text:
# Low energy atomic collision with dipole interactions

## I INTRODUCTION

Due to the tremendous progress made in laser cooling and trapping , cold atomic collision has become a frontier area of research in recent years. The atomic Bose-Einstein condensation demonstrations  have furthered this new trend of research in atomic physics. Recently, a topic of particular interest is the manipulation of BEC and matter- waves properties by controlling atom-atom interactions. Several groups have discussed mechanisms for changing the scattering length of atomic collision using near resonant lasers , radio frequency fields , Feschbach resonance due to a magnetic field , and shape resonance from dc electric field (dc-E) induced dipole interactions .

In this paper we present a detailed multichannel scattering investigation of low energy atomic collisions with anisotropic dipole collisions. Earlier studies of this problem  have revealed several interesting features at low collision energies. Of particular interests to this study is its potential applications to modify (bosonic) atom-atom interaction strength with scattering resonances and the generation of p-wave BCS states for a single component fermi gas . In this article, we develop a multichannel quantum defect theory (MQDT) using exact asymptotic solutions for the long range interatomic potential to analyze scattering resonance features. Our main aim is to explain the physical origin of dc-E dipole interaction induced resonances in the low energy limit. We also want to understand why such resonances only occur in even ($`l`$) partial wave channels, but not among odd ($`l`$) channels as numerically discovered earlier . In a model study with two coupled channel ($`l=0`$ and $`2`$), we attempt to clarify the results of complicated multichannel scattering and illustrate the simple origin of these resonances. We find these are shape resonance caused by the coupling between different spatial spherical harmonic scattering channels due to anisotropic dipole interaction.

This paper is organized as follows; First we briefly discuss how an external dc-E modifies the effective interaction potential between two neutral atoms. We then present a detailed mathematical scattering formulation in Sec. II. In section III, we describe numerical techniques for the multichannel scattering calculation developed earlier by Marinescu and You , and present additional illustrative results (for 85Rb in the singlet molecular potential state). The MQDT including dipole interaction is described in Sec. IV. In section V, we analyze the structure of the observed shape resonance with a simple model using only two (lowest angular momentum $`l`$) coupled channels. The dc-E field dependent zero energy bound states are discussed for the two channel model system in Sec. VI. Finally we summarize and conclude in Sec. VII.

## II Formulation

The long-range interaction between two spherically symmetric atoms in the ground state, is usually given \[in the London-van der Waals (LvW) formalism\] by

$`V_0(R)={\displaystyle \frac{C_6}{R^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_8}{R^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{10}}{R^{10}}}\mathrm{},`$ (1)
where $`C_6`$, $`C_8`$, and $`C_{10}`$ are the dispersion coefficients, and $`R`$ is the internuclear distance. With this asymptotic potential, zero energy scattering is described essentially only by one parameter: the s-wave scattering length, $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ . In the absence of a dc-E, the Hamiltonian of a model system of two spherically symmetric neutral alkali atoms A and B can be written as

$`H=H_A+H_B+V_c`$ (2)
where $`H_{i=A,B}`$ is the unperturbed Hamiltonian of atom $`i`$, and $`V_c`$ is the Coulomb potential between charge distributions of the two atoms and is given by the multipole expansion from

$`V_c={\displaystyle \underset{l,L=1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{lL}(\stackrel{}{r_A},\stackrel{}{r_B})}{R^{l+L+1}}}`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{}{r_i}`$ is the position vector of valence electron of $`i`$-th atom and $`R`$ is the separation between the centers of mass of the two atoms. Take the spatial quantization axis to be along the interatomic direction $`\widehat{R}`$, the coefficient $`V_{lL}(\stackrel{}{r_A},\stackrel{}{r_B})`$ is then given by

$`V_{lL}=(1)^L4\pi (\widehat{l}\widehat{L})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}𝐊_{lL}^mr_A^lr_B^LY_{lm}(\widehat{r}_A)Y_{Lm}(\widehat{r}_B)`$ (4)
with $`\widehat{l}2l+1`$, $`\widehat{L}2L+1`$, and

$`𝐊_{lL}^m=\left[C_{l+L}^{l+m}C_{l+L}^{L+m}\right]^{1/2},`$ (5)
where $`C_L^m=L!/[m!(Lm)!]`$. Equation (1) of the long range dispersion is obtained from a perturbation calculation of $`V_c`$ in the limit of large $`R`$ when exchange effects between different atoms are negligible.

The presence of a dc-E distorts the spherical symmetry of an atom, consequently, the long-range form of interatomic potential Eq. (1) is modified. In the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit, the ground state wave function $`|S|n_g,l=0,m=0`$ ($`n_g`$, $`l`$, and $`m`$ are respectively the principal, angular, and magnetic quantum numbers) of an atom acquires a small $`P`$ angular momentum component due to the electric dipole coupling with excited states. Within the first order perturbation theory, the perturbed ground state wave function can be written as $`|\varphi =|S+|𝐏`$, where $`|𝐏`$ is the sum of all $`P`$ excited states,

$`|𝐏={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}|n,l,m{\displaystyle \frac{(n,1|r|n_g,0)(\widehat{s}\widehat{e}_m^{})}{E_{n,1}E_{n_g,0}}}.`$ (6)
$`\widehat{s}`$ denotes the unit vector along the dc-E direction and $`r`$ is the valance electron coordinate (dipole operator) expanded in the tensor operator basis $`\widehat{e}_m`$ of $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$. The first order energy perturbation, i.e. interatomic interaction potential can then be written as

$`E^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \varphi |V_c|\varphi \varphi `$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\left(SS|+S𝐏|+^2\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}|\right)V_c\left(|SS+|S𝐏+^2|\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}\right).`$ (8)
To leading order in the dc-E amplitude $``$, equation (8) generates an additional term,

$`V_E(R)={\displaystyle \frac{C_E}{R^3}}P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (9)
to the LvW formalism of Eq. (1). $`C_E=2^2\alpha _1^A(0)\alpha _1^B(0)`$ is the induced electric dipole interaction coefficient with $`\alpha _1^{A(B)}(0)`$ the static atomic dipole polarizabilities of atom A(B). $`P_2(.)`$ is the Legendre polynomial of order 2 and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the directions of the electric field ($`\widehat{s}`$) and the internuclear axis ($`\widehat{R}`$). As discovered earlier by Marinescu and You  this electric field induced dipole interaction Eq. (9), has a “quasi long-range” character in the sense that it generates a “short-range” contribution to the effective potential of the partial wave channel $`l=0`$ while it generates a “long-range” contribution (proportional to $`1/R^3`$) for all other partial wave channels ($`l0`$).

Assuming a weak dc-E, the value of the induced dipole term \[Eq. (9)\] is small in comparison to typical atomic energy scale \[e.g. 100 (kV/cm) is equivalent to $`1.94401\times 10^5`$ (a.u.)\]. Nevertheless, the qualitatively different asymptotic behavior for the interaction potential (i.e. $`1/R^3`$) provides significant implications for threshold behaviors of low energy collision. We recall that for a spherically symmetric short range potential (which vanishes exponentially with increasing $`R`$), partial wave scattering phase shift obeys the Wigner threshold law $`\delta _l(k)k^{2l+1}`$ at low energies. For a long range potential vanishes as $`1/R^n`$, $`\delta _l`$ instead behaves in the limit of zero energy as $`k^{2l+1}`$ if $`l<(n3)/2`$ and as $`k^{n2}`$ otherwise . For our problem, the complete long-range interatomic potential is given by $`V_0(R)+V_E(R)`$, where $`V_0(R)`$ is the usual long-range dispersion form Eq. (1) free of dc-E. Different partial wave channels are now coupled because of the anisotropic $`Y_{20}(\widehat{R})P_2(\widehat{R})`$ in $`V_E`$. Applying the rule for low energy collision phase shifts to all diagonal terms of the potential, we discover the interesting situation where all partial wave phase shifts are proportional to $`k`$ due to the presence of induced dipole interaction $`V_E`$ .

The anisotropic Eq. (9) couples different angular momentum channels. The matrix elements for the scattering potential are simply

$`V(R)\delta _{ll^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_E}{R^3}}lm|P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )|l^{}m^{},`$ (10)
where $`|lm=Y_{lm}(\widehat{R})`$ and $`V(R)`$ is the usual dc-E free isotropic interatomic potential which reduces to $`V_0(R)`$ in the large $`R`$ limit. Due to symmetry of the z-component of the angular momentum, the matrix element $`lm|P_2|l^{}m^{}`$ vanishes if $`l+l^{}`$ is an odd number; A non-zero coupling only exists if $`ll^{}=\pm 2`$ and $`m=m^{}`$. Therefore even and odd parity channels as well as different $`m`$ blocks are decoupled.

