text:
# Off shell behaviour of the in medium nucleon-nucleon cross section

## I Introduction

One major topic of modern nuclear physics is the investigation of hadron properties inside a dense hadronic environment which exists, e.g. in the interior of neutron stars or is transiently created in energetic heavy ion collisions. In the latter case, the theoretical framework to describe the time evolution of heavy ion reactions is provided by kinetic transport theory. Starting from the quantum theory of strongly interacting Fermi systems, formulated within the framework of the Dyson-Schwinger hierarchy of non-equilibrium many-body Green functions  one can derive semi-classical transport equations of a Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) type . These transport equations describe successfully the time evolution of a non-equilibrated strongly interaction hadron gas. To mention only the essential steps of such a derivation there are: the truncation of the many-body hierarchy at the two-body level, a Wigner transformation of the density matrices with subsequent gradient expansion up to first order in $`\mathrm{}`$ and the usage of the quasi-particle approximation (QPA) which neglects the finite decay width of the particles. The resulting BUU equation consists of two parts, a drift term which propagates the particles dressed by the surrounding medium in a self-consistent mean field, and the collisions term responsible for binary nucleon-nucleon scattering. In a consistent treatment both ingredients, namely the mean field and the binary cross sections should be treated on the same footing which means to base both of them on the same effective interaction. Unfortunately, in most applications to heavy ion collisions this is not done. The self consistent mean field accounts for medium effects by its density dependence. For the cross section, on the other hand side, the free (vacuum) expressions are widely used in transport calculations. It has, however, been noticed that in particular at incident energies below the particle production thresholds, medium modifications of the cross sections can play an important role for the reaction dynamics in heavy ion collisions .

The relativistic (Dirac-) Brueckner approach  provides a powerful tool to achieve such a consistent description. Starting from free nucleon-nucleon interactions, given in its modern form by one-boson-exchange potentials  one treats the two-body correlations in dense nuclear matter in the ladder approximation of the Bethe-Salpeter equation. As a result the nuclear matter saturation properties are quite well described. This is achieved without the adjustment of additional parameters, as e.g. done in relativistic mean field models . On the level of the T-matrix approximation both ingredients for the BUU equation follow from the on-shell in-medium T-matrix (or G-matrix). The mean field is determined by the real part $`ReT`$ of the T-matrix whereas the cross section $`\sigma |T|^2`$ is connected to the imaginary part $`ImT`$ via an optical theorem . Medium modifications arise due to the dressing of the quasi-particles and the existence of the Pauli operator which prevents the scattering of intermediate states in the Bethe-Salpeter equation (not final states) into occupied phase space areas. Both aspects are most pronounced at high densities and/or low momenta and lead to a suppression of the in-medium cross section compared to the free one.

There have already several studies been devoted to the in-medium NN scattering problem. The Tübingen group  and later on the Rostock group  derived in-medium cross sections within the non-relativistic Brueckner approach, in the latter case also at finite temperature. Relativistic calculations were performed in . The most complete study of in-medium NN scattering within the Dirac-Brueckner approach was probably done by Li and Machleidt  who used the BONN potentials as bare interaction. Unfortunately the different approaches have led to partially contradictory results, in particular between relativistic  and the non-relativistic calculations . Therefore, in the first part of the paper we revisit the problem of on-shell scattering. The results are obtained with the BONN A potential. In large parts we find a good agreement with the previous investigations of Li and Machleidt . However, their treatment  seems to overestimate the suppression of the in-medium cross section at low energies compared to the vacuum case.

The second part of the paper is devoted to an additional aspect: Kinetic transport equations are essentially based on the quasi-particle approximation (QPA) which puts the nucleons on the mass-shell. The same holds in the medium for the dressed quasi-particles. If the imaginary part of the nucleonic self-energy is negligible ($`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }Re\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) the quasi-particle approximation as the zero-width limit ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }Im\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) for the nucleon spectral function appears to be justified . However, it is well known that the spectral widths of hadrons change in the medium. It has further been pointed out that in the medium also “stable” particles can obtain a non-zero width, depending on their collision rates (collisional broadening), see e.g. . Following the work of Botermans and Malfliet  there have been several attempts to derive transport equations for non-equilibrated Fermi systems beyond the quasi-particle approximation, see  and references therein. However, due to the complications which arise giving up the QPA these transport equations were never used in practical applications to heavy ion reactions but stayed more or less on the level of academical considerations. Just very recently there have been successful attempts to formulate generalised transport equations which can be handled in applications using testparticle methods . As the basic feature of these approaches energy and momentum of the testparticles are no more related by the mass-shell condition but according to their spectral distributions. Thus particles are propagated and also scattered off mass-shell. Hence, the knowledge of off-shell scattering amplitudes becomes necessary. However, the behaviour of such amplitudes is presently unknown to large extent. The off-shell structure of the scattering amplitude determines in this context also the magnitude of non-local corrections to the Boltzmann equation which can be translated into non-local time and momentum shifts in the binary scattering process .

Here again the relativistic Brueckner approach provides the natural tool to determine in-medium off-shell scattering amplitudes in the ladder approximation. In the present work we extend the on-shell NN scattering to the half-off-shell case where the incoming particles are still on their mass shells but the final states are generally off-shell. These matrix elements provide valuable information for future transport investigations beyond the QPA. We investigate the off-shell structure of the in-medium T-matrix, respectively the transition amplitudes $`|T|^2`$, and the resulting cross sections over a wide range of nuclear matter densities.

The paper is now organised as follows: First (Sec. II) we briefly sketch the basic features of the relativistic Brueckner approach. In Sec. III the on-shell scattering problem in the medium is discussed. Neutron-neutron and proton-proton channels are considered separately and total and differential cross section are given. We also compare with results of other groups, mainly those of Li and Machleidt . In Sec. IV we turn to the half off-shell case and discuss the structure of transition amplitudes and cross sections beyond the quasi-particle approximation and summarise in Sec. V.

## II Relativistic Brueckner approach

In the relativistic Brueckner approach the Bethe-Salpeter equation is reduced to a three dimensional integral equation of the Lippmann-Schwinger type, the so called Thompson equation . The Thompson propagator projects thereby the intermediate nucleons onto positive energy states and restricts the exchanged energy transfer by $`\delta (k^0)`$ to zero. The Thompson equation is most easily solved in the two-nucleon c.m.-frame

$$T(𝐩,𝐪,𝐏)|_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=V(𝐩,𝐪)+\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}V(𝐩,𝐤)\frac{M^2}{E^2(𝐤)}\frac{Q(𝐤,𝐏)}{2E^{}(𝐪)2E^{}(𝐤)+iϵ}T(𝐤,𝐪,𝐏)$$
(1)
where $`𝐪=(𝐪_1𝐪_2)/2=(𝐪_1^{}𝐪_2^{})/2`$ is the relative momentum of the initial states and similar $`𝐩,𝐤`$ are the relative momenta of the final and intermediate states, respectively. $`𝐏=(𝐪_1+𝐪_2)`$ is the c.m. momentum. The starting energy in Eq. (1) is fixed to $`\sqrt{s^{}}=2E^{}(𝐪)`$. Sandwiching the one-boson-exchange potential $`V`$ (1) between in-medium spinors (4) the matrix elements acquire a density dependence which is absent in non-relativistic treatments and which is believed to be the major reason for the much improved description of the nuclear saturation properties  in the relativistic theory. The Pauli operator $`Q`$ prevents intermediate states from scattering into forbidden phase space areas.

Inside the medium the particles are dressed which leads to effective masses and the kinetic momentum

$$M^{}(k)=M+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(k),k^\mu =k^\mu +\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu (k).$$
(2)
Re and Im denote real and imaginary part since (above the Fermi surface) the self-energy is generally complex. Here we adopt the quasiparticle approximation, i.e., the Im $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$ will be neglected in Eq. (1). This means that the decay width of the dressed nucleon state $`k`$ to another state $`k^{}`$ is set equal to zero, resulting in an infinite lifetime of this ’quasiparticle’ state. Furthermore, the explicit momentum dependence of the self-energy which enters via a term $`𝐤\mathrm{\Sigma }_v`$ proportional to the spatial component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_v`$ of the vector self-energy is small and can be dealt by introducing the reduced kinetic momentum $`\stackrel{~}{k}^\mu =k^\mu /(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_v)`$ and the reduced effective mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=M^{}/(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_v)`$ . Thus, the nucleons are given by plane waves which fulfil a quasi-free Dirac equation

$$\left[\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{k}^\mu \stackrel{~}{M}^{}\right]u_\lambda (k)=0.$$
(3)
Using the normalisation of Ref.  the self-consistent positive-energy spinors of helicity $`\lambda `$ are defined as

$$u_\lambda (k)=\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{E}^{}(k)+\stackrel{~}{M}^{}}{2\stackrel{~}{M}^{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \frac{2\lambda |𝐤|}{\stackrel{~}{E}^{}(k)+\stackrel{~}{M}^{}}\end{array}\right)\chi _\lambda $$
(4)
with $`\chi _\lambda `$ being a Pauli spinor. The Dirac spinors depend on the effective mass and thus on the nuclear density. In the Thompson equation (1) and in the discussion below we deal with the rescaled quantities $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}^{}`$ but will omit this in the notation further on.

To summarise the kinematics of the Thompson equation:
1. The initial states are on-shell, i.e. $`q_\mu =\{E^{}(𝐪),\pm 𝐪\}`$ with $`E^{}(𝐪)=\sqrt{M^2+𝐪^2}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s^{}}`$. The final states fulfil energy-momentum conservation $`p_\mu =\{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s^{}},\pm 𝐩\}`$ and are off-shell as soon as $`|𝐩||𝐪|`$.
2. The determination of the off-shell matrix elements is perturbative in the sense that the quasiparticle approximation is applied to the Thompson equation, although $`T`$ is generally complex for incident momenta above the Fermi surface which leads to a non-vanishing imaginary part of the self-energy $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and correspondingly, an imaginary optical potential .

To determine the scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ and vector components $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_v`$ of the self-energy is a subtle problem. Here on-shell ambiguities arise form the projection onto positive energy states when the T-matrix is decomposed into Lorentz invariant amplitudes. This problem has been known for a long time  and is still not completely resolved. In  we discussed the failure of previously used recipes  which lead to spurious contributions in the self-energy from the coupling to negative energy states, in particular spurious contributions from a pseudo-scalar one-pion-exchange which are not completely replaced by a pseudo-vector coupling. In Ref.  this problem was extensively discussed and a method to minimise the on-shell ambiguities was proposed. Here we used the scheme of  where the Born term $`V`$ and the remaining ladder kernel of the Thompson equation are treated separately. Thus we account properly for the pseudo-vector structure of the Born contributions $`V_{\pi ,\eta }`$ from $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$ exchange contributions when the projection of the full $`T`$-matrix onto covariant amplitudes is performed. The remaining ladder kernel thereby is treated as pseudo-scalar.

To solve the Thompson equation (1) in the c.m.-system we apply standard techniques which are in detail described by Erkelenz . After a partial wave projection onto the $`|JMLS>`$-states the integral reduces to a one-dimensional integral over the relative momentum $`|𝐤|`$ and Eq. (1) decouples into three subsystems of integral equations for the uncoupled spin singlet, the uncoupled spin triplet and the coupled triplet states. Due to the antisymmetry of the two-fermion states we can restore the total isospin (I=0,1) of the two-nucleon system with the help of the selection rule $`()^{L+S+\mathrm{I}}=1`$ which means that matrix elements are already antisymmetrized.

The Pauli operator $`Q`$ is replaced by an angle averaged Pauli operator $`\overline{Q}`$. For non-vanishing c.m. momenta the Fermi sphere is in the two-nucleon c.m.-frame deformed to a Fermi ellipsoid for which $`\overline{Q}`$ has to be evaluated . We are solving the integral equations by the matrix inversion techniques of Haftel and Tabakin . Real and imaginary parts of the T-matrix are calculated separately by the principal-value treatment given by Trefz et al. . From there it is seen that $`ImT`$ is essentially proportional to the angle averaged Pauli operator and thus it is strongly reduced for momenta below the Fermi surface due to Pauli blocking. Then positive-energy helicity T-matrix elements are constructed from the $`|JMLS>`$-scheme as described in . From general symmetries it follows that for each total angular momentum $`J`$ only six of the sixteen helicity matrix elements are independent

$`T_1=<++|T^J(p,q)|++>`$ , $`T_2=<++|T^J(p,q)|>`$ (5)
$`T_3=<+|T^J(p,q)|+>`$ , $`T_4=<+|T^J(p,q)|+>`$ (6)
$`T_5=<++|T^J(p,q)|+>`$ , $`T_6=<+|T^J(p,q)|++>`$ (7)
which in the on-shell case $`|𝐩|=|𝐪|`$ further reduce to five independent matrix elements since then $`T_5=T_6`$. From the six independent amplitudes in the $`|JMLS>`$-representation the six independent partial wave amplitudes (7) in the helicity representation (for I=0,1 and real and imaginary part separately) are obtained as described in Ref. . Summation over $`J`$ yields the full helicity matrix elements (7)

$$\underset{J}{}\left[\frac{2J+1}{4\pi }\right]d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^J(\theta )<\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}|T^J(p,q)|\lambda _1\lambda _2>=<𝐩\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}|\widehat{T}|𝐪\lambda _1\lambda _2>.$$
(8)
Here $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐩`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda _1\lambda _2,\lambda ^{}=\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}`$. The reduced rotation matrices $`d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^J(\theta )`$ are those defined by Rose . The matrix elements on the left hand side of Eq. (8) are independent of the third component of the isospin $`\mathrm{I}_3`$ and depend only on the absolute values $`p,q`$ of the momenta.

## III On-shell scattering

The on-shell nucleon-nucleon cross section can be directly determined from the T-matrix amplitudes. In this case the extension to off-shell scattering is straightforward. Another possibility is to determine the on-shell phase shifts . Doing so, an extension to the off-shell case is, however, unclear. Furthermore, the definition of the vacuum phase shifts, see e.g. refs. , has to be modified inside the medium to account for the modified unitarity relations. To be more precise, the definition of in-medium phase shifts should include the Pauli operator as pointed out in . To avoid such problems we will directly determine the cross sections from the matrix elements. The squared matrix elements are given as

$$|\widehat{T}(p,q,\theta )|^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}\beta _i\left[\left(\underset{J}{}\frac{2J+1}{4\pi }d_{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{}}^J(\theta )ReT_i^J(p,q)\right)^2+\left(\underset{J}{}\frac{2J+1}{4\pi }d_{\lambda _i\lambda _i^{}}^J(\theta )ImT_i^J(p,q)\right)^2\right].$$
(9)
The weighting factors $`\beta _i=2,i=\mathrm{1..4}`$ and $`\beta _5=\beta _6=4`$ arise from the sum over all helicity states. Using the orthogonality relation for the rotation matrices

$$d\mathrm{cos}(\theta )d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^J(\theta )d_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^J^{}(\theta )=\frac{2}{2J+1}\delta _{JJ^{}}$$
(10)
one obtains

$$𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }|\widehat{T}(p,q,\theta )|^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}\beta _i\underset{J}{}\frac{2J+1}{4\pi }\left[\left(ReT_i^J(p,q)\right)^2+\left(ImT_i^J(p,q)\right)^2\right]$$
(11)
In the on-shell case $`p=q`$ the differential cross section follows from the matrix elements by the standard expression

$$d\sigma =\frac{(M^{})^4}{s^{}4\pi ^2}|\widehat{T}(q,q,\theta )|^2d\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(12)
### A Free cross section

The predictions of the Bonn potentials for free NN cross sections have in detail been discussed by Li and Machleidt . Throughout this work we apply the Bonn A potential  and the results of  for the vacuum case are reproduced with high accuracy for both, differential and total cross sections. To demonstrate this feature, the results from  are included in Figs.6 and 7 where the total neutron-proton ($`T_i^J=0.5(T_i^{J,I=0}+T_i^{J,I=1})`$) and proton-proton ($`T_i^J=T_i^{J,I=1}`$) cross section are shown. As found in  the $`pp`$ cross section is in particular at low energies significantly smaller than the $`np`$ cross section. It should, however, be noted that in the present work as well as in ref.  the $`pp`$ cross sections are not Coulomb corrected.

### B In-medium cross section

As already pointed out in refs.  a trivial medium modification of the cross sections arises from the in-medium masses entering into the kinematical term $`(M^{})^4/s^{}`$ in eq. (12) which is due to the normalisation of the relativistic spinor basis and the incoming flux. This phase space factor reduces the in-medium cross section by the order of $`(M^{}/M)^2`$ at small momenta.

Besides the fact that one deals with dressed quasi-particles the essential feature of the Bethe-Goldstone or Bethe-Salpeter equation, respectively, is the occurrence of the Pauli operator. This means that the vacuum relations which connect the phase shifts with the real reaction matrix $`R`$ are modified by the Pauli operator. In a schematic notation***For the clarity of the notation we suppress in eqs. (13-15) factors $`\frac{M^{}}{E^{}}`$ which can be absorbed into $`R`$ and $`T`$  and the $`\delta `$-function originating from the principle value treatment of the Blankenbecler-Sugar, respectively the Thompson propagator. the in-medium reaction matrix $`R`$ is connected to the $`T`$-matrix by

$$\widehat{R}\widehat{T}=i\pi \widehat{R}Q\widehat{T}$$
(13)
which leads to a modified optical theorem

$`|\widehat{T}|^2={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}^2}{1+(\pi \widehat{R}Q)^2}}=(\pi Q)^1|Im\widehat{T}|.`$ (14)
With $`Q=1`$ the vacuum expressions are recovered. The modification of the optical theorem by the presence of the medium, in particular the appearance of the inverse Pauli operator which compensates at momenta below the Fermi surface for the vanishing $`Im\widehat{T}`$, has been discussed in . It becomes clear from (14) that the use of the vacuum relations (with $`Q=1`$) to extract phase shifts from the in-medium reaction matrix $`R`$ is an approximation justified at low densities and/or high energies. In between the Pauli operator is essentially different from unity and appears in the denominator of eq. (14). Neglecting here the influence of the Pauli operator will lead to an underestimation of the corresponding cross sections. The real and imaginary part of the T-matrix are related to the reaction matrix by

$`Re\widehat{T}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{R}}{1+(\pi \widehat{R}Q)^2}},Im\widehat{T}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi Q\widehat{R}^2}{1+(\pi \widehat{R}Q)^2}}.`$ (15)
We emphasise this point because, as will be seen in the following, we find the in-medium cross sections to be substantially less suppressed at low momenta than found by Li and Machleidt  whereas we obtain a good agreement with their results at high momenta. The reason for the deviations can be traced back to the different procedures used to determine the cross sections. As discussed in sec. 2 the squared matrix elements (9) provide an unambiguous and direct method to extract the cross section. To determine phase shifts first, has to be done with caution since the occurrence of the Pauli operator modifies the corresponding phase shift relations in the medium . If neglected, as done in the approximation used in Ref. , this effect leads in particular at low momenta to an underprediction of the cross section. To illustrate this effect in Fig. 4 we investigate the influence of the Pauli operator on the in-medium $`np`$ cross section. For a fair comparison the density ($`k_F=1.4\mathrm{fm}^1`$) as well as the value of $`M^{}`$ are chosen as in Ref. . One curve in Fig.1 is obtained by switching off the Pauli operator in the Thompson equation (1), i.e. setting $`\overline{Q}1`$. It is clearly seen that the influence of the Pauli operator leads even to an enhancement of the cross section at momenta below $`180`$ MeV compared to the $`\overline{Q}1`$ case which is due to the occurrence of $`Q`$ in the denominator in Eqs. (14,15). As expected, at very small momenta the presence of the Pauli operator leads to a significant suppression of the cross section. One should, however, keep in mind that the Pauli operator acts here only on the intermediate states in the Thompson equation (1) and not on the final states. Thus full Pauli blocking $`\overline{Q}0`$ reduces the full T-matrix to its Born part $`\widehat{V}`$. In the transport approach, on the other hand side, the Pauli blocking prevents also the scattering into occupied final states. Thus Fig. 4 refers only to the Pauli effects in the intermediate states, but demonstrates the importance to account properly for the Pauli operator in the in-medium optical theorem (14).

In the following we consider the in-medium cross sections at four different Fermi momenta $`k_F=1.1,1.34,1.7`$ and $`1.9`$ MeV which corresponds to densities $`\rho =0.090,0.1625,0.332`$ and 0.4633 fm-3. For simplicity we denote these densities in the text as 0.5/1/2/3 $`\rho _0`$ although these values do not exactly correspond to multiples of $`\rho _0=0.1625fm^3`$. Again all calculations are performed using the Bonn A potential. The in-medium mass $`M^{}`$ entering into eq. (12) has in our calculation the values $`M^{}=766.6,646.7,433.6,`$ and $`310.1`$ MeV. These values are slightly larger than those of ref. . Thus we expect also slightly larger values for the in-medium cross section, in particular at low momenta which are due to higher values for the kinematical factor $`(M^{})^4/s^{}`$. The reason for the different effective masses lies in different solution techniques for the Thompson equation (1). As discussed in Sec. 2, we apply a refined projection scheme in order to transform the $`T`$ matrix from the two-particle c.m. frame to the nuclear matter rest frame where the self-energy components (2) are determined . In the medium the on-shell T-matrix (1) depends on three variables, the relative momentum $`𝐪`$ of the initial states, the scattering angle $`\theta `$ and the centre-of-mass momentum $`𝐏`$ of the two-particle c.m. frame relative to the nuclear matter rest frame. As in refs.  we consider only the case where the two-particle c.m. frame and the nuclear matter rest frame coincide, i.e. $`𝐏=0`$.

In Fig. 2 the differential $`np`$ cross section at the different densities is shown at fixed relative momentum $`|𝐪|`$=342 MeV which in the vacuum corresponds to a laboratory energy of $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}=\frac{2𝐪^2}{M}`$=250 MeV. The vacuum definition of $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}`$ was used in  to compare the cross sections at different densities. The presence of the medium tends to make the $`np`$ differential cross section more isotropic. At backward angles the cross section are decreasing with density. At forward angles the behaviour is more complicated: At moderate densities ($`\rho =0.5/1\rho _0`$) the cross section is reduced but at high densities ($`\rho =2\mathrm{and}3\rho _0`$) a strong enhancement of the forward scattering amplitude can be observed. It is worth to notice that in this energy range we are in good agreement with the results obtained by Li and Machleidt . Similar results have been obtained at 0.5, 1 and 2$`\rho _0`$ and also at 2$`\rho _0`$ the cross section was found to be enhanced at forward angles compared to $`\rho _0`$. Going higher in density (3$`\rho _0`$) we find this effect even more pronounced. While the cross section stays now almost constant at backward angles it is strongly enhanced at forward angles. However, at 3$`\rho _0`$ the cross section is highly anisotropic and dominated by a $`p`$-wave component. Here we see a suppression of higher partial waves with increasing density. At $`3\rho _0`$ one needs partial waves up to at least $`J6`$ to approximate the full result ($`J=12`$), at $`2\rho _0`$ the partial waves $`J4`$ are almost sufficient and at $`3\rho _0`$ the behaviour is like an $`s+p`$-wave with $`J1`$. Fig.3 shows the same for $`pp`$ scattering. Again our results are in good agreement with the findings of ref. . In the $`I=1`$ channel ($`pp`$) the cross sections are generally more isotropic than in the $`np`$ channel. With rising density the cross sections are first decreasing ($`0.5\rho _0,\rho _0`$) and then increasing. At $`3\rho _0`$ we observe a dramatic increase of the cross section at forward angles. In the $`pp`$ cross section the contributions of higher partial waves are reduced with growing density, e.g. at $`\rho _0`$ partial waves up to $`J4`$ reproduced the full result quite well whereas at $`3\rho _0`$ only contributions from $`J3`$ are relevant.

The peculiar behaviour at $`3\rho _0`$ seen in Figs. 2, 3 can be understood from the presence of the mean field. In Figs. 2, 3 we investigated the density dependence of the cross sections at an equivalent relative c.m. momentum $`𝐪`$. This does, however, not correspond to equivalent energies. At finite density the laboratory energy $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}(|𝐪|,\rho )=E(|𝐪|,\rho )M`$ is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{lab}}=\frac{2𝐪^2}{M^{}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_s\mathrm{\Sigma }_0$$
(16)
and is therefore strongly modified by the presence of the mean field. At high densities the energy scale is stretched by the decreasing effective mass $`M^{}`$. This effect is responsible for the suppression of higher partial wave contribution to the differential cross section above $`2\rho _0`$ if one compares the cross sections at identical c.m. momenta but at essentially different incident energies.

To illustrate this effect in fig.4 we show the density dependence of the differential $`np`$ cross section at the same laboratory energy $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}250`$ MeV. At comparable energies rather than comparable c.m. momenta the difference in the differential cross section at $`\rho _0`$ and $`3\rho _0`$ is now much less pronounced.

The suppression of the in-medium cross section at forward angles which occurs at higher densities can be understood from Fig.5 and eq. (15). This figure illustrates the influence of the Pauli operator and the imaginary part of the T-matrix. It is seen that at $`\rho _0`$ the imaginary part of $`T`$ which contributes in the vacuum by about 50% to the forward scattering amplitude ($`\theta =0`$) is now strongly suppressed by the Pauli operator. This effects is maximal at low momenta and high densities. When $`𝐪`$ lies below the Fermi surface the imaginary part of $`T`$ vanishes completely. Thus, Pauli blocking in the intermediate states makes the cross section more isotropic.

In Figs. 6 and 7 we show the total in-medium $`np`$ and $`pp`$ cross sections in the considered density range $`0.5\rho _03\rho _0`$ as a function of $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}`$, Eq. (16). Using this quantity the scale is considerably stretched compared to the vacuum expression $`\frac{2𝐪^2}{M}`$ (used in ). There are two major aspects to be noticed: At high energies $`E_{\mathrm{lab}}200`$ MeV we find good agreement with the previous calculations of ref. . For $`np`$ as well as $`pp`$ scattering the cross sections reach asymptotic values around 15-20 mb. At high densities the cross section has the tendency to rise again with increasing laboratory energy. This behaviour is even more pronounced in the proton-proton channel and has been observed by other groups as well .

At low energies the in-medium cross sections are considerably less suppressed than observed in ref. . One reason are our somewhat larger values for the in-medium mass, but this effect is not sufficient to explain the deviations at low energies. As illustrated by Fig.1 the differences can be understood by the low density/high momentum approximation made in  which neglects the influence of the Pauli operator in the optical theorem. Besides this point, at $`0.5\rho _0`$ we see a small additional enhancement of the $`np`$ cross section around an energy of 15 MeV which not present in the $`pp`$ channel. A much stronger enhancement of the cross section at low densities has been observed by Alm et al. . In the finite temperature approach of  this critical enhancement is attributed to the onset of superfluidity. Crucial for such a superfluid state are contributions from hole-hole scattering in the Pauli operator which are absent in the standard Brueckner approach (used here). However, as discussed in  a signature of a bound pair state can appear at low densities even when hole-hole scattering is neglected in the Pauli operator. In the present calculations such an resonance like enhancement of the cross section is only seen in the $`I=0`$ amplitudes which correspond to the quantum numbers of the deuteron, i.e. the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ and the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$-$`{}_{}{}^{3}D_{1}^{}`$ transition channels. Therefore the low density enhancement of the $`np`$ cross section can be interpreted as a precursor of a superfluid state and supports the findings of .

## IV half off-shell scattering

### A Matrix elements

In the following we consider the case of half off-shell scattering. This means that the initial states with c.m. momenta $`\pm 𝐪`$ are on their mass shell $`E^{}(𝐪)=\sqrt{𝐪^2+M^2}`$. However, now the momenta of the final states $`\pm 𝐩`$ can vary independently, i.e. $`|𝐩||𝐪|`$. Since the requirement of energy conservation fixes the final energies $`p_\mu =\{p_0,\pm 𝐩\}`$ to $`p_0=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{s^{}}=E^{}(𝐪)`$, these states are off energy shell. To obtain an impression how the off-shellness affects the T-matrix amplitudes we consider first the matrix elements. In the on-shell case the cross sections follow from the squared matrix elements $`|T(q,q)|^2`$ by Eq. (12). The squared matrix elements $`|T(p,q)|^2=|T(p,q,\theta )|^2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are also those quantities which enter directly into a generalised transport equation as transition amplitudes for off-shell scattering . In that case it makes more sense to speak in terms of transition amplitudes than in terms of cross sections. The latter ones are obtained from the transition amplitudes by integration over the final state spectral distributions. Thus, the cross sections depend crucially on the spectral width of the particles whereas the transition amplitudes themselves are independent of the spectral functions.

In Fig.8 we show the iso-spin averaged matrix elements $`|T(p,q)|^2`$ for $`NN`$ scattering as a function of $`p`$ and $`q`$ at nuclear matter densities 0.5/1/2/3 $`\rho _0`$. The amplitudes $`|T|^2`$ are given in fm4 and have to be multiplied by the factor $`(2\pi )^6`$ (due to our normalisation of the T-matrix) when they are inserted into equation (12) to obtain cross sections. The diagonal ($`p=q`$) on-shell elements correspond to the total cross section. First of all, it is seen that the amplitudes $`|T|^2`$ show the same behaviour as the corresponding (on-shell) cross sections, namely a general decrease with momentum and density. In the cross section this tendency is just enhanced by the kinematical factor $`M^4/s^{}`$ which decreases with density and also with momentum.

The off-shellness of the final states now given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =E^{}(𝐪)E^{}(𝐩){\displaystyle \frac{𝐪^2𝐩^2}{2M^{}}}`$ (17)
which is maximal perpendicular to the diagonal. It can be seen from Fig.8 that at low momenta the matrix elements are only weakly affected by the fact that the outgoing states are off energy-shell. This does not mean that the matrix elements do not change going away from the on-shell point. Indeed, the variation of the matrix elements is considerable as will become even more clear further on. However, the dependence of the matrix elements is nearly symmetric in $`q`$ and $`p`$, i.e.

$$|T(p,q)|^2|T(q,p)|^2$$
(18)
and thus not strongly affected by the off-shellness of the outgoing states. In particular in the low momentum region the the matrix elements fall off symmetrically with increasing momenta $`p`$ and/or $`q`$. Only at the highest density of $`3\rho _0`$ the asymmetry is rather pronounced. The off-shell variation of the outgoing states leads here to a resonance structure around $`q=250`$ MeV where the amplitudes increase with different strength in $`p`$ and $`q`$ directions. The off-shell behaviour is similar in the $`np`$ and $`pp`$ channels, except that the resonance structure at $`3\rho _0`$ is more pronounced in the latter case. The somewhat stronger off-shell dependence of the $`pp`$ scattering at high densities is also reflected in the stronger reduction of the corresponding total cross section shown in Figs. 11,12.

In order to obtain a more quantitative impression of the off-shell dependence next we investigate the deviation of the amplitudes $`\delta |T|^2`$ from their on-shell values as a function of the off-shellness $`\delta \omega `$ of the final states. $`\delta |T|^2`$ is thereby defined as the relative deviation, i.e.

$$\delta |T|^2=\frac{|T(q,\delta \omega )|^2|T(q,\delta \omega =0)|^2}{|T(q,\delta \omega =0)|^2}.$$
(19)
For a better comparison of the different densities the variable $`\delta \omega `$, i.e. the energy shift of the final states with momenta $`\pm 𝐩`$ relative to their on-shell energies, is scaled by the effective mass

$$\delta \omega =\frac{M^{}}{M}(E^{}(𝐪)E^{}(𝐩)).$$
(20)
The range for the variation of $`\delta \omega `$ is constrained by the kinematical limits of our calculations, i.e. $`0p,q400`$ MeV. The symmetric fall off with $`p`$ and $`q`$ in the low momentum range which is reflected in Fig.8 implies already the following tendency: For $`p<q`$, i.e. $`\delta \omega >0`$, one expects an enhancement of the amplitudes, i.e. $`\delta |T|^2>0`$, whereas for $`p>q`$, i.e. $`\delta \omega <0`$, one expects a reduction of the amplitudes. For small values of $`q`$ this behaviour is clearly seen from Fig.9. There the deviation of the isospin averaged matrix elements $`\delta |T|^2`$ from the on-shell point is shown at fixed values of the on-shell momentum $`q=100,200,300`$ and 400 MeV. First of all we see that the variation of the amplitudes is pronounced. Within the range of $`\delta \omega =\pm 50`$ MeV the matrix elements can easily vary by more than $`\pm 100\%`$. Secondly, we find that the pattern are similar at moderate densities $`0.5\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ but become essentially different at large densities $`\rho 2\rho _0`$. Thus, the off-shell behaviour reflects a strong medium dependence. The systematics of the different pattern is, however, quite complex.

Let us first consider moderate nuclear matter densities. At low momenta $`q`$ the amplitudes show an extremely strong variation around the on-shell point which reflects their steep and symmetric fall off (see Fig.8). As already mentioned, this results in a strong suppression at negative $`\delta \omega `$ and an equally strong enhancement at positive $`\delta \omega `$. In the high momentum region the variation of the amplitudes is much weaker which results in a smoother and less pronounced dependence on $`\delta \omega `$. With increasing density the situation changes drastically and is even reversed at large $`q`$: now the amplitudes are strongly enhanced in the negative $`\delta \omega `$ region and reduced at positive $`\delta \omega `$. This reflects the asymmetry of $`|T|^2`$ around the on-shell diagonal seen in Fig.8 in the high momentum range.

To summarise: The half-off-shell matrix elements show a pronounced density dependence. At moderate densities, however, the dependence on the incident on-shell momenta $`q`$ and the final momenta $`p`$ which are off-shell is to large extent symmetric in $`p`$ and $`q`$. This implies that the matrix elements are not too much affected by the shift to off-shell energies but are mainly determined by the absolute values of the momentum states $`p`$ and $`q`$. As a consequence, the off-shell matrix elements can be approximated with an accuracy of about $`1030\%`$ by the on shell points in the following way

$`|T(p,q)|^2|T(\overline{q},\overline{q})|^2,\overline{q}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p^2+q^2)}`$ (21)
which follows from the symmetry assumption (18). At large nuclear matter densities this symmetry is more strongly violated, i.e. by about $`2040\%`$ at $`2\rho _0`$. Nevertheless, in view of the extremely large variation of the matrix elements with $`\delta \omega `$, ranging from almost complete suppression to an enhancement of more than a factor of two, the accuracy of this symmetry assumption is quite good in the considered $`\delta \omega `$ interval. It can be applied in a straightforward way, e.g. in transport calculations and requires only the knowledge of the on-shell matrix elements. However, at $`3\rho _0`$ the amplitudes are highly asymmetric in $`p`$ and $`q`$ and thus approximation (21) does no more hold. Here an accurate description requires the knowledge of the exact matrix elements.

Fig.10 illustrates the validity of the symmetry assumption (21) and the strength of the explicit dependence of the matrix elements on the energy shift $`\delta \omega `$. There the relative deviations

$$\delta |T|_{\mathrm{sym}}^2=\frac{|T(\overline{q},\overline{q})|^2|T(p,q)|^2}{|T(p,q)|^2}$$
(22)
from the exact results $`|T(p,q)|^2`$ are shown as functions of $`\delta \omega `$, again for fixed values of $`q`$.

### B Cross sections

A cross section is obtained from the transition amplitudes $`|T|^2`$ by the division through the incoming flux

$`v_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(q_1,q_2)}{E^{}(𝐪_1)E^{}(𝐪_2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(q_1q_2)^2M^4}}{E^{}(𝐪_1)E^{}(𝐪_2)}}`$ (23)
and the multiplication with the final state phase space factors

$$d\sigma =\frac{M^4}{F^{}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(q_1+q_2p_1p_2)|T(p_1p_2,q_1q_2)|^2\frac{d^4p_1}{(2\pi )^4}A(p_1)\frac{d^4p_2}{(2\pi )^4}A(p_2).$$
(24)
The $`\delta ^4`$-function ensures energy-momentum conservation. In the general case where the final states $`p_1,p_2`$ are off-shell, $`A`$ represents the full positive energy spectral function. In the quasi-particle approximation $`A`$ reduces to the on-shell condition

$$A(p)=2\pi \delta (p^2M^2)2\mathrm{\Theta }(p_0^{}).$$
(25)
Thus the spectral function fulfils the sum rule

$$\frac{dp_0}{(2\pi )}A(p)=\frac{1}{E^{}(𝐩)}.$$
(26)
Here we choose spectral functions of a Breit-Wigner form

$$A(p)=2\pi \frac{1}{\pi }\frac{2p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\left(p^2M^2\right)^2+\left(p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^2}.$$
(27)
Thus $`A`$ satisfies the sum rule and in the zero width limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ the quasiparticle approximation (25) is recovered. In the two-particle c.m. frame the integral (24) can easily be evaluated. The total cross section is then given by

$`d\sigma =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M^4}{\pi ^4\sqrt{s^{}(s^{}4M^2)}}}d\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle p^2𝑑p|T(p,q,\theta )|^2}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_0(2E^{}(𝐪)p_0)p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\left[\left((2E^{}(𝐪)p_0)^2(p^2+M^2)\right)^2+(2E^{}(𝐪)p_0)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right]\left[(p_0^2p^2M^2)^2+p_0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\right]}}`$
which reduces to expression (12) in the zero width limit. As discussed in  the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is determined by the imaginary part of the self-energy

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{M^{}}{E^{}(𝐩)}Im\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(\rho ,𝐩)+Im\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(\rho ,𝐩)$$
(30)
and depends on density and momentum. In the present approach $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ follows from the imaginary part of the T-matrix. It can, however, only serve as an estimate for the full particle width inside the medium. As discussed in Sec. II the Bethe-Salpeter equation is solved in the quasi-particle approximation. For the determination of the $`T`$ matrix this treatment is justified since the condition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E_{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{p}.}=E^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is readily fulfilled. However, since the standard Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach accounts only for the particle-particle correlations of the Brueckner hole-line expansion $`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vanishes for momenta below the Fermi surface due to Pauli blocking. Long-range correlations which are usually treated in RPA-type approaches by a ladder summation in the particle-hole channel contribute to the spectral width , but are not taken into account in the standard Brueckner-Hartree-Fock. RPA correlations lead further to a depletion just below the Fermi surface and an occupation of states above the Fermi surface. Thus, the DBHF results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ do not represent the full width but give a reliable estimate only at momenta well above the Fermi surface where particle-particle correlations can be regarded as the the dominant contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the considered density and energy range $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ranges from about 10 MeV at $`0.5\rho _0`$ to more than 40 MeV at $`3\rho _0`$ as the outcome of the present DBHF calculations .

Thus, the cross sections shown in Figs. 11 ($`np`$) and 12 ($`pp`$) give an estimate for the off-shell dependence of the total cross section. For this purpose we choose two typical values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which cover the range of the spectral width in nuclear matter as it is predicted by DBHF calculations, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ MeV and 40 MeV. The present results are obtained with a constant, i.e. momentum independent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For a better comparison of the various densities the cross sections are shown as a function of $`2𝐪^2/M`$ which corresponds in the vacuum to the laboratory energy. It can be seen from Figs. 11, 12 that the off-shell dependence of the total cross section is moderate. The averaging over the Breit-Wigner distributions leads to significantly smaller off-shell effects than are seen in the scattering amplitudes. Compared to the on-shell value the cross sections are generally reduced, in the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=40`$ MeV by about 15-20%. At small nuclear densities this reduction is most pronounced at low momenta whereas but at higher momenta there is no sizable effect. At large densities the reduction is more pronounced at high momenta. Only for large values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$ MeV (not shown here) a reduction of the cross section of more than 50% can be reached. Differences in the off-shell structure of the NN interaction, e.g. using BONN C, do not lead to essentially different results. This is consistent with the observations made in Ref.  where it has been demonstrated that the on-shell cross sections are not much affected by the use of different parameterisations like BONN B or C.

## V Summary

In the present work we investigated the in-medium nucleon-nucleon cross section within the relativistic (Dirac) Brueckner-Hartree-Fock approach. We considered both, on-shell scattering and the more general case where the final momenta are allowed to be off energy shell. The in-medium cross sections can serve as input for transport calculation of heavy ion collisions. Information on the off-shell dependence of the scattering amplitudes is required when one intends to go beyond the quasi-particle approximation in order to obtain a more realistic description of transport phenomena for particles with finite width. In a dense hadronic environment created, e.g., in heavy ion collisions also ’stable particles’ like nucleons acquire a finite spectral width. Throughout this work we applied the BONN A potential as the nucleon-nucleon interaction since this potential yields the most reasonable saturation properties for nuclear matter.

Concerning the on-shell scattering we find a qualitative agreement with previous investigations of Li and Machleidt , however, less reduced in-medium cross sections at low energies. The reason therefore lies in the fact that we account for modifications of the optical theorem due to the presence of the medium which have been neglected in the approximation made in . In the $`np`$ cross section an additional low density enhancement appears which can be interpreted as the precursor of a superfluid state. The present approach was then extended to the case where incoming and outgoing momenta of the scattered nucleons can vary independently and - due to energy-momentum conservation - the final states are off energy shell. The resulting T-matrix elements or transition amplitudes show a strong variation around the on-shell point. The shape of the transition amplitudes depends, however, mainly in a symmetric way on the incoming/outgoing momenta. The fact that the final states are off-shell, the incoming ones on-shell, plays thereby a minor role. This allows to approximate the half-off-shell matrix elements in a suitable way by their on-shell values. Such an approximation works well at moderate nuclear matter densities but at large densities the precise knowledge of the amplitudes is required. In a conservative estimate finite width effects lead to a reduction of the total cross sections by about 20% compared to the on-shell scattering. Off-shell effects are more pronounced at larger nuclear densities.


format: text

text:
# Massive fermion production in nonsingular superstring cosmology

## I Introduction

With the development of superstring theory, string-inspired cosmological models  have received much attention to describe the evolution of the very early stage of the Universe. Most of such scenarios are based on the low-energy effective field theory, which is expected to be valid at the Planck scale. While a full theory is not yet established, it is important to test the viability of string theories by extracting various cosmological implications from them.

Among string-motivated cosmological models proposed so far, the pre-big-bang (PBB) scenario  has been most widely studied. If one assumes that the Universe has a $`T`$-duality, there exist two disconnected branches. One of which ($`t<0`$) corresponds to the stage of superinflation driven by the kinetic term of the dilaton field, and another ($`t>0`$) is the Friedmann branch where the Universe exhibits standard decelerating expansion. The PBB scenario basically requires the existence of nonsingular solutions which interpolates between two disconnected branches . In the tree-level superstring action, however, one has no-go results that singularity can not be avoided .

In order to overcome such singularity problems, Antoniadis, Rizos, and Tamvakis  involved one-loop quantum corrections to the string effective action with dilaton and modulus fields, and found some nonsingular solutions. Since the success of singularity avoidance is mainly determined by the motion of the modulus field, the allowed ranges of parameters have been analyzed in the absence of the dilaton field in the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) background  and the anisotropic Bianchi type-I metric . In the full dilaton-modulus system, several authors studied generality of singularity avoidance in the closed FRW  and Bianchi type-I and -IX  spacetimes. It was found that nonsingular solutions generically exist except for the Bianchi-IX case.

From observational point of view, analysis of the perturbations predicted in the PBB model is an important issue in order to test realistic string theories. In this respect, many authors investigated quantum creation of scalar particles such as dilaton and axions , and production of gravitational waves , most of which exhibit different spectra compared to the standard cosmology. Another interesting prediction in the PBB scenario is the generation of primordial magnetic fields due to the break of the conformal invariance .

Recently, Brustein and Hadad  studied fermion production in superstring cosmology in the presence of the dilaton coupling only. It was found that massless fermions are not created, since the equation of fermions reduces to that in the Minkowski spacetime in the massless limit. In this Letter, we investigate massive fermion production in more general dilaton-modulus system whereby singularity can be avoided. In fact we will show that massive fermions are nonadiabatically created due to the existence of a time-dependent mass term.

## II Nonsingular solutions

Consider the following one-loop effective action of the heterotic superstring theory ,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(\sigma )^2`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\{\lambda e^\varphi \delta \xi (\sigma )\}R_{\mathrm{GB}}^2],`$ (2)
written in the Einstein frame. Here $`R`$, $`\varphi `$, $`\sigma `$, and $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ are the scalar curvature, the dilaton, the modulus, and the antisymmetric tensor field, respectively. In this work we set $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=0`$ and neglect the curvature terms higher than the second order. The Gauss-Bonnet term, $`R_{\mathrm{GB}}`$, is defined as

$`R_{\mathrm{GB}}^2=R^24R^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }+R^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }.`$ (3)
In the presence of the last term in the action (2) (i.e, one-loop quantum corrections), singularity problems in the tree-level action can be avoided . The coefficients, $`\lambda `$ and $`\delta `$, are determined by the inverse string tension $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the four-dimensional trace anomaly of the $`N=2`$ sector, respectively. While $`\lambda `$ is positive definite, $`\delta `$ can be either positive or negative.

The function, $`\xi (\sigma )`$, is expressed as

$`\xi (\sigma )=\mathrm{ln}\left[2e^{\sigma \pi e^\sigma /3}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(1e^{2n\pi e^\sigma }\right)\right\}^4\right].`$ (4)
Then the first derivative of $`\xi (\sigma )`$ in terms of $`\sigma `$ is well approximated as $`\xi ^{}(\sigma )=(2\pi /3)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{h}\sigma `$, which we use in our numerical analysis.

It is also convenient to introduce a dimensionless function, $`f(\varphi ,\sigma )[e^\varphi \overline{\delta }\xi (\sigma )]/16`$ with $`\overline{\delta }\delta /\lambda `$. We normalize time and spatial coordinates by the string length scale $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$ as $`\overline{x^\mu }=x^\mu /\sqrt{\lambda }`$, and scalar fields as $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi \sqrt{\lambda }`$, $`\overline{\sigma }=\sigma \sqrt{\lambda }`$. Hereafter we drop bars for simplicity.

Adopting the flat FRW metric as the background spacetime, with $`ae^p`$ being the scale factor, the dynamical equations for the metric and scalar fields yield

$`8(1+8\dot{p}\dot{f})(\ddot{p}+\dot{p}^2)+4(1+8\ddot{f})\dot{p}^2+\dot{\varphi }^2+3\dot{\sigma }^2=0,`$ (5)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+3\dot{p}\dot{\varphi }2f_{,\varphi }R_{\mathrm{GB}}^2=0,`$ (6)
$`\ddot{\sigma }+3\dot{p}\dot{\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f_{,\sigma }R_{\mathrm{GB}}^2=0,`$ (7)
together with the constraint equation,

$`12\dot{p}^2+96\dot{p}^3\dot{f}\dot{\varphi }^23\dot{\sigma }^2=0.`$ (8)
Here an overdot denotes a derivative with respect to cosmic time, $`t`$, and the Gauss-Bonnet term is given as $`R_{\mathrm{GB}}^2=24\dot{p}^2(\ddot{p}+\dot{p}^2)`$. Nonsingular cosmological solutions have been found for negative values of $`\delta `$ .

In the absence of the modulus field, the scale factor in the Einstein frame evolves as $`a|t|^{1/3}`$ during the dilaton-driven phase. For negative $`t`$, this corresponds to the accelerated contraction, $`\dot{a}<0`$ and $`\ddot{a}<0`$. In the tree-level action, one needs to assume that the epoch of the accelerated evolution comes to an end at some time in order to make a smooth transition to another branch ($`t>0`$). In the present scenario, however, taking into account one-loop corrections opens up the possibility of the graceful exit driven by the kinetic energy of the modulus field.

We show one nonsingular solution in Fig. 1. Generally the Hubble rate, $`H\dot{p}`$, grows as $`H(t)^2`$ during the modulus-driven phase. In order to avoid singularity at $`t=0`$, the velocity of $`\varphi `$ is required to be much smaller than $`\sigma `$ during the graceful exit. If $`|\dot{\varphi }|`$ is sufficiently small around $`t=0`$, there always exist nonsingular solutions for $`\varphi <0`$. This is because $`e^\varphi 0`$ for negative large values of $`\varphi `$, which indicates that the singularity avoidance is practically independent of $`\varphi `$. The allowed parameter regions with respect to $`\varphi `$ were precisely analyzed in Ref. , which we do not repeat it here.

The sign of $`\dot{\sigma }`$ does not change during the whole evolution. For $`\dot{\sigma }>0`$ which corresponds to the case of Fig. 1, $`\sigma `$ rapidly moves relative to $`\varphi `$ around the graceful exit. After a smooth transition at $`t=0`$, the dilaton freezes with $`\varphi 0`$ and the modulus evolves as $`\sigma \mathrm{ln}t`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. The Hubble rate begins to decrease for $`t>0`$, which asymptotically approaches the Friedmann-like Universe, $`at^{1/3}`$ and $`H1/(3t)`$.

## III Massive fermion production

Let us consider the following action for the fermion field $`\psi `$ with bare mass $`m`$:

$`S_{\mathrm{fermion}}={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}f\left(i\overline{\psi }\overline{\gamma }^\mu \stackrel{}{D}_\mu \psi m\overline{\psi }\psi \right)},`$ (9)
where $`\overline{\gamma }^\mu `$ is the curved-space Dirac matrices, and $`D_\mu _\mu +(1/4)\gamma _{\alpha \beta }\omega _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the spin-1/2 covariant derivative, where $`\omega _\mu ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the spin connection. $`\gamma _\alpha `$ denotes the Dirac matrices in Minkowski spacetime with $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{[\alpha }\gamma _{\beta ]}`$.

From the action (9) we obtain the Dirac equation,

$`\left(i\overline{\gamma }^\mu D_\mu m+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu f}{f}}\overline{\gamma }^\mu \right)\psi =0.`$ (10)
Since $`\overline{\gamma }^0=\gamma ^0`$, $`\overline{\gamma }^i=\gamma ^i/a`$, and $`\overline{\gamma }^\mu D_\mu =\overline{\gamma }^\mu _\mu +(3/2)H\gamma ^0`$ in the flat FRW background, Eq. (10) is simplified by introducing a new field, $`\chi a^{3/2}f^{1/2}\psi `$, as

$`\left(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu ma\right)\chi =0,`$ (11)
where $`_0`$ denotes the derivative with respect to conformal time, $`\eta a^1𝑑t`$. We decompose the $`\chi `$ field into Fourier modes as

$`\chi \left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=\pm 1}{}}\left[u_s(k,\eta )a_s(k)+v_s(k,\eta )b_s^{}(k)\right],`$ (13)
where $`v_s(k)=C\overline{u}_s^T(k)`$ with $`C`$ being a constant.

Defining $`u_s=[u_+(\eta )\phi _s(k),su_{}(\eta )\phi _s(k)]^T`$ and $`v_s=[sv_+(\eta )\phi _s(k),v_{}(\eta )\phi _s(k)]^T`$ with $`\phi _s(k)`$ being eigenvectors of helicity operators, the Dirac equation (11) reads

$`u_\pm ^{}(\eta )=iku_{}(\eta )imau_\pm (\eta ),`$ (14)
which reduces to the decoupled form:

$`u_\pm ^{\prime \prime }+\left[\omega _k^2\pm i(ma)^{}\right]u_\pm =0,`$ (15)
where $`\omega _k^2k^2+(ma)^2`$. Note that we imposed the normalization conditions, $`u_r^{}(k,\eta )v_s(k,\eta )=0`$, $`u_r^{}(k,\eta )u_s(k,\eta )=v_r^{}(k,\eta )v_s(k,\eta )=\delta _{rs}`$, $`|u_+|^2+|u_{}|^2=2`$.

In order to diagonalize the Hamiltonian, we introduce new operators, $`\widehat{a}(k,\eta )=\alpha _k(\eta )a(k)+\beta _k(\eta )b^{}(k)`$ and $`\widehat{b}^{}(k,\eta )=\beta _k^{}(\eta )a(k)+\alpha _k^{}(\eta )b^{}(k)`$, where the Bogolyubov coefficients satisfy

$`\alpha _k={\displaystyle \frac{E_k+\omega _k}{F_k^{}}}\beta _k,|\beta _k|^2={\displaystyle \frac{|F_k|^2}{2\omega _k(\omega _k+E_k)}},`$ (16)
with

$`E_k=k\mathrm{Re}(u_+^{}u_{})+ma\left(1|u_+|^2\right),`$ (17)
$`F_k=(k/2)\left(u_+^2u_{}^2\right)+mau_+u_{}.`$ (18)
Note that the canonical commutation relation leads to $`|\alpha _k|^2+|\beta _k|^2=1`$, which restricts the occupation numbers of fermions as $`n_k|\beta _k|^21`$. The initial conditions are chosen as $`u_\pm (\eta _0)=\sqrt{(\omega _kma)/\omega _k}`$, corresponding to $`E_k(\eta _0)=\omega _k`$, $`F_k(\eta _0)=0`$, and $`n_k(\eta _0)=0`$.

In the limit of $`m0`$, Eq. (15) reduces to that in Minkowski spacetime,

$`u_\pm ^{\prime \prime }+k^2u_\pm =0.`$ (19)
The solution for this equation is expressed as $`u_\pm (\eta )=e^{ik(\eta \eta _0)}`$, where we used the initial conditions, $`u_\pm (\eta _0)=1`$. Then we have $`n_k=0`$ by Eqs. (16)-(18), which indicates that no creation occurs in the massless limit .

When the mass of fermion is sufficiently small relative to the physical wave number ($`mk/a`$), the situation is similar to the massless case. In Fig. 2 we find that fermions are hardly excited for $`k=1`$ and $`m=10^6`$, where $`k`$ and $`m`$ are normalized by the string length scale, $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$. Note that the acquired number of e-foldings during the modulus-driven phase is not large compared to the standard inflationary scenarios, e.g., if we normalize the scale factor as $`a=1`$ for $`t=0`$, $`a0.345`$ for $`t=500`$ at which the contribution of modulus begins to be important relative to dilaton. This indicates that when the condition, $`mk/a`$, holds in the initial stage of the modulus-driven phase, it is typically valid even around the graceful exit.

When $`m`$ and $`k/a`$ are comparable during the modulus-driven phase, massive fermions are created due to the existence of the time-dependent mass term in Eq. (15). In Fig. 2 the number density of fermions continues to grow until the point of the graceful exit for the cases of $`k=10^2,m=10^2`$; and $`k=10^1,m=1`$. The nonadiabatic condition where particles are sufficiently excited can be written as $`|\dot{\omega }_k|\stackrel{>}{}\omega _k^2`$, which yields

$`H\stackrel{>}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[k^2+(ma)^2\right]^{3/2}}{(ma)^2}}.`$ (20)
In a dust or radiation dominated Universe, the Hubble rate decreases as $`H1/t`$, which works to violate the nonadiabatic condition, (20). In fact, in preheating after inflation, unless an inflaton decay to fermions is not taken into account, the mass term $`(ma)^2`$ does not lead to sufficient fermion production . However, in the present model, the growth of the Hubble rate during the modulus-driven phase assists the nonadiabatic condition to hold, which results in nonperturbative particle creation solely by the time-dependent mass term. The growth of the occupation number ends after the smooth transition to the Friedmann-like Universe, since the Hubble rate begins to decrease (see Fig. 1).

When $`m`$ is much larger than $`k/a`$, fermion production is generally suppressed. Especially for $`mH`$ where the nonadiabatic condition (20) is not satisfied, Eq. (15) is approximately written as $`\ddot{X}_\pm +m^2X_\pm 0`$ with $`X_\pm a^{1/2}u_\pm `$. This indicates that fermions are hardly created in the supermassive limit, $`m\mathrm{}`$.

In Fig. 3 we plot the occupation number of fermions at $`t=0`$ as a function of mass for three different momenta. For each momentum, there exists a maximum $`n_k`$ for some value of $`m`$ ($`=m_{}`$). Since $`m_{}`$ is typically of the same order as the each corresponding momentum, the curves shift from left to right with increasing $`k`$. If the $`1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ is around the Planck scale, our results suggest that massive fermions heavier than the GUT scale can be copiously produced, which may play important roles for the leptogenesis scenarios .

## IV Conclusions and discussions

We have investigated the production of massive spin-1/2 fermions in nonsingular superstring cosmology with dilaton and modulus fields. The existence of the modulus coupled to the Gauss-Bonnet curvature invariant leads to a smooth transition from the modulus-driven accelerated expansion phase toward the Friedmann-like Universe. Since the Hubble rate increases before the graceful exit, this makes it possible to produce massive fermions in terms of nonadiabatic change of their frequencies. In particular, fermions are most efficiently excited when the bare mass $`m`$ is comparable to the physical momentum, $`k/a`$. In both massless and supermassive limits, fermion creation is strongly suppressed.

The occupation number of fermions achieved by the time-dependent mass term $`(ma)^2`$ is typically smaller than the Pauli bound, $`n_k=1`$, even at the end of the modulus-driven phase. If one introduces the Yukawa couplings between two scalar fields $`\varphi ,\sigma `$ and the fermion $`\psi `$ such as $`h_1\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi `$ and $`h_2\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi `$, the effective mass of fermions is expressed as

$`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m+h_1\varphi +h_2\sigma .`$ (21)
In this case it is known that particle creation is most efficient when $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ vanishes, leading to $`n_k1`$ both in the context of inflation  and preheating . In the present scenario, since $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ vanishes or becomes close to zero depending on two coupling constants, $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$, this may further strengthen nonadiabatic amplification of fermions. We leave to future work about the precise investigation of this issue.

Although we have restricted ourselves in spin-1/2 fermions satisfying the Dirac equation, nonthermal production of gravitinos (spin-3/2 fermions) has recently become an issue of great importance . Gravitinos have both helicity-3/2 and -1/2 states. While the helicity-3/2 mode reduces to the form of the Dirac equation, the helicity-1/2 mode behaves like the goldstino in global supersymmetric limit. It was shown in Ref.  that the latter mode also reduces to the same form as the former mode in the massless limit by assuming the power-law evolution of the scale factor in the standard PBB scenario, which means that creation of massless gravitinos is highly suppressed. However, the situation will change for massive gravitinos, in which case the existence of time-dependent mass terms may lead to the amplification of gravitinos during the modulus-driven phase. It is certainly of interest to study gravitino production in realistic nonsingular cosmology, since this provides a powerful mechanism to distinguish between different models of string theories and regions of the parameter space, together with the CMB constraint by scalar and tensor metric perturbations produced during the graceful exit .

## ACKOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Bruce A. Bassett and Kei-ichi Maeda for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects.


text:
# Effective Finite Temperature Partition Function for Fields on Non-Commutative Flat Manifolds

## 1. Introduction

Quantum field theories on non-commutative spaces generalize the familiar structure of conventional field theories. A motivation for considering these models is their appearance in $`M`$theory and in the theory of strings , and also the fact that they are perfectly consistent formulations by themselves. It has been shown, for instance, that non-commutative gauge theories describe the low energy excitations of open strings on $`D`$branes in a background Neveu-Schwarz two-form field $`B`$ .

Recently, the non-commutative perturbative dynamics on $`D`$ dimensional manifolds have been investigated  and the Kaluza-Klein spectrum for interacting scalars and vector fields has been calculated in ; it is consistent with formulas found in , where a connection between calculations performed in string theory and some others, done in field theory on a non-commutative torus, has been made. The one-loop Casimir energy of scalar and vector fields on a non-commutative space like $`^{1,d}T_\theta ^2`$ (where $`^{1,d}`$ is a flat $`(d+1)`$dimensional Minkowski space and $`T_\theta ^2`$ a two-dimensional non-commutative torus) has been calculated in . The higher dimensional non-commutative torus case has been investigated in ; termal effects in perturbative non-commutative gauge theories have been actively studied in Refs. .

In this paper we will calculate - using dimensional regularization implemented with zeta-function techniques - the partition function at inverse temperature $`\beta `$ for massless scalar fields defined on $`D`$dimensional manifolds with compact and non compact non-commutative dimensions. This can be considered as the first quantum correction to the total partition function. Since we will compute a functional determinat of a one-loop operator, our computation is, as well known, equivalent to summing an infinite number of one-loop diagrams . The relevance of this contribution will be discussed later.

The action of the massless interacting scalar fields we are considering has the form

$`(1.1)`$
$$S_{(\mathrm{scalar})}=\left(\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{\lambda }{r!}\varphi \varphi \mathrm{}\varphi \right)d^Dx\text{.}$$

As is well known, in ultrastatic spacetimes finite temperature effects can be easily described with the help of the imaginary time formalism - in which the fields are assumed to be periodic with period $`\beta `$. For this reason, we will consider manifolds with topology $`M=S^1^{d1}X_\theta ^p`$, where $`p=Dd`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}M=D`$. In the non compact case $`X_\theta ^p=_\theta ^p`$, while in the compact case $`X_\theta ^p=T_\theta ^p`$ is a non-commutative torus. If we denote by $`x^\mu `$ the non-commutative coordinates, we assume that

$`(1.2)`$
$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }\text{,}$$

with $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{}p`$, and $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\theta \sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a real, non-singular, antisymmetric matrix with entries $`\pm 1`$, being $`\theta `$ the non-commutative parameter. $`X_\theta ^p`$ may be regarded as a non-commutative associative algebra, with elements given by ordinary continuous functions on $`X_\theta ^p`$ whose product is given by the Moyal bracket or $`()`$product of functions:

$`(1.3)`$
$$(FG)(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{}{\alpha ^\mu }\frac{}{\beta ^\nu }\right)F(x+\alpha )G(x+\beta )|_{\alpha =\beta =0}\text{.}$$

Since we have to deal with a renormalizable scalar field theory, the number $`r`$ of scalar fields in the $`()`$product should be chosen as an integer, given by $`r=2D/(D2)`$. Clearly, the only possible choices are $`D=3`$, $`r=6`$, $`D=4`$, $`r=4`$, and $`D=6`$, $`r=3`$.

We are interested in the one-loop approximation for a theory with the action (1.1). It has been shown that in the massless case, the operator $``$, related to the one-loop contribution, has the formal aspect :

$`(1.4)`$
$$=k^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{kk}+M^2\text{,}$$

where $`k^2`$ is the $`D`$dimensional Laplacian on $`^D`$ and $`kk=\theta ^2k_\mu k_\mu `$. The effective mass term $`M^2`$ depends on $`\lambda `$ and corresponds to the planar diagram contributions, while the non local $`\lambda `$ term represents the non-planar diagram contribution.

We are also assuming that the time coordinate is commutative (unitarity of the field theory) and we denote by $`\tau =it`$ the compactified imaginary time with period $`\beta `$. Thus, the finite temperature one-loop operator is

$`(1.5)`$
$$=L_d+L_p+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta ^2L_p)^1\text{,}$$

where $`L_d=_\tau ^2+L_{d1}=_\tau ^2+k_j^2+M^2`$ and $`L_p=k_\mu ^2`$ are the Laplacian-like operators on the spaces $`S^1^{d1}`$ and $`X_\theta ^p`$, respectively.

We observe that in the massive case, the one-loop effective operator is much more complicated. It reads

$`(1.6)`$
$$=k^2+m^2+\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }m}{(kk)^{3/2}}K_1(2m(kk)^{1/2})+M^2\text{.}$$

This appears as an untractable form. Since $`K_1(z)1/z`$ as $`z0`$, in the massless limit, one obtains Eq. (1.4). If we take the commutative limit, namely $`\theta 0`$ in Eq. (1.6), one gets $`=k^2+m^2+M^2`$, which is the correct one-loop operator in the commutative case. In Ref. , an approximate expression valid for small $`m`$ has been considered and a mixing between UV and IR divergences has been noticed. It should be noted that the massless limit and the limit $`\theta 0`$ do not commute, namely it is not possible to consider the $`\theta 0`$ in Eq. (1.4). In this paper, for the sake of simplicity, we shall consider the massless case only, bearing in mind possible limitations of this choice.

## 2. Regularization of the partition function

We shall make use of dimensional regularization in the proper time formalism, implemented by zeta-function techniques . The logarithm of the one-loop effective partition function is regularized by means of ($`\mu `$ is a renormalization parameter)

$`(2.1)`$
$$\mathrm{log}Z_\beta (\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{log}\mathrm{det}/\mu ^2\right)_\epsilon =\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2\epsilon }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{\epsilon 1}\text{Tr}e^t\text{,}$$

where $`\epsilon `$ is a small regularization parameter. Since we are making use of the Gaussian approximation, what we are going to compute is the first quantum correction to the partition function.

The object of interest is the heat kernel trace $`\omega (t)`$, defined for $`t>0`$ by $`\omega (t|)=\mathrm{Tr}e^t`$. The zeta function $`\zeta (s|)`$ and $`\omega (t|)`$ are related by the Mellin transform:

$`(2.2)`$
$$\zeta (s|)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega (t|)t^{s1}𝑑t,\text{for}\mathrm{}s>D/2\text{.}$$

Then, one has

$`(2.3)`$
$$\mathrm{log}Z_\beta (\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\zeta (\epsilon |)\text{.}$$

If the zeta function of the operator $``$ is regular at the origin, the one-loop divergences and the finite part of the logarithm of the partition function can be expressed, respectively, in terms of the zeta function and its derivative evaluated at the origin. In this case the vacuum energy (Casimir energy) can be defined resorting to the usual thermodynamical relation

$`(2.4)`$
$$<E>=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}_\beta \mathrm{log}Z_\beta \text{,}$$

where the renormalized partition function is simply

$`(2.5)`$
$$\mathrm{log}Z_\beta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{ds}\zeta (s|)|_{s=0}+\mathrm{log}\mu ^2\zeta (0|)\right)\text{.}$$

For example, in the case $`S^1Y`$, one gets (see Ref. )

$`(2.6)`$
$$<E>=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{PP}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)+(1+\mathrm{log2}\mu )\text{Res}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)\text{,}$$

where $`\mathrm{PP}`$ denotes the principal part of the zeta function, given by

$`(2.7)`$
$$\mathrm{PP}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)=\underset{s0}{lim}\left(\zeta (s\frac{1}{2}|_Y)+\frac{A_{D/2}(_Y)}{2\sqrt{\pi }s}\right)\text{,}$$

with $`_Y`$ being the spatial operator acting on a manifold $`Y`$, namely $`=_\tau ^2+_Y`$, and $`A_{D/2}`$ the corresponding heat-kernel coefficient. This prescription has been introduced in  and rederived, by using zeta-function regularization, in . In the following we will investigate the analytic continuation of $`\zeta (s|)`$.

Making use of heat-kernel techniques, one can show that the zeta function of the one-loop operator may, in general, be nonregular at the origin. Indeed, we have

$`(2.8)`$
$$\text{Tr }e^t=\text{Tr }e^{tL_d}\text{Tr }e^{t_X}\text{,}$$

where we have introduced the pseudo-differential operator $`_X=L_p+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\theta ^2L_p)^1`$. The first short $`t`$ asymptotics is standard and reads (for flat manifolds)

$`(2.9)`$
$$\omega (t|L_d)\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^d)}{(4\pi t)^{d/2}},\text{as}t0^+\text{.}$$

The second one involves the operator $`_X`$ and contains logarithmic terms (see, for example,  and references quoted there). For the cases we are interested in, we have

$`(2.10)`$
$$\omega (t|_X)\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_rt^{rp/2}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_kt^{2k+p/2}\mathrm{log}t\text{.}$$

Thus, the contribution containing logarithmic terms is

$`(2.11)`$
$$\omega (t|)\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^d)}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_kt^{2k+(pd)/2}\mathrm{log}t+\text{non log terms}\text{.}$$

Since a pole of the zeta function at the origin corresponds to having the pure log term $`\mathrm{log}t`$, it turns out that a pole will appear if and only if $`d=p+4k,k_+`$ and since $`p`$ is even, $`D`$ also has to be even. The appearance of a pole at the origin of the zeta function is quite unsual. It is in common with quantum fields defined on higher dimensional cones  and on 4-dimensional spacetimes with a non compact (but of finite volume) spatial hyperbolic section .

One can calculate the effective partition function evaluating a regularized functional determinant of $`\zeta (s|)`$, Eq. (2.1), which can be rewritten as

$`(2.12)`$
$$\mathrm{log}Z_\beta (\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\zeta (\epsilon |)\text{.}$$

Recall we are going to compute a functional determinant, and thus we are effectively adding up an infinite number of one-loop diagrams, planar and non-planar ones. Our calculation should be viewed as an attempt at an implementation of the background field method to the non-commutative case.

In order to go on, we need the evaluation of the analytic continuation of the zeta function $`\zeta (s|)`$. Starting from the Mellin transform and making use of the Poisson-Jacobi resummation formula, a standard calculation leads to

$$\zeta (s|)=\frac{\beta }{(4\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})\zeta (s\frac{1}{2}|_Y)$$

$`(2.13)`$
$$+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}dtt^{s\frac{3}{2}}e^{\frac{n^2\beta ^2}{4t}}\omega (t|_Y))\text{.}$$

Here $`_Y=L_{d1}+_X`$. In order to evaluate the high temperature expansion the second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (2.13) can be conveniently rewritten as a Mellin-Barnes integral (see ). As a result, we have

$$\zeta (s|)=\frac{\beta }{(4\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{1}{2})\zeta (s\frac{1}{2}|_Y)$$

$`(2.14)`$
$$+\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\mathrm{}z=\frac{D}{2}}dz\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)^z\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{z}{2})\zeta _R(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{z1}{2})\zeta (s+\frac{z1}{2}|_Y))\text{,}$$

where $`\zeta _R(z)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. In the equations above, the first part represents the vacuum contribution, while the second one is the statistical sum contribution. It is also clear that one needs to know the meromorphic structure of the zeta function $`\zeta (s|_Y)`$, which can be obtained from $`\zeta (s|_X)`$. Making an expansion in terms of the effective mass $`M^2`$, a direct computation gives

$`(2.15)`$
$$\zeta (z|_Y)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^{d1})}{(4\pi )^{\frac{d1}{2}}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(M^2)^k\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+k\frac{d1}{2})}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}\zeta (z+k\frac{d1}{2}|_X)\text{.}$$

## 3. The spectral zeta function and the regularized vacuum energy

First of all, let us consider the simple case of a non-compact, non-commutative manifold $`X_\theta ^p=_\theta ^p`$ (i.e., the non-commutative Euclidean space). The heat kernel trace reads

$`(3.1)`$
$$\omega (t|_X)=\frac{2\mathrm{V}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{l}(^p)}{(4\pi )^{p/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p/2)}a^{p/2}K_{p/2}(2at)\text{,}$$

where $`K_\nu (z)`$ is the Mac Donald function and $`a^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta ^2`$. It is easy to show that the short$`t`$ asymptotics of $`\omega (t|_X)`$ is of the kind given by Eq. (2.10). The Mellin transform leads to

$`(3.2)`$
$$\zeta (z|_X)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^p)}{2(4\pi )^{p/2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2z+p}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2zp}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}a^{p/2z}\text{.}$$

Eq. (3.2) gives the analytic continuation of the zeta function.

In the case of a compact non-commutative manifold (i.e., the non-commutative tori) $`X_\theta ^p=T_\theta ^p`$, for large $`\mathrm{}s`$, the spectral zeta function associated with the operator $`_X`$ reads :

$`(3.3)`$
$$\zeta (s|_X)=\underset{𝐧^p/\{\mathrm{𝟎}\}}{}\phi (𝐧)^s\left[1+\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta ^2R^4\phi (𝐧)^2\right]^s\text{,}$$

where $`R`$ is the compactification radius. The analytic continuation can be achieved by using binomial expansion (). As a result, for $`C=a^2R^4<1`$ one has

$`(3.4)`$
$$\zeta (s|_X)=R^{2s}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(C)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s+\mathrm{}\right)}{\mathrm{}!\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(s\right)}Z_p\left|\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{𝟎}\hfill & \end{array}\right|\left(2s+4\mathrm{}\right)\text{,}$$

where $`Z_p|{}_{𝐡}{}^{𝐠}|(s,\phi )`$ is the $`p`$-dimensional Epstein zeta function associated with the quadratic form $`\phi [a(𝐧+𝐠)]=_ja_j(n_j+\mathrm{g}_j)^2.`$ For $`\mathrm{}s>p`$ , $`Z_p|{}_{𝐡}{}^{𝐠}|(s,\phi )`$ is given by the formula

$`(3.5)`$
$$Z_p\left|\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{g}_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{g}_p\hfill & \\ h_1\mathrm{}h_p\hfill & \end{array}\right|(s,\phi )=\underset{𝐧𝐙^p}{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\phi [a(𝐧+𝐠)]\right)_{}^{s/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i(𝐧,𝐡)\right]\text{,}$$

where $`\mathrm{g}_j`$ and $`\mathrm{h}_j`$ are some real numbers , and the prime means omitting the term with $`(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_p)=(\mathrm{g}_1,\mathrm{g}_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{g}_p)`$ if all of the $`\mathrm{g}_j`$ are integers. The functional equation for $`Z_p|{}_{𝐡}{}^{𝐠}|(s,\phi )`$ reads

$$Z_p\left|\begin{array}{cc}𝐠\hfill & \\ 𝐡\hfill & \end{array}\right|(s,\phi )=(\mathrm{det}a)^{1/2}\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}(2sp)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{ps}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{s}{2})}\mathrm{exp}[2\pi i(𝐠,𝐡)]$$

$`(3.6)`$
$$\times Z_p\left|\begin{array}{cc}𝐡\hfill & \\ 𝐠\hfill & \end{array}\right|(ps,\phi ^{})\text{,}$$

where $`\phi ^{}[a(𝐧+𝐠)]=_ja_j^1(n_j+\mathrm{g}_j)^2`$. Formulas (3.4) and (3.6) give the analytic continuation of the zeta function.

Alternatively, a powerful expression for the analytic continuation, that extends (to arbitrary number of dimensions and to more general Epstein-like zeta functions) the Chowla-Selberg formula for the homogeneous Epstein zeta function in two-dimensions, has been given recently . It provides an expression valid in the whole of the complex plane, exhibiting the poles explicitly, and under the form of a power-fast convergent series. For the compact case, Eq. (3.3), the formula reads:

$$\zeta (s|_Y)=\frac{2^{sd+2}\mathrm{Vol}(^{d1})}{(2\pi )^{(d1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{(4\mathrm{\Lambda }\theta ^2)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\mathrm{}\frac{d1}{2})}{\mathrm{}!\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+2\mathrm{}\frac{d1}{2})\left(det𝐀_j\right)^{1/2}}$$

$$\times [\pi ^{j/2}a_{pj}^{s2\mathrm{}+(d+j1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+2\mathrm{}\frac{d+j1}{2})\zeta _R(2s+4\mathrm{}dj+1)$$

$$+4\pi ^{s+2\mathrm{}(d1)/2}a_{pj}^{s/2\mathrm{}(d+j1)/4}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{𝐦_j^j}{\overset{}{}}n^{(d+j1)/2s2\mathrm{}}$$

$`(3.7)`$
$$\times \left(𝐦_j^t𝐀_j^1𝐦_j\right)^{s/2+\mathrm{}(d+j1)/4}K_{(d+j1)/2s2\mathrm{}}\left(2\pi n\sqrt{a_{pj}𝐦_j^t𝐀_j^1𝐦_j}\right)]\text{,}$$

where $`a_j=R_j^2`$, $`R_j`$ being the compactification radius corresponding to the $`j`$th coordinate (above, and in what follows, only the particular case $`R_j=R,j`$, is considered). Note that the term $`j=0`$ in the second sum reduces to: $`a_p^{s2\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+2\mathrm{})\zeta _R(2s+2\mathrm{})`$, which coincides with the result of the 1-dimensional case ($`p=1`$), as it should. Here $`𝐀_j`$ is the submatrix of $`𝐀=\text{diag }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_p)`$ made up of the last $`j`$ rows and columns: $`𝐀_j=\text{diag }(a_{pj+1},\mathrm{},a_p)`$.

Now we have in our hands all the ingredients necessary to study the limit $`\epsilon `$ goes to $`0`$ in Eq. (2.3), making use of Eqs. (3.4) and (3.6). The vacuum contribution to the one-loop effective action has been investigated recently in . The presence of poles at the origin in the zeta function of Eq. (3.4) (see also Ref. ) imposes a re-analysis of the renormalization. This can proceed as follows.

For small $`\epsilon `$ one has

$`(3.8)`$
$$\mathrm{log}Z_\beta (\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\zeta (\epsilon |)=\frac{W_0}{\epsilon ^2}+\frac{W_1}{\epsilon }+W_2+𝒪(\epsilon )\text{.}$$

It is convenient to introduce the “regular” zeta function

$`(3.9)`$
$$\xi (s|)=s\zeta (s|)\text{.}$$

Multiplying both sides of Eq. (3.8) by $`\epsilon ^2`$, we obtain the following expressions for the coefficients $`W_j`$:

$`(3.10)`$
$$W_0=\frac{1}{2}\xi (0|)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Res}\left(\zeta (\epsilon |)|_{\epsilon =0}\right)\text{,}$$

$$W_1=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{lim}_{\epsilon 0}\frac{d}{d\epsilon }\left(\mu ^{2\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )\xi (\epsilon |)\right)$$

$`(3.11)`$
$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{ds}\xi (s|)|_{s=0}+(\mathrm{log}\mu ^2\gamma )\xi (0|)\right)\text{,}$$

$$W_2=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{lim}_{\epsilon 0}\frac{d^2}{d^2\epsilon }\left(\mu ^{2\epsilon }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon )\xi (\epsilon |)\right)$$

$$=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{d^2}{ds^2}\xi (s|)|_{s=0}+2(\mathrm{log}\mu ^2\gamma )\frac{d}{ds}\xi (s|)|_{s=0}\right]$$

$`(3.12)`$
$$+\frac{\xi (0|)}{4}\left[(\mathrm{log}\mu ^2\gamma )^2+\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Psi }(1+s)|_{s=0}\right]\text{,}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(s)`$ is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function and $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Psi }(1)`$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. The coefficients $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ are the counterterms, while $`W_2`$ is the renormalized partition function. If the zeta function $`\zeta (0|)`$ is regular at the origin, the quantity defined by Eq. (3.12) reduces to the renormalized partition function, because

$$\xi (0|)=0,\frac{d}{ds}\xi (s|)|_{s=0}=\zeta (0|),$$

$`(3.13)`$
$$\frac{d^2}{ds^2}\xi (s|)|_{s=0}=\frac{d}{ds}\zeta (s|)|_{s=0}\text{.}$$

### 3.1. The regularized vacuum energy

In order to evaluate the regularized vacuum energy, one needs the meromorphic structure of the zeta functions $`\zeta (z|)`$ and $`\zeta (z|_X)`$. The latter can be obtained by making use of the short heat kernel expansion (2.9). A direct calculation gives

$`(3.14)`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\zeta (z|_X)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A_r}{z+rp/2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_k}{(z+2k+p/2)^2}+J(z)\text{,}$$

where $`J(z)`$ is the analytic part. To be noted is the presence of second order poles associated with the logarithmic terms. Thus,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\zeta (z|_Y)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(M^2)^k}{k!}(\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A_r(_Y)}{z+k+r\frac{D1}{2}}$$

$`(3.15)`$
$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_k(_Y)}{(z+2k+\frac{pd+1}{2})^2}+J(z|_Y))\text{,}$$

where we have introduced the Seeley-De Witt coefficients

$`(3.16)`$
$$A_r(_Y)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^{d1})}{(4\pi )^{\frac{d1}{2}}}A_r,B_r(_Y)=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^{d1})}{(4\pi )^{\frac{d1}{2}}}B_r\text{.}$$

If $`D`$ is even and if $`\zeta (s|)`$ has a pole at the origin, Eqs. (2.4), (2.14), (3.12) and (3.15) lead to

$$<E>=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{PP}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)+(1+\mathrm{log2}\mu \frac{\gamma }{2})\text{Res}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)$$

$`(3.17)`$
$$+\frac{1}{4}B_{(D2p)/4}(_Y)\left[\mathrm{log}^2\mu ^2\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+(22\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}2\gamma )^2\right)\right]\text{,}$$

where now

$$\mathrm{PP}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)=\underset{s0}{lim}\{\zeta (s\frac{1}{2}|_Y)$$

$`(3.18)`$
$$\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}[\frac{B_{(D2p)/4}(_Y)}{s^2}\frac{1}{s}[A_{D/2}(_Y)+\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{1}{2})B_{(D2p)/4}(_Y)]]\}\text{.}$$

The coefficients $`B_{(D2p)/4}(_Y)`$ are related to the residue of $`\zeta (s|)`$ at the origin. This is the new prescription for the evaluation of the regularized vacuum energy. When there is no pole at the origin for $`\zeta (s|)`$, the prescription reduces to the standard one given by (2.7).

### 3.2. Non-Commutative Euclidean space

In our situation, i.e. in the case of massless scalar field defined on a $`D`$ manifold with noncommuting coordinates, the relevant choices are $`D=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$.

For the sake of simplicity, let us consider only the non compact case. In the case $`D=3`$, $`d=2,\zeta (s|)`$ is regular at the origin and furthermore $`\zeta (0|)=0`$. Thus the vacuum energy is given simply by

$$<E>=\frac{1}{2}\zeta (\frac{1}{2}|_Y)$$

$`(3.19)`$
$$=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^2)a^{3/2}}{32\pi ^{3/2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{M}^2)^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2k1}{4}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2k3}{4}\right)\text{,}$$

while for $`D=6`$, $`d=2`$ and $`p=4`$, from Eq. (2.6) we have

$$<E>=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^5)a^3}{256\pi ^3}[\underset{k=0,k1,3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{M}^2)^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k3}{3}\right)$$

$`(3.20)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{M}^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}^46}{12}(1+2\pi (\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2}{2a}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}(\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\mathrm{\Psi }(1/2)))]\text{.}$$

In Eqs. (3.19) and (3.20) $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2M^2/a`$ and this factor is dimensionless and independent on the coupling constant.

The situation changes for $`D=6`$ ($`d=4`$, $`p=2`$) and $`D=4`$ ($`p=d=2`$). In these cases the zeta function has a pole at the origin and one has to make use of Eq. (3.17). Let us first consider the case $`D=6`$, $`d=4`$, $`p=2`$. We have

$$<E>=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^5)a^3}{256\pi ^3}[\underset{k=0,k1,3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{M}^2)^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k3}{2}\right)$$

$`(3.21)`$
$$+\stackrel{~}{M}^2(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1)+(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2}{a}\gamma )^2+2+(4\frac{\stackrel{~}{M}^4}{3})(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2}{a}\gamma ))]\text{.}$$

In the other case, $`D=4`$, $`p=d=2`$, Eq. (3.17) gives

$$<E>=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(^3)a^2}{64\pi ^2}[\underset{k=1,k2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{M}^2)^k}{k!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{k2}{2}\right)2\frac{4\pi ^2}{3}$$

$`(3.22)`$
$$+8\gamma ^28(\frac{1}{2}2\gamma +\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2}{a})^2+\stackrel{~}{M}^4(\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu ^2}{2a}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(1)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }(1/2))]\text{.}$$

Our evaluation of the functional determinant corresponding to the thermal fluctuation operator has also led to a non-analytic dependence on the coupling constant $`\lambda `$, corresponding to the resummation of all the one-loop diagrams. As is well known, higher-loop diagrams could, in principle, give a contribution of the same order. In any case, our computation is the necessary first step towards the final result.

In the compact case, we only obsserse that we have qualitatively the same results, but they are much more involved. Here, the sign of vacuum energy is relevant for issues concerning the stabilization mechanism of the compactification radius. However, it is to be noticed that its value depends on the renormalization parameter $`\mu `$ and on the number of non commuting coordinates.

### 3.3. High temperature expansion

To obtain the high temperature expansion, $`\beta 0`$, one may use Eqs. (2.14) and (3.15). We consider only the case $`D=4`$ since for the other cases, $`D`$ odd or $`D=6`$, the high temperature expansion is standard, in its first leading terms.

For suitable $`s`$, we shift the vertical contour in the second term of Eq. (2.14) to the left. There are several simple poles and double poles in $`z`$. The simple pole at $`z=0`$ gives a contribution which cancels with the first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (2.14). Then there are simple poles at $`z=1`$ and $`z=42r2s`$. The double poles occur at $`z=4k2s`$. As a result, the thermal zeta function reads

$$\zeta (s|)=\zeta (s|_Y)+\frac{\beta }{(4\pi )^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}[\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)^4A_0(_Y)\zeta _R(4)$$

$$+\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)^2A_1(_Y)\zeta _R(2)+A_2(_Y)\zeta _R(1)+𝒪(s)]$$

$$\frac{\beta ^{2s+1}B_0(_Y)}{(2\pi )^{2s+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi }\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1/2)\zeta _R(1+2s)$$

$`(3.25)`$
$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{ds}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1/2)\zeta _R(1+2s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1/2)\frac{d}{ds}\zeta _R(1+2s)]+\frac{𝒪(\beta ^5)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}\text{.}$$

It should be noted that the high temperature expansion is still singular at $`s=0`$ due to the $`(d/ds)\zeta _R(1+2s)`$ term, and, strictly speaking, one should make use of Eq. (3.12) in order to compute the first quantum correction to the partition function. However, this term originates a subleading contribution, of order zero in $`\beta `$, the leading contributions being similar to those in the non-commutative case.

## 4. Conclusions

In this paper we have calculated the first quantum correction to the partition function at finite temperature for massless scalar fields on flat manifolds with non compact and with compact non-commutative dimensions. Dimensional regularization implemented with zeta-function techniques has been used to perform the calculations, which are rendered absolutely rigorous through the use of such machinery. This is not a trivial issue. In fact, the difficulties posed by the appearance of the non-commutative contributions in the spectral functions (which depend on it non analytically) should not be underestimated. Our calculation should be viewed as an attempt at an implementation of the background field method to the non-commutative case.

On the positive side, this has as a consequence that the quantum theory at finite temperature obtained by ‘addition’ of the non-commutative dimensions, departs appreciably from the commutative case. This is true concerning the mathematics of the problem: new poles in the zeta function, new asymptotic expansions, as well as the physics of the model. Here we have investigated the changes suffered by the vacuum energy density in the cases considered. After obtaining the general formula for the family of spacetimes at issue, a new prescription for the regularized vacuum energy has been obtained.

This new prescription has been exemplified with the explicit expressions corresponding to dimensions $`D=3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$, where changes in the coefficients of the corresponding expressions of the regularized vacuum energy density are notorious.

One should also notice that, in the case of the presence of the pole at the origin for the zeta function, the dependence on the renormalization parameter in the vacuum energy (or in the effective action) is quite complicated, and, as a consequence, the one-loop renormalization group equations will be different from the standard ones. Furthermore, making use of the Eq. (A.10), contained in the Appendix of Ref. , it is possible to show that the use of a different regularization, for example the cut-off regularization, leads to the same conclusions.

We have also discussed the high temperature expansion for the partition function and have shown that new subleading terms, associated with the non-commutative part of the operator spectrum, are present. In subsequent work we aim at exploring the subject further, by trying to approach an experimental situation where one could actually check the non-commutative results vs the ordinary, commutative ones.