75`$ M stars), so as to minimise the effects of variable photometric completeness and crowding with distance, and it is quite likely that most of these stars should today dwell preferentially in the central regions of the cluster, rather than in its periphery, as a result of mass segregation.

The radial density profile that we show in Fig. 8, however, has allowed us to define a more reliable tidal radius for this cluster. The thick dashed line marks a typical King-type profile with $`r_c=1^{}`$ and $`r_t=5\stackrel{}{.}2`$, superimposed on a plateau of field stars. A tidal radius of $`5^{}`$ is fully consistent with our finding of a statistically null cluster LF in annulus A5 (which extends to $`r=5\stackrel{}{.}1`$). Although we have limited our analysis to stars for which photometric completeness is always $`>85\%`$, severe crowding and the concentration of many saturated stars in the innermost regions could make our determination of the core radius $`r_c`$ uncertain. Using shorter FORS1 exposures of the central $`2^{}`$ radius of this cluster, however, Paltrinieri et al. (2001) also find a value of $`r_c1^{}`$, in excellent agreement with that estimated here.

Thus, assessing whether NGC 6712 was indeed much more massive in the past than it is now, as suggested by the work of Takahashi & Portegies Zwart (2000), would require a more accurate search for tidal tails surrounding the cluster, using a large field of view and sophisticated reduction techniques such as those developed by Grillmair et al. (1995) and, more recently, by Leon et al. (2000). On the other hand, the severe field contamination would necessarily limit the effectiveness of this technique. Moreover, even revealing the presence of tidal tails would not provide strong constraints on the original cluster mass. To be sure, tidal stripping has taken place throughout the whole life of the cluster and the majority of the stars lost in this way should be today totally unbound and dispersed elsewhere in the Galaxy.

A more precise, quantitative estimate of the original cluster mass could, however, come from a census of the WD population in its core. If NGC 6712 was indeed originally as massive as $`10^7`$ M, then a large number of WDs should now populate its core. Even ignoring the effects of mass segregation (which would further increase the WD population in the core by draining them from the periphery and forcing them to drift there by virtue of their higher mass), the prescriptions of Renzini (1985) suggest that $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ WDs brighter than $`M_V14`$ ($`V28.5`$) should dwell in the central $`100^{\prime \prime }`$ radius of the cluster, if the latter had its present mass $`5`$ Gyr ago. Clearly, if its mass that long ago was even only ten times as much as it is now, we would expect of order $`\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ WDs within a $`100^{\prime \prime }`$ radius. Already on the basis of the available data we can conclude that a large fraction ($`60\%`$ or more) of the cluster’s mass must be in the form of heavy remnants (see Sect. 4). Whether the cluster was originally only a few times more massive than it is now or whether it was one of the most massive in the Galaxy cannot be determined with certainty at present, although the N-body simulations of Vesperini & Heggie (1996) seem to suggest the latter option. With a powerful instrument such as the Advanced Camera for Surveys soon to be installed on board the HST, however, this scenario can easily be tested observationally and the suspected ongoing dissolution of NGC 6712 reliably characterised.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are indebted to Carlton Pryor (the referee) whose comments and remarks have considerably strengthened the presentation of our results. It is our pleasure to thank Isabelle Baraffe for providing us with the tabulated theoretical M-L relations, and Barbara Paltrinieri for carrying out the reduction of the short exposures of NGC 6712. G.A. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of ESO through the Director General’s Discretionary Research Fund. F.R.F. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Visitor Programme during his stay at ESO when he contributed to this paper. G.A., R.B., F.R.F. and L.P. acknowledge the finacial support of the Ministero della Università e Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica through the programme ”Stellar Dynamics and Stellar evolution in Globular Clusters.”