Because of the coupling among different partial wave channels, the usual procedure for partial wave scattering calculation needs to be modified to accommodate the dipole interaction $`V_E`$. We assume the scattering wavefunction for $`R\mathrm{}`$ to be of the form

$`R\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{R})R\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R})+f(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{R})\mathrm{exp}(ikR)`$ (11)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the incident momentum. The on-shell elastic scattering is then described by $`f(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{R})`$ with the scattered momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}^{^{}}=k\widehat{R}`$. We expand the scattering amplitude $`f(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{R})`$ onto the complete basis

$`f(\stackrel{}{k},\widehat{R})={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}T_{lm}(\stackrel{}{k})Y_{lm}(\widehat{R})`$ (12)
and apply the partial wave expansion

$`\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R})=4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}i^lj_l(kR)Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{k})Y_{lm}(\widehat{R}).`$ (13)
We then obtain for $`R\mathrm{}`$

$`R\psi _k(\stackrel{}{R})=\varphi _k(\stackrel{}{R})={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}i^l\left[Y_{lm}^{}(\widehat{k})\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)+T_{lm}(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{exp}(ikRil\pi /2)\right]Y_{lm}(\widehat{R}),`$ (14)
where we have used the asymptotic form $`j_l(kr)\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)/(kR)`$. Therefore the scattering equations take the multichannel form

$`h_l\varphi _{lm}(\stackrel{}{R})={\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}i^{l^{}l}lm|V(\stackrel{}{R})|l^{}m^{}\varphi _{l^{}m^{}},`$ (15)
with

$`h_l={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dR^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{R^2}}E,`$ (16)
and $`\varphi _{lm}=lm|R\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{R})`$. $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2\mu )`$ is the collision energy. The boundary conditions are then given by

$`\varphi _{lm}Y_{lm}^{}(k)\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)+T_{lm}(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{exp}(ikRil\pi /2).`$ (17)
The above coupled multichannel scattering equation in relative angular momentum ($`l`$) channels can also be conveniently written in a matrix form

$`\left[({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dR^2}}+V)𝐈+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R^2}}𝐋^2+𝐕_E\right]𝚽=E𝚽,`$ (18)
where $`𝐈`$ is the identity matrix, $`𝐋`$ is the momentum operator and $`𝐋^2`$ takes the form of a diagonal matrix: $`𝐋^2=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[l(l+1),(l+2)(l+3),\mathrm{}]`$ with $`l=`$ even or odd channels decoupled; $`\mu =M/2`$ is the reduced mass for two identical atoms. The wave function $`𝚽`$ is a column vector containing coupled channel function $`\varphi _{lm}`$, (i.e., different outgoing channels $`Y_{lm}(\widehat{R})`$). Since we need a complete set of linear independent scattering solutions to determine $`T_{lm}`$ from its expansion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}T_{lm}(\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle \underset{l^{}m^{}}{}}t_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}(k)Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{k}),`$ (19)
$`𝚽`$ is made to be a matrix with different columns characterizing scattering solutions for different incident channels $`Y_{lm}(\widehat{k})`$. The T-matrix elements, $`T_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}`$, can be extracted by imposing the boundary condition Eq. (17) on the partial waves in the asymptotic region. The total elastic cross section is given by

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{O})}=8\pi {\displaystyle \underset{l,l^{}=\mathrm{even}(\mathrm{odd})}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}}{}}|t_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}|^2.`$ (20)
for E (even) and O (odd), respectively. We recall that $`t_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}=a_{\mathrm{sc}}\delta _{l0}\delta _{l^{}0}\delta _{m0}\delta _{m^{}0}`$ for spherically symmetric collisions described by Eq. (1) without the dipole interaction.

As a technical note for caution, we emphasize that the dipole interaction Eq. (9) is only valid for $`R>>a_0`$ ($`a_0`$ is Bohr radius). In constructing the complete potential, it is therefore required to be smoothly added to the isotropic potential, whose short range part $`V_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ also needs to be smoothly connected with its asymptotic form $`V_0`$. We used different cut-off radius $`R_c`$ with the same matching function for this purpose

$`f_c(R)=\theta (RR_c)+\theta (R_cR)\mathrm{exp}[(R_c/R1)^2],`$ (21)
where $`\theta (.)`$ is the step function. We also note as elucidated by Jackson , an additional contact term is needed for the point dipole interaction to comply with the Gauss’s law. For our case of Eq. (9), this amounts to a contact term $`8\pi \alpha ^{(A)}\alpha ^{(B)}^2\delta (\stackrel{}{R})/3`$. Such an addition is absent in our formulation since its effect is already implicitly included in the short range potential of $`V(R)`$.

## III Results and Discussions

The standard numerov technique was adopted in numerically propagating Eq. (18) to obtain asymptotic scattering solutions. At lower energies, details of the potential functions $`V(R)`$ becomes important. Accurate potentials were obtained from other groups . Most often we adopted a parametrization approach to adjust a reasonable $`V_{\mathrm{sh}}`$ potential such that a correct $`a_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ was obtained. To be able to solve the problem efficiently, we adopted a variable step size $`h`$ along $`R`$. With numerov we propagate from $`R=0`$ to asymptotic region $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$, we specify the initial conditions as $`𝚽(0)=0`$ and $`𝚽(h)=𝚽_{\mathrm{arb}}`$, where $`𝚽_{\mathrm{arb}}`$ is an arbitrary symmetric matrix whose columns are chosen to be linearly independent vectors. In the absence of analytical solutions, there seems to be no clear-cut criteria for choosing the asymptotic region. With our numerical code, in the sub-$`\mu K`$ energy region, typically convergent results were only obtained for $`R10^7a_0`$. In order to maintain orthogonality and linear independence of different solution vectors during propagation, the subspace rotation technique is performed regularly. In the asymptotic region, we determine (by matching to potential free motion states)

$`\varphi _{lm}=c_1\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)+c_2\mathrm{cos}(kRl\pi /2),`$ (22)
and construct the S-matrix with its element given by $`(c_1ic_2)^1(c_1+ic_2)`$ and the T-matrix $`(𝐒1)/(2i)`$.

In the illustrative study to be reported below, unless stated otherwise, we always use 85Rb atoms in its singlet potential curve. We have employed a maximum angular quantum momentum $`l=8`$ (9) for even (odd) channels, respectively. A reasonably good asymptotic radius $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is chosen to satisfy $`|VC_3/R^3|<10^6\times |\mathrm{}^2l(l+1)R^2/(2\mu )E|`$ with $`l=2`$ (1) for even (odd) partial wave channels.

First, we discuss the choice of cut-off radius $`R_c`$ and the asymptotic radius $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ for our numerical calculations. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate effects of different values for electric dipole cut off radius $`R_c`$. In general, we find that resonance peak shifts towards higher $``$ values as $`R_c`$ increases. Because of the perturbative nature for the effective long range dipole interaction, $`R_c`$ is always taken to be much larger than $`a_0`$. Unless otherwise stated, we will use $`R_c=27(a_0)`$ to present our results. The small $`R_c`$ dependence can be operationally fixed by a normalization against any dc-E field dependent experimental data.

Figure 2 shows that, among all partial wave channels, scattering in the s-wave ($`l=0`$) channel is the most sensitive with the choice of cut-off radius, while higher $`l`$ channel results remain almost unaffected. Physically this $`R_c`$ dependence can be explained in terms of the centrifugal potential term $`l(l+1)/R^2`$ which is absent for the s-wave channel. Comparing with Fig. 1, we see that the resonance at $`=456`$ (kV/cm) is mostly due to the contribution from $`t_{00}^{00}`$ (s-wave) despite the anisotropic nature of dc-E induced dipole interaction. The coupling of s- to d-wave is the main reason for such a resonance as otherwise there seems no direct dipole interaction contributions to the s-wave channel. Our extensive calculations show that typical values of $`t_{00}^{20}`$ are many orders of magnitude smaller than $`t_{00}^{00}`$ \[for $`<1`$ (MV/cm)\]. This is explicitly shown in Fig. 3, where the ratio for different partial wave cross sections are compared with the s-wave one. We see that at low energies, scattering cross section for $`l>2`$ channels are smaller than that for the s-wave ($`l=0`$) by at least two orders of magnitude for $`<1`$ (MV/cm). At and near the resonance, scattering for $`l0`$ are absolutely negligible ($`<10^5`$ of $`\sigma _{00}^{00}`$) in this case.

For $`<200`$ (kV/cm), we find the $`R_c`$-dependence to be marginal as shown in Fig. 4. But at increased field strength the overall effect is not always negligible ($`>1`$%).

Next, we consider the low energy threshold dependence of the scattering cross section. As discussed earlier, we expect the asymptotic behaviour $`T_{lm}^{l^{}m^{}}k`$ at sufficiently low energies. We have performed extensive calculations to assure that all reported results are asymptotically converging such that we indeed have reached this limit. In Fig. 5 we display the variation of total scattering cross section $`\sigma _E`$ as a function of energy ranging from nK to mK regime. We see that for $`=100`$ (kV/cm), $`\sigma _E`$ becomes almost independent of energy below 1 ($`\mu `$K), while at $`=456`$ (kV/cm) $`\sigma _E`$ varies almost linearly with inverse of energy in the range of $`20`$ (nK) to $`10`$ ($`\mu `$K). It is worth pointing out here that at $`=456`$ (kV/cm), a resonance occurs at low energy as discussed later resulting in a divergent low energy cross section $`1/k^2`$.

Figure 6 is a selected result from odd ($`l`$) partial wave channels for 82Rb (fermion). No resonance structure was ever detected in such cases.

In Fig. 7, we plot the scattering cross section of 85Rb for large fields $`>1`$ (MV/cm). As the field strength increases the resonance become more closely spaced. Again, the major contribution to the scattering comes from s-wave channel, although increased coupling between s- and higher $`l`$\- partial waves with field strength is responsible for the multiple peak resonance structure.

The results presented so far are obtained by radial integrations of coupled Schröedinger equations. There are certain practical disadvantages of using such a exclusively numerical method. First, it takes considerable amount of time to obtain the results, since the propagation of solutions continue until the asymptotic radius, which can be of the order of $`10^7a_0`$ or higher, is reached. The lower the energy, the longer the cpu time is needed because of increased $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$; Second, the increase of either collision energy or dc-E field strength or both calls for reduced propagation step size which again prolongs numerical computations; Third, as discussed earlier, the asymptotic boundary is not well defined. Therefore, no direct physical insight is gained about the resonance. In order to overcome these shortcomings of the numerical method, we have developed a MQDT for scattering with anisotropic dipole interactions. Quantum defect theory (QDT) relies on matching numerically integrated scattering solutions to analytic solutions (not asymptotic plane waves). The integration can be restricted to much shorter radius $`R`$ if appropriate analytical solutions are known. This not only makes the computation faster, the use of analytical solutions to the long range potential also helps to gain deep insight into resonance phenomena and low energy threshold behaviour.

## IV Quantum defect theory for anisotropic dipole interaction

Quantum defect theory  was originally formulated to explain the spectrum of hydrogenic Rydberg atoms. In the Rydberg’s formula, $`E_n=R/(n\mu )^2`$ where $`R`$ is the Rydberg constant; the quantum defect $`\mu `$ accounts for effects of the ionic core on a highly excited electron. The idea of QDT has been successfully applied in atomic collisions and spectroscopy over the years . The multichannel version of QDT, known as MQDT provides a good theoretical framework for analysis of diverse phenomena in atomic and molecular physics. In collision theory, MQDT requires analytical solutions in all asymptotic channel potentials. In the present problem including anisotropic dipole interaction, the diagonal elements of potential matrix goes asymptotically as $`1/R^n`$ with $`n=6`$ for $`l=0`$ and $`n=3`$ for all other channels ($`l0`$). The exact solutions of these power law potentials have only recently become available through application of secular perturbation method .

We first consider $`n`$ channels, as noted earlier, of even ($`l`$) angular momentum scattering states. In the asymptotic region, the diagonal potential term for s-wave channel $`l=0`$ goes as $`1/R^6`$ while the diagonal terms for $`l>0`$ channels varies as $`1/R^3`$. Applying MQDT, we first numerically integrate the multi-channel scattering equation (18) from $`R=0`$ to a certain $`R=R_0`$ such that $`C_6/R_0^6<<|20|V_E(R_0)|20|`$. How to make a judicious choice of $`R_0`$ will be discussed later. Next, as a first approximation, we neglect off-diagonal potential terms for $`R>R_0`$. We note more complicated procedure exists that can incorporate off-diagonal effects in the long-range regime ($`R>R_0`$) . It will be discussed later. The exact solutions of $`1/R^6`$ and $`1/R^3`$ potentials are then matched to numerically integrated multi-channel wave functions at $`R_0`$ in the spirit of MQDT

$`𝚽=𝐈𝐅+𝐉𝐆,`$ (23)
where

$`𝐅`$ $`=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[f_{l=0}^{(6)},f_{l=2}^{(3)},\mathrm{}f_{l=2(n1)}^{(3)}],`$ (24)
$`𝐆`$ $`=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[g_{l=0}^{(6)},g_{l=2}^{(3)}\mathrm{}g_{l=2(n1)}^{(3)}],`$ (25)
are two diagonal matrices with $`f_l^{(n)}`$ and $`g_l^{(n)}`$ two suitably chosen linear independent base functions for $`C_n/R^n`$ type potential. One can define a characteristic length scale for such a power law potential $`\beta _n=(2\mu C_n/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/(n2)}`$. Explicit expressions for $`f_l^n`$ and $`g_l^n`$ are reproduced in appendix-A. Their asymptotic forms are given in appendix-B, which for $`E>0`$ are grouped as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_l^{(n)}(R\mathrm{})& \\ g_l^{(n)}(R\mathrm{})& \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_{fb}^{(nl)}& Z_{fc}^{(nl)}\\ Z_{gb}^{(nl)}& Z_{gc}^{(nl)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}(kR\frac{l\pi }{2})& \\ \mathrm{cos}(kR\frac{l\pi }{2})& \end{array}\right).`$ (32)
The coefficient matrices $`𝐈`$ and $`𝐉`$ are determined by use of the Wronskians: $`𝐈=W(𝚽,𝐆)\pi /2`$ and $`𝐉=W(𝚽,𝐅)\pi /2`$ at $`R=R_0`$. As a convention, we set the constant Wronskian $`W(f_l^{(n)},g_l^{(n)})`$ for the linear independent base pairs $`f_l^{(n)}`$ and $`g_l^{(n)}`$ to $`2/\pi `$. Substituting for the asymptotic form Eq. (32), we arrive at

$`𝐅(R\mathrm{})`$ $`=𝐙_{FB}𝐁+𝐙_{FC}𝐂,`$ (33)
$`𝐆(R\mathrm{})`$ $`=𝐙_{GB}𝐁+𝐙_{GC}𝐂,`$ (34)
where $`𝐙_{FB(C)}`$ are $`n\times n`$ diagonal matrices of the form $`\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[Z_{fb(c)}^{(60)},Z_{fb(c)}^{(32)},\mathrm{}]`$ and similarly expressions for $`𝐙_{GB(C)}`$ with the subscript $`F`$ ($`f`$) replaced by $`G`$ ($`g`$). $`𝐁=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[\mathrm{sin}(kR),\mathrm{},\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2),\mathrm{}]`$ and $`𝐂=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[\mathrm{cos}(kR),\mathrm{},\mathrm{cos}(kRl\pi /2),\mathrm{}]`$ are also diagonal matrices. Substituting these expressions into Eq. (23), we obtain

$`𝚽(R\mathrm{})`$ $`=(𝐈𝐙_{FB}+𝐉𝐙_{GB})𝐁`$ (36)
$`+(𝐈𝐙_{FC}+𝐉𝐙_{GC})𝐂.`$
From which we find the scattering K-matrix as

$`𝐊=(𝐙_{FB}+𝐊^0𝐙_{GB})^1(𝐙_{FC}+𝐊^0𝐙_{GC}),`$ (37)
where $`𝐊^0=𝐈^1𝐉`$ is a matrix that hopefully will depend only on shorter range interactions ($`RR_0`$). In general, $`𝐊^0`$ will have some $`R`$ dependence. For the case of a single channel, it becomes a slowly varying function of $`R`$ and approaches a constant at $`R_0`$ where the potential attains its power law asymptotic form ($`1/R^n`$). The matching point $`R_0`$ is therefore appropriately chosen such that $`𝐊^0`$ becomes independent of $`R`$. This is always possible as all analytic dependence on potential and collision energy is taken care of by the various $`𝐙`$ functions. For multi-channel with anisotropic interactions as in the present context, the situation become more complicated, and will be discussed in the next section.

The S-matrix is obtained from K-matrix according to $`𝐒=(\mathrm{𝟏}i𝐊)^1(\mathrm{𝟏}+i𝐊)`$. The eigen phase shifts can be directly calculated from the diagonalized S-matrix $`𝚲^1𝐒𝚲=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _0),\mathrm{exp}(2i\delta _2),\mathrm{}]`$, where $`𝚲`$ is the unitary transformation matrix. Thus the phase shifts for different incoming and outgoing channels become available.

For odd ($`l`$) coupled partial wave channels, essentially the same mathematical structure as the above formalism remains, except now all diagonal potential terms are $`1/R^3`$ at large $`R`$. Therefore we only need analytical channel solutions for $`1/R^3`$ type potential. This makes the odd angular momentum channel problem qualitatively different (simpler).

Before developing a model two channel problem, we briefly summarize a technique that would allow for inclusion of off-diagonal potential terms for $`R>R_0`$ within our approach . In the presence of off diagonal couplings at large interatomic separation $`(R>R_0)`$, the wavefunction for each channel $`l`$ can be expressed as

$`\varphi _l=u_l(R)f_l(R)v_l(R)g_l(R),`$ (38)
where $`f_l`$ and $`g_l`$ are the two linearly independent base functions as defined earlier satisfying the Schrödinger equation for a $`1/R^n`$ type potential. We will suppress the $`m`$ quantum number index since even anistropic dipole potential $`V_E`$ remains diagonal in $`m`$. $`u_l`$ and $`v_l`$ are two slowly varying functions of $`R`$ defined by equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _l}{dR}}`$ $`=`$ $`u_l(R){\displaystyle \frac{df_l(R)}{dR}}v_l(R){\displaystyle \frac{dg_l(R)}{dR}},`$ (39)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_l}{dR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _l(R)g_l(R),`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dv_l}{dR}}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _l(R)f_l(R).`$ (41)
By substituting the above expressions into the Schroedinger equation (16), we obtain

$`W(f_l,g_l)\xi _l(R)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{}}(i)^{l^{}l}(V_E)_{ll^{}}\varphi _l^{}(R)`$ (42)
where $`W(f_l,g_l)`$ is the Wronskian of the base pair $`f_l`$ and $`g_l`$. The solutions of Eq. (41) can then be written as

$`u_l(R)`$ $`=`$ $`u_l(R_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \pi }{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{R_0}^R}𝑑R^{}g_l(R^{}){\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{}}(i)^{l^{}l}(V_E)_{ll^{}}\varphi _l^{}(R^{}),`$ (43)
$`v_l(R)`$ $`=`$ $`v_l(R_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \pi }{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle _{R_0}^R}𝑑R^{}f_l(R^{}){\displaystyle \underset{l^{}l}{}}(i)^{l^{}l}(V_E)_{ll^{}}\varphi _l^{}(R^{}),`$ (44)
a form that allows for direct perturbation analysis . The scattering matrix can be determined by evaluating values of $`u_l`$ and $`v_l`$ at large $`R`$ values, since the asymptotic expressions for $`f_l`$ and $`g_l`$ as given by Eq. (32) are known. The values of $`u_l(R_0)`$ and $`v_l(R_0)`$ are given by the condition that at $`R=R_0`$ the $`l`$-channel wave function $`\varphi _l`$ given by Eq. (38) should coincide with the corresponding wave function given by Eq. (23). Thus $`u_l(R_0)`$ and $`v_l(R_0)`$ are then respectively elements of the matrices $`𝐈`$ and $`𝐉`$. We will, however, not pursue such a complicated calculation as it turns out that most of the interesting physics in low energy dipole collision can be obtained through a simpler model calculation involving only two channels.

## V two coupled channels

To illustrate the physics of dc-E induced shape resonance, we apply the MQDT method as outlined above, to a closed system of two coupled channels ($`l=0`$ and $`2`$). Given the fact that scattering for $`l>2`$ channels are almost negligible at low energies as illustrated in Fig. 3 for $``$ field range of interests to us, this $`2\times 2`$ coupled-channel system represents a well justified model. From Eq. (18) we have,

$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dR^2}}+VE\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu R^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 6\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{C_E}{R^3}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& C_{20}\\ C_{20}& C_{22}\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{00}& \\ \varphi _{20}& \end{array}\right)=0,`$ (53)
where $`C_{ll^{}}=l0|P_2(.)|l^{}0`$. As $`R\mathrm{}`$, the diagonal potential terms in the channels $`l=0`$ and $`l=2`$ become $`V_0=C_6/R^6`$ and $`V_26\mathrm{}^2/(2\mu R^2)C_EC_{22}/R^3`$, respectively. We, therefore, employ exact solutions of $`1/R^6`$ and $`1/R^3`$ potentials as obtained by B. Gao  to match numerically computed ones at a radius $`R_0`$. We first choose $`R_0`$ to satisfy condition $`C_6/R_0^6<<C_EC_{22}/R_0^3`$, i.e., $`R_0>>[C_6/(C_EC_{22})]^{1/3}`$. Therefore, as discussed in the previous section, we expect the diagonal element of $`𝐊^0`$ in the $`l=2`$ channel, i.e., $`K_{22}^0`$ should approach a constant as $`RR_0`$, provided the strength of the long range anisotropy is negligible for $`R>R_0`$. A good measure of the relative strength of the anisotropy can be defined according to

$`\eta (R)=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{12}}{V_2V_0}}\right|.`$ (54)
We neglect anisotropic effects for $`R>R_0`$ if $`\eta (R>R_0)`$ drops well below unity (typically at $`5\times 10^3`$). In Fig. 8 we have plotted $`\eta `$ as a function of $`R`$ for several different values of $``$ field.

In Figure 9, we display variations of $`K_{22}^0`$ as a function of $`R_0`$ for two different electric field strength at $`1`$ (nK) collision energy. We note that $`K_{22}^0`$ approaches a constant for $`R4000(a_0)`$. The same behavior is true at even higher $``$ fields, albeit, at still larger values of $`R_0`$. Therefore for $`1000`$ (kV/cm), we expect little loss of accuracy by neglecting off-diagonal terms when $`R4000(a_0)`$. Based on the MQDT formulation discussed in the previous section, we have computed the scattering wave function as well as the corresponding T-matrix for our model of two coupled channels. In Figure 10, we show the scattering cross section as a function of dc-E field strength $``$ at three different collisions energies. We note that the resonance becomes more prominent as collision energy is lowered below ($`\mu `$K), indicating the presence of a bound state or a virtual bound-state (quasi-bound) near the zero energy threshold. This calculation illustrates that our model indeed captures the resonance at $`=456`$ (kV/cm) as previously discussed in Fig. 5. This results are almost indistinguishable from a complete numerical calculations done earlier. We will discuss in more detail such zero energy resonances in the next section.

As a check of consistency, we note that results obtained from the MQDT two channel model calculation agree quite well with those obtained by the complete numerical calculations as long as the two channel approximation remains valid for $`<1`$ (MV/cm). For $`>1`$ (MV/cm), off-diagonal terms of the dipole potential are not negligible for the same value of MQDT matching radius $`R_0`$ used. A simple way of including more effects of off-diagonal terms would be to increase $`R_0`$. We therefore conclude that the MQDT does provide significant computational advantage over the direct numerical integration technique. It is especially efficient at lower energies when $`E<10`$ ($`\mu `$K).

We now analyze the long range behaviour of our two channel model. For the $`l=0`$ channel, the diagonal potential behaves asymptotically as $`1/R^6`$. This singlet potential in fact can support many many bound states, including those close to the zero energy threshold . For $`l0`$ channels, on the other hand, quasi-bound states (virtual bound states in the quasi-continuum) may also occur due to the presence of the centrifugal potential barrier. In the zero energy limit, scattering is mostly due to s-wave ($`l=0`$) in the regime of parameters of interest to us. Any alteration of the long-range s-wave potential ($`1/R^6`$) due to electric-field-induced coupling with d-wave leads to a modification of its bound (quasibound) spectrum near the zero energy threshold. The effective potential $`V_2`$ (diagonal term plus centrifugal barrier) has a maximum (barrier) at $`R=R_m`$ given by the condition $`dV_2/dR=0`$, i.e. $`R_m=\mu C_EC_{22}/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$ and the barrier height is given by $`\delta V=\mathrm{}^2/(\mu R_m^2)`$. Since coefficient $`C_E`$ is proportional to field intensity $`^2`$, $`R_m`$ is linearly proportional to $`^2`$. Consequently, the barrier height becomes inversely proportional to $`^4`$. The coupling between s- and d-wave channels may lead to combined new bound or quasi-bound states or both at near-zero energies. The existence of these states is manifested in the form of scattering resonance. For instance when an incident low energy atom from s-wave channel hits a quasi-bound states supported by the d-wave centrifugal barrier, we may have a situation resemble what is commonly known as a Feshach resonance . If there exists a bound state at or near zero energy, scattering cross sections will consequently be enhanced many-fold. This is indeed the case found in our earlier extensive numerical calculations. As will be proven in the next section on bound states, such resonance structures can be fully explained based on zero energy bound states using the MQDT.

## VI Bound states

As discussed in the previous section, low energy scattering resonance is a signature of a bound or quasibound state near zero energy. At some critical dc-E field strength, a new bound state is formed at micro- or submicro-Kelvin energy leading to the observed zero-energy shape resonance. In order to elucidate this point explicitly, we again rely on the two-channel model and find its last bound or quasibound state just below zero energy by the MQDT formulation. The asymptotic form of linearly independent base pairs $`f_l^{(n)}`$ and $`g_l^{(n)}`$ satisfying the Schroedinger equation with a potential $`1/R^n`$ for $`E<0`$ can be expressed as

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_l^{(n)}(R\mathrm{})& \\ g_l^{(n)}(R\mathrm{})& \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}W_f^{(nl)}& W_{f+}^{(nl)}\\ W_g^{(nl)}& W_{g+}^{(nl)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\kappa R)& \\ \mathrm{exp}(\kappa R)& \end{array}\right),`$ (61)
where $`W`$’s are chosen to be real functions. For the two coupled channels discussed in the previous section, we have

$`W_f^{(60)}`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi \kappa )^{1/2}[(X_0^2+Y_0^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1,`$ (62)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\{\beta \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )+\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )\alpha G(\nu )\right],`$ (63)
$`W_g^{(60)}`$ $`=`$ $`(4\pi \kappa )^{1/2}[(X_0^2+Y_0^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1`$ (64)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\{\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )\beta \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )+\beta G(\nu )\right],`$ (65)
and

$`W_f^{(32)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(2\pi \kappa )^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_+(\nu )}{G(\nu )}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{C_+(\nu )}{G(\nu )}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu \right],`$ (66)
$`W_g^{(32)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(2\pi \kappa )^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_{}(\nu )}{G(\nu )}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{C_{}(\nu )}{G(\nu )}}\mathrm{\Delta }^\nu \right].`$ (67)
Except for $`\mathrm{}^2\kappa ^2/(2\mu )=E`$, all notations used here follow from earlier definitions as in appendix-A. After some tedious algebra, the condition for bound states of our two channel model becomes

$`\mathrm{Det}[𝐐+𝐊^0]=0,`$ (68)
where $`𝐐`$ is a diagonal matrix given by

$`𝐐=\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[W_f^{(60)},W_f^{(32)}]\left(\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[W_g^{(60)},W_g^{(32)}]\right)^1.`$ (69)
The bound state wave function at discrete energy $`E_i`$ can then be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(R)=(𝐅+𝐊^0𝐆)M,`$ (70)
where $`𝐅`$, $`𝐆`$, and $`𝐊^0`$ are similar to matrices defined in Sec. IV, and $`M`$ is a column vector. Using the asymptotic form of base pairs functions, Eq. (70) can be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(R\mathrm{})=\mathrm{exp}(\kappa R)𝐐_+M+\mathrm{exp}(\kappa R)𝐐_{}M,`$ (71)
where

$`𝐐_\pm =\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[W_{f\pm }^{(nl)},W_{f\pm }^{(n^{}l^{})},\mathrm{}]+𝐊^0\mathrm{𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠}[W_{g\pm }^{(nl)},W_{g\pm }^{(n^{}l^{})},\mathrm{}],`$ (72)
The bound state energy is therefore given by the requirement that the exponentially rising part of Eq. (72) vanishes, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{Det}[Q_{}]=0.`$ (73)
The matching radius $`R_0`$ in this case is chosen to be in classically allowed region of diagonal channel potentials. The condition for the existence of a new bound state, i.e. Eq. (68) is then given by

$`(Q_{11}+K_{11}^0)(Q_{22}+K_{22}^0)K_{12}^0K_{21}^0=0,`$ (74)
where the subscript indices denote respective elements of $`𝐐`$ and $`𝐊^0`$ matrices, and $`(1/Q_{11})`$ and $`Q_{22}`$ are the $`\chi `$ functions for a pure $`1/R^6`$ or $`1/R^3`$ potential as defined in Ref. . Since the value of $`K_{12}`$ is typically much smaller than $`K_{11}`$ near resonance, as an approximation, we can drop the two off-diagonal elements from $`𝐊^0`$. We then obtain two uncoupled bound spectrum series, given respectively by

$`Q_{11}+K_{11}^0=0,`$ (75)
and

$`Q_{22}+K_{22}^0=0.`$ (76)
The first condition Eq. (75) gives bound states predominantly supported by s-wave channel. The effect of channel-coupling due to external electric field enters only through the parameter $`K_{11}^0`$. In this first approximation, the off-diagonal potential terms are neglected for $`R>R_0`$. As commented earlier, the short-range K-matrix $`𝐊^0`$ is a slowly varying function of collision energies near the zero energy threshold. We can then extrapolate their values from $`E>0`$ (for scattering) to the bound state case $`E_i0`$. In the present case of zero energy bound states satisfying $`E_i0`$, we basically used the same short range K-matrix as obtained from a converged low energy scattering calculation. We compute bound states near the zero energy threshold that satisfy

$`|E_i|<<C_6/R_0^6<C_3/R_0^3.`$ (77)
For an asymptotic $`1/R^3`$ potential as in $`l=2`$, the matching radius $`R_0`$ is taken to be smaller than the characteristic length scale $`\beta _3=2\mu C_EC_{22}/\mathrm{}^2`$ of the potential.

In Figure 14, we show the energy dependence of $`Q_{11}^1`$. The last bound state of isolated s-wave $`l=0`$ channel (with asymptotic potential $`1/R^6`$) is then given by crossing points of $`Q_{11}`$ and -$`K_{11}^0`$. In the absence of an external electric field, the energy of the last bound state supported by an asymptotic $`/R^6`$ potential of 85Rb is about $`2`$ (mK) which is in fact far beyond the zero energy limit appropriate for the present discussion. In the zero energy limit ($`l=0`$), $`R_0`$ can be taken arbitrarily large for the condition given by by the single channel bound state Eq. (75).

From Fig. 14, we see that a new zero energy bound state appears only when $`K_{11}^0`$ becomes infinite. In Fig. 15, we display variations of the subsequent four zero energy bound state energies as a function of $``$. We used $`K_{11}^0`$ as determined at a positive energy near zero energy threshold and matched analytical solutions with the numerical ones at a relatively large $`R`$ ($`R=4000a_0`$ for $`<1`$ MV/cm, $`R=10000a_0`$ for $`>1`$ MV/cm). It is interesting to note that these resonances agree quite well with results obtained from a complete numerical multichannel scattering calculation presented before in Figs. 1 and 7.

The second condition Eq. (76) corresponds to bound state series of the $`l=2`$ channel. In addition to dc-E effects accumulated in $`Q_{22}`$, the asymptotic wave function is now chosen to include the field induced diagonal term $`1/R^3`$. In Figure 16 we plot the energy and dc-E field dependent $`Q_{22}`$. It resembles $`Q_{11}^1`$ rather than $`Q_{11}`$ because of a different choice between $`g`$ and $`f`$ functions. At field values of interest to us, we find the short-range $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ matrix actually changes rapidly in this case with the (relative small) matching radius $`R_0`$. Therefore, in the classically allowed region, we were not able to perform a correct MQDT with an energy and $`R_0`$ independent $`K_{22}^0`$. Nevertheless, to explore the physics qualitatively, we instead choose a radius $`R_0=105(a_0)`$ (in the classically allowed region of the $`l=2`$ diagonal potential) such that it reproduces the first bound state as in the s-wave channel between $`=500`$ and $`600`$ (kV/cm). As we can see from Fig. 15, the third bound state then also seem to be reproduced correctly.

We now proceed to estimate the combined bound state sequence by solving for Eq. (74). In this case, for bound state energy larger than a few $`\mu `$K, the classically forbidden region limits the choice of a matching radius to be within 100-150 $`a_0`$, which is much smaller than the typical value of 4000 $`a_0`$ used for the scattering calculations. We again choose the same matching radius at $`105(a_0)`$ as for the single $`l=2`$ channel \[Eq. (76)\] discussed above. Obviously, there is no reason to trust the obtained results seriously as the neglected anisotropic effects become significant at such a small $`R_0`$. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare the obtained results as in Fig. 17 for these three separate approximations. Note the comparison of bound state locations with the numerical calculated zero energy scattering cross section from the same two channel model. We find that the $`l=0`$ s-wave bound state locations match quite well with the numerically calculated resonance structures. This gives us the confidence to assign these resonances as due to dc-E field induced zero energy bound states, thus they are indeed shape resonance. As the strength of electric field is increased to a certain critical value, a new bound or quasibound state appears at the zero energy threshold. Since we neglect the off-diagonal potential terms for $`R>R_0`$, the bound state energies calculated here only provides approximate estimates, they differ from results reported in Fig. 8 obtained from a complete multichannel calculation. The fact that a single s-wave ($`l=0`$) channel completely captures the resonance structure is perhaps also not surprising, as it is indeed the dominant channel found numerically before. By choosing the matching radius $`R_0`$ to be sufficiently large, the anisotropic dipole induced coupling with other higher $`l`$ channels are included through the short range $`𝐊^0`$ matrix.

Finally we note that MQDT bound states technique used here may also be improved with a perturbative method as discussed earlier to include additional asymptotic ansiotropic effects .

## VII Conclusion

We have presented a detailed analysis of low energy atomic collisions including electric field induced anisotropic dipole interaction. We have discussed both multichannel numerical and MQDT methods for the scattering calculations. In particular, we have highlighted the zero-energy resonance phenomena due to formation of long-range bound or quasi-bound states near the zero energy threshold. At low energies ($`E`$ nK) and with reasonable dipole interaction strength, the scattering cross section is predominantly due to the s-wave for coupled even $`l`$ angular momentum channels. We also note that the zero energy resonance due to formation of new bound states only occurs in the coupled even $`l`$ channels, but not in the odd $`l`$ channels. This is mainly due to the presence of the s-wave potential well (without centrifugal potential) in the coupled even $`l`$ blocks. At positive energies, the s-wave channel is open throughout the entire range ($`0<R<\mathrm{}`$) of its diagonal potential, while other channels ($`l>0`$) have locally closed regions near zero energy. When s-wave is present, atoms can penetrate into shorter $`R`$ range via scattering and multichannel coupling and therefore zero-energy resonance is more likely to occur. By manipulating such scattering resonance with dc-E induced dipole interaction, it is possible to change low energy scattering properties such as the scattering length and total or partial wave scattering cross sections. In contrast to the magnetic field-induced Feshbach resonance where coupling between different hyper-fine levels (different internal states) are involved, electric field-induced resonance is due to coupling among different rotational (external) states of the two colliding atoms, and only one threshold (or internal state) is present in the system. In the present paper, using a model two channel MQDT calculation, we have provided a clear physical picture of these resonances and provided analytical means for estimating their locations. The availability of approximate analytical forms for these near zero-energy bound states allows for detailed examination of bound-free and free-free motional Franck-Condon factors.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Mircea Marinescu for his contributions at the earlier stages of this work. We thank Bo Gao and F. Robicheaux for several helpful communications. This work is supported by the the NSF grant No. PHY-9722410.

## A Analytic solutions for $`1/R^{n=3,6}`$-type potential

The base pair for $`1/R^6`$ potential is given by

$`f_l^6`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^1[\alpha \stackrel{~}{f}_l(r)\beta \stackrel{~}{g}_l(r)],`$ (A1)
$`g_l^6`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^1[\beta \stackrel{~}{f}_l(r)+\alpha \stackrel{~}{g}_l(r)],`$ (A2)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_l(r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_mr^{1/2}J_{\nu +m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r/\beta _6)^2\right),`$ (A3)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_l(r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_mr^{1/2}J_{\nu +m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(r/\beta _6)^2\right),`$ (A4)
with

$`\alpha `$ $`=\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l,`$ (A5)
$`\beta `$ $`=\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l+\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l,`$ (A6)
and

$`X_l`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^mb_{2m},`$ (A7)
$`Y_l`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^mb_{2m+1},`$ (A8)
and

$`b_j`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Delta })^j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0+j+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0+j+1)}}c_j(\nu ),`$ (A9)
$`b_j`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Delta })^j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu j+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0j)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0j)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \nu _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\nu _0)}}c_j(\nu ),`$ (A10)
where $`j`$ is a positive integer, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a scaled energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=k^2\beta _6^2/16`$ with $`k=2\mu E/\mathrm{}^2`$; $`\nu _0`$ is related to the angular momentum $`l`$, $`\nu _0=(2l+1)/4`$, and $`c_j(\nu )=b_0Q(\nu )Q(\nu +1)\mathrm{}Q(\nu +j1)`$ with $`b_0`$ being a normalization constant; and $`Q(\nu )`$ is given by a continued fraction,

$`Q(\nu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{(\nu +1)(\nu +2)[(\nu +1)^2\nu _0^2][(\nu +2)^2\nu _0^2]}Q(\nu +1)}}.`$ (A11)
Here $`\nu `$ is a root of a characteristic function

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l(\nu ,\mathrm{\Delta })=(\nu ^2\nu _0^2)(\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\nu )[\stackrel{~}{Q}(\nu )\stackrel{~}{Q}(\nu )],`$ (A12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(\nu )=[(\nu +1)\{(\nu +1)^2\nu _0^2\}^1Q(\nu )`$.

Next, we present the solutions of $`C_3/R^3`$ potential . The base pair can be expressed as

$`f_l^3(r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\xi (r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\eta (r)\right],`$ (A13)
$`g_l^3(r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_{}(\nu )\xi (r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_{}(\nu )\eta (r)\right],`$ (A14)
where

$`C_\pm (\nu )`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu _0/2\nu )]\pm \mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu _0/2\nu )],`$ (A15)
$`D(\nu )`$ $`=C_+(\nu )C_{}(\nu )C_+(\nu )C_{}(\nu ),`$ (A16)
$`G(\nu )`$ $`=|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}|^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu _0+\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu _0+\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}}C(\nu ),`$ (A17)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=k\beta _3/2`$ and $`\nu _0=l+1/2`$. Here $`\xi (r)`$ and $`\eta (r)`$ are two linearly independent functions:

$`\xi (r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_mr^{1/2}J_{\nu +m}(kr),`$ (A18)
$`\eta (r)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^mb_mr^{1/2}J_{\nu m}(kr).`$ (A19)
Here $`b_j`$ is given by the similar expression as in Eq. (A10) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, and $`\nu `$ is a root of the corresponding characteristic equation and $`C(\nu )=lim_j\mathrm{}c_j`$.

## B Asymptotic expansion for the analytic solutions

In this Appendix, we write the asymptotic form of a pair of linearly independent base functions for a power law potential ($`1/R^n`$). For a $`/R^6`$ potential, the asymptotic behaviours of the base pair for positive energy are given by

$`f_l^{(6)}(R\mathrm{})`$ $`(1/\pi k)^{1/2}\left[Z_{fb}^{(6l)}\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)+Z_{fc}^{(6l)}\mathrm{cos}(kRl\pi /2)\right],`$ (B1)
$`g_l^{(6)}(R\mathrm{})`$ $`(1/\pi k)^{1/2}\left[Z_{gb}^{(6l)}\mathrm{sin}(kRl\pi /2)+Z_{gc}^{(6l)}\mathrm{cos}(kRl\pi /2)\right],`$ (B2)
where

$`Z_{fb}^{(6l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(X_l^2+Y_l^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1`$ (B3)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(1)^l\{\beta \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )+\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\alpha G(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\right],`$ (B4)
$`Z_{fc}^{(6l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(X_l^2+Y_l^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1,`$ (B5)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(1)^l\{\beta \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )+\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\alpha G(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\right],`$ (B6)
$`Z_{gb}^{(6l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(X_l^2+Y_l^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1,`$ (B7)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(1)^l\{\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )\beta \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)+\beta G(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\right],`$ (B8)
$`Z_{gc}^{(6l)}`$ $`=`$ $`[(X_l^2+Y_l^2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )]^1,`$ (B9)
$`\times `$ $`\left[(1)^l\{\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )\beta \mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )\}G(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)+\beta G(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu l\pi /2\pi /4)\right].`$ (B10)
Next, for a $`1/R^3`$ potential, the corresponding $`Z`$ functions are given by

$`Z_{fb}^{(3l)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\{\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\stackrel{~}{B}\right],`$ (B11)
$`Z_{fc}^{(3l)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\{\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\stackrel{~}{C}\right],`$ (B12)
$`Z_{gb}^{(3l)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_{}(\nu )\{\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_{}(\nu )\stackrel{~}{B}\right],`$ (B13)
$`Z_{gc}^{(3l)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{D(\nu )}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_{}(\nu )\{\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(\nu )}}C_+(\nu )\stackrel{~}{C}\right],`$ (B14)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}\mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu )+\{\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu ),`$ (B15)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ $`=\{\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}\mathrm{sin}(\pi \nu )+\{\mathrm{sin}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]X_l\mathrm{cos}[\pi (\nu \nu _0)/2]Y_l\}\mathrm{cos}(\pi \nu ).`$ (B16)


format: text

text:
# Strange hadron resonances as a signature of freeze-out dynamics

\[

## Abstract

We study the production and the observability of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$, $`K^0(892)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$, strange hadron resonances as function of the freeze-out conditions within the statistical model of hadron production. We obtain an estimate of how many decay products are rescattered in evolution towards thermal freeze-out following chemical freeze-out, and find that the resonance decay signal is strong enough to be detected. We show how a combined analysis of at least two resonances can be used to understand the chemical freeze-out temperature, and the time between chemical and thermal freeze-outs.

PACS: 12.38.Mh, 25.75.-q, 24.10.Pa

\]

Hadronic particle signatures of the formation of QGP phase in relativistic heavy ion collisions are most sensitive when the dense hadron matter fireball breakup is sudden . But final state particles could also emerge remembering relatively little about their primordial source, having been subject to rescattering in purely hadronic gas phase . Which reaction picture applies can have decisive influence on our understanding of the underlying physics, and thus we propose here a systematic method to experimentally make a distinction.

To address this question we consider strange hadron resonance abundances. At this time $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ has been observed in heavy ion reactions at SPS energies  following a suggestion that such a measurement was possible . SPS  and RHIC experiments  report measurement of the $`\overline{K^0}(892)`$ signal, and RHIC has already measured both the $`K^0`$ and the $`\overline{K^0}`$. In the SPS case, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ abundance yield is about 2.5 times smaller than expectations based on the yield extrapolated from nucleon-nucleon reactions. This is to be compared with the enhancement by factor 2.5 of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-production in the same reaction in terms of the same comparison.

A possible explanation for this effective suppression by a factor 5, or more, is that the decay products ($`\pi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) produced at a high chemical freeze-out temperature $`T175`$ MeV have rescattered and thus their momenta did not allow to reconstruct this state in an invariant mass analysis. However, the observation of a strong $`K^0`$-yield signal contradicts this point of view, since the $`K^0(892)`$ decays faster ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{K^0}=50.8\pm 0.9`$ MeV $`>`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=15.6\pm 1`$ MeV). Therefore, $`K^0(892)`$ should be even more suppressed: a back of envelope calculation based on exponential population attenuation suggests that if the observable yield of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ is reduced by factor 5, the observable yield of $`K^0(892)`$ should be suppressed by a factor 10.

Another explanation is that the chemical freeze-out temperature which governs the production of these resonances in a thermal model is considerably lower, and hence rescattering of decay products is less significant. This is a point of view arising from a recent analysis of the hadronization process .

We explore the production, and the suppression of the observability of these resonances($`K^0(892),\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$), and also explore the (more difficult) measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$ state as a further way of distinguishing between reaction scenarios. We will show in a quantitative analysis how these measurements can constrain both the chemical freeze-out temperature and the lifetime of the hadron interacting phase evolving between the chemical and the thermal freeze-out conditions.

The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$ is expected to be produced in a thermal model more abundantly than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$ in a hadronic fireball due to it’s high degeneracy factor and smaller mass. Because of its 3 times shorter lifetime ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=36`$$`39`$ MeV $`>`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=15.6\pm 1`$ MeV), the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ signal is more strongly influenced by final state interactions than that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$. Like for $`K^0(892)`$, one would naively expect that the observable yield of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ should be suppressed by a factor 10.

We will first show that, in a fireball hadronizing according to the statistical model, the proportion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ s and Kaons resulting from decays of the main resonances can be noticeably dependent on chemical freeze-out temperature. Hadrons produced directly from a medium at temperature ($`T`$) much lower than the particle mass (as in all cases considered here) fill the available statistical phase space which has the relativistic Boltzmann distribution shape:

$$\frac{d^2N}{dm_T^2dY}g\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i\gamma _im_T\mathrm{cosh}(y)e^{E/T}$$
(1)
Here $`g`$ is the statistical degeneracy, $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ are the fugacity and equilibrium parameters of each valence quarks, and E is the energy. When the fireball is expanding at a relativistic speed, equation 1 describes the energy distribution of an element of the fireball in a reference frame at rest with respect to the expansion (flow). However, in this paper we evaluate ratios of particles with similar masses, and interaction modes, often considered in full phase space. For this reasons to a good approximation, the flow effects largely cancel out. Similarly, for ratios of particles with the same valence quark composition, such as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and, in the limit of $`\lambda _u=\lambda _d`$ (assumed hence forward), $`K^0(892)/K^{}`$ ($`=\overline{K^0}/K^+`$) the chemical factors ($`\lambda `$’s and $`\gamma `$’s) cancel out between the two states compared.

We now include in the yields the descendents arising from resonance decays. In a decay of the type $`R1+2`$ where a particle R (mass M, transverse mass $`M_T`$, rapidity Y) into a particle 1 (mass m, transverse mass $`m_T`$, rapidity y) and 2 (mass $`m_2`$), the distribution $`d^2N_1/dm_T^2dy`$ can be obtained in terms of $`d^2N_R/dM_T^2dY`$ using the following transformation :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_1}{dm_T^2dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_rb}{4\pi p^{}}}{\displaystyle _Y^{Y+}}𝑑Y{\displaystyle _{M_T}^{M_T+}}𝑑M_T^2J{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_R}{dM_T^2dY}}`$ (2)
$`J={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\sqrt{P_T^2p_T^2(ME^{}M_Tm_T\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Delta }Y)^2}}}`$ (3)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y=Yy`$, $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the combined invariant mass of all the decay products except 1, and $`E^{}=\frac{1}{2M}(M^2m^2m_2^2)`$, $`p^{}=\sqrt{E^2m^2}`$ are the energy and momentum of decay particle 1 in the resonances rest frame. $`g_r`$ accounts for a resonances degeneracy, while $`b`$ is the branching ratio of the considered decay channel.

A full justification for Eq. (2) is found in Refs. , where it is obtained by transforming the resonance distribution from it’s rest frame into the fireballs rest frame, and integrating over all the kinematically allowed values of rapidity and transverse mass. $`J`$ is the Jacobian of this transformation, with integration limits:

$`Y_\pm =y\pm \mathrm{sinh}^1({\displaystyle \frac{p^{}}{m_T}})`$

$`M_T^\pm =M{\displaystyle \frac{E^{}m_T\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }Y)\pm p_T\sqrt{p^2m_T^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }Y)}}{m_T^2\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }Y)+m^2}}`$

Table I summarizes the dominant decay processes considered in our analysis and their parameters (Clebsh-Gordon coefficients have been used to estimate decays such as ($`N^0N^+\pi )/(N^0N^0\pi ^0)`$).

In Fig. 1 we show the relative thermal production ratios at chemical freeze-out over the entire spectrum of rapidity and $`m_T`$ (solid lines) as well a central rapidity range defined by the $`ym_T`$ region covered by the WA97 experiment ($`|y|0.5`$ in the center of mass frame) (dashed lines). The opportunity to measure the chemical freeze-out temperature by a measurement of the relative resonance yields is apparent.

For example, at the lowest current estimates ($`T100`$ MeV) of the final break up temperature in 158$`A`$ GeV SPS collisions $`33\%`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ s are actually primary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ s, the percentage rises to slightly more than $`50\%`$ if chemical freeze-out occurs at $`T=190`$ MeV. We recall that the CERN WA97 collaboration has measured hyperon yields to considerably greater precision than required to distinguish between these limiting cases , and the same is certainly expected of RHIC experiments such as STAR.

Considering the practical feasibility of such a measurement it should be noted that the decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ would appear as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\pi `$ pair arriving from the central fireball. Experiments usually reconstruct $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ decays by finding the invariant mass of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ pairs with a common origin outside the collision, so a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ event would normally be discarded as a pair of unrelated particles coming directly from the fireball. An invariant mass analysis with resolution better than $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1385)`$ natural width (35 MMeV) would be needed to distinguish it from from $`\mathrm{\Xi }(1321)`$ and minimize the combinatoric background.

The momentum of each particle in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi `$ pairs CoM (center of momentum) frame would be $``$ 208 MeV/c, very close to the 211 MeV/c of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$ decay. As Fig. 1 shows (top two solid/dashed lines), the potentially observable (i.e. produced) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ s should be more abundant than these two hyperons ( $`\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Omega }`$) at all considered hadronization temperatures. The chemical potentials required to compute the two ratios $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in Fig. 1 were taken from .

The ratios of observed particles, however, can be considerably different from production ratios, since if the decay products rescatter before detection their identification by reconstructing their invariant mass will generally not be possible. While the lifetime of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are large enough to ensure that only a negligible proportion of particles decay near enough to the fireball for rescattering to be a possibility, the lifetime of $`K^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and even $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ is within the same order of magnitude of the fireballs dimensions i.e. $`2R/c1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For this reason, a considerable number of decay products will undergo rescattering, and the estimation of this percentage is required before any meaningful parameters are extracted from the data.

Note in Fig. 1 that the relative $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ signal is remarkably independent (within 5 %) of Temperature. This feature arises because the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(1530)`$ contribution cancels nearly exactly the thermal suppression of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ originating in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ mass difference. This effect could be used for a direct estimate of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ lost through rescattering, even without knowledge of the freeze-out temperature, should the chemical parameters ($`\lambda _i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$) be known. A simple test of hadronization model consists in measurement of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$. If it is significantly smaller than unity, we should expect a re-equilibration mechanism to be present. Otherwise sudden hadronization applies.

We can go further in the use of the suppression of the considered resonances as a tool capable of estimating conditions at particle freeze-out. To do this we need to estimate the effect rescattering would have on the resonances signal. We formulate a simple model based on the width of the resonances in question and the decay products reactions within an expanding fireball of nuclear matter. While more realistic models, possibly involving event generators are needed for precise quantitative analysis, the model described below allows us to make a qualitative prediction and to verify the feasibility of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ measurement.

We consider the decay of a generic resonance $`N^{}`$

$$N^{}p_1p_2,$$
(4)
in a gas of pions and nucleons. For the invariant mass of $`N^{}`$ to be undetectable, it is assumed here that it is sufficient that either of the generic decay products $`p_1`$ or $`p_2`$ undergo one interaction. This interaction depends on the cross-section of the decay product with each particle in the fireball (pions, nucleons and antinucleons), the speed of each decay product relative to a typical fireball particle and the pion and nucleon density in the fireball (decreasing with time for a fireball constantly expanding with flow v).

This reaction rate is

$$P_1=(\sigma _{1\pi }\rho _\pi +\sigma _{1N}\rho _N+\sigma _{1\overline{N}}\rho _{\overline{N}})(\frac{R}{R+vt})^3v,$$
(5)
and analogously for the second decay product ‘2’. Here, $`\sigma `$’s are the (energy averaged) interaction cross sections, the $`\rho `$’s are the densities, $`R`$ is the fireball radius at chemical hadronization, $`v`$ the velocity factor and v is the space-average of the flow velocity.

To a good approximation, the thermal velocities in the fireball average out and $`v\gamma _{1,2}=p^{}/m_{1,2}`$, here $`p^{}`$ is as defined in Eq. (2). In addition to scattering and decay we also in principle can allow that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\pi `$ each have a probability of escaping the fireball. We have studied this effect and in this study of the measureability of the lifetime of the interacting phase, such an escape probability is not relevant. The population equation describing the scattering loss abundance ($`N_i`$) are, therefore:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}N_N^{}N_iP_i,i=1,2`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN_N^{}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}N_N^{},`$ (7)
The required nucleon density $`\rho _N`$ is obtained in the a relativistic Boltzmann approximation:

$$\rho _N=\frac{g}{(2\pi \mathrm{}c)^3}4\pi m^2(\lambda _q\gamma _q)^3TK_2(\frac{m}{T}),$$
(8)
where the $`K_2(x)`$ is the 2nd modified Bessel function. We consider the nucleons to have a mass of $``$1 GeV, and a degeneracy of 6, to take the p,n and the thermally suppressed but higher degeneracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions into account in a first approximation. Considering the CERN/SPS environment we calibrate the fireball size $`R`$ to obtain the baryon multiplicity to be $``$ 360 within the volume, and we take $`R=8`$ fm$`145/T`$\[MeV\].

The temperature scaling of $`R`$ is chosen to assure that with the pion density computed in the massless particle limit, leading to

$$\rho _\pi =\frac{A\pi ^2}{90}T^3,$$
(9)
the entropy of the expanding system is conserved. The effective degeneracy $`A`$ is chosen to fix the entropy per baryon to be equal to the observed number of $``$40. We believe that this qualitative model of baryon and meson density has the right physical magnitude and scales correctly with variation of freeze-out temperature.

To estimate the average cross sections needed in Eq. (5) we recalled that the NA49 collaboration using the UrQMD event generator , has found that $`50\%`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ undergo rescattering after a time of 80 fm/c. In order to reproduce this result at $`T160`$ MeV, we took scattering cross sections shown in the top portion of table II, based on Refs. . It turns out that the cross section on nucleons and antinucleons are sufficient to make the fireball essentially opaque to one of the resonance decay products.

The uncertain meson scattering cross sections (denoted in Table II for $`\pi \pi `$ by $`X`$ and for $`\pi K`$ by $`0.5X`$) are therefore not material for the results we present. We quantitatively explored the range $`1<X<100`$ mb without seeing any significant change in our results. In the $`\rho `$ resonance region applicable at the conditions considered the value $`X70`$ mb is appropriate . Remainder of Table II presents an overview of other parameters used in the model.

Figure 2 shows the dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}(892)/K^+`$ on the temperature and lifetime of the interacting phase. It is clear that, given a determination of the respective signals to a reasonable precision, a qualitative distinction between the high temperature chemical freeze-out scenario followed by a rescattering phase and the low temperature sudden hadronization scenario can be made. We also note that despite the shorter lifetime of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and higher pion interaction cross section, more $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ decay products should be reconstructible than in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1520)`$ case, at all but the highest temperatures under consideration.

Fig. 2 demonstrates the sensitivity of strange hadron resonance production to the interaction period in the hadron phase, i.e. the phase between the thermal and chemical freeze-out. What we learn from Fig. 2 is that while the suppression of one of these ratios considered has generally two interpretations, as it can mean either a low temperature chemical freeze-out or a long interacting phase with substantial rescattering, the comparison of two resonances with considerably different lifetimes can be used to constrain both the temperature of chemical freeze-out and the lifetime of the interacting phase.

We can reexpress the results presented in Fig. 2 representing one ratio against the other as is seen in Fig. 3, and attempt a first comparison with experiment. Combining the $`\overline{K^0}/\pi +`$ results presented in  with earlier $`K^{}/\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^+/\pi ^+`$ results , it seems that the $`\overline{K^0}/K^+`$ ratio should be $``$ 0.2. Unless the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ratio will be considerably different than what is expected from , experimental measurement for SPS energies should be in the top left corner of the bottom portion of the Fig. 3, corresponding to a low chemical freeze-out temperature ($`145`$ MeV) and a short, if not negligible, time spend in the hadron re-interaction phase. Pending more experimental work, this evaluation serves only to demonstrate the functioning of the method we propose.

Should the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ ratio become available along with a determination of $`\lambda _i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$, both the temperature and the lifetime can be inferred from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ alone. Fig. 4 shows an analogous diagram to the one shown previously, but with the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$/(all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) on the horizontal axis and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$/(all $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$) on the vertical. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/(\mathrm{\Xi }+\mathrm{\Xi }^{})`$ only depends on temperature by about $`5\%`$, see Fig. 1, the percentage of rescattered $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ can be, to a good approximation, read off the vertical axis in Fig. 4.

We have shown that a comparison of two or better three observable strange hadron resonance abundances, with different masses, widths and interaction modes of the decay products, can be used to estimate the currently uncertain hadron freeze-out behavior. We have chosen to consider strange hadrons as they have relatively narrow widths. A similar study of the lifespan between thermal and chemical freeze-outs, and chemical freeze-out temperature as parameters, can be undertaken with non-strange nucleon resonances. We believe that the experimental difficulties of such a measurement are much greater: the relative yield of resonances such as $`N^{}(1440)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1230)`$ compared to the nucleon is smaller than in case of strange baryons, the widths are much larger ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N^{}300`$ MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Delta }=120`$ MeV), and the final state nucleon has a greater scattering cross section in hadronic matter than the strangeness carrying hadron. Therefore the detectability of the non-strange baryon resonances in terms of an invariant mass analysis in the decay channels should be much smaller, except if a (very) sudden hadronization applies. Seen from that perspective, it will be interesting to see if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1230)`$ state can be observed at all, as this would be suggesting that chemical and thermal freeze-out are indeed nearly coincident.

We believe that a detector capable of reconstructing $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decays, with a narrower invariant mass resolution than the natural $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-width (35 MeV) may be capable of measuring the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ signal by performing an invariant mass fit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\pi `$ pairs arriving directly from the fireball. Present day state of the art detectors such as STAR and NA57 should satisfy this criterion. We have shown that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}/\mathrm{\Xi }`$ ratio is remarkably independent (within 5 %) of freeze-out temperature and is greater than unity. A significantly depleted ratio would directly measure rescattering of hadrons after chemical freeze-out. Considering other ratios we learn from Fig. 2 that while the suppression of one of particle ratios considered is generally not able to allow resolution of the freeze-out properties, as it can mean either a low temperature chemical freeze-out or a long interacting phase with substantial rescattering, the comparison of two relative resonance yields with considerably different lifetimes can be used to constrain both the temperature of chemical freeze-out and the lifetime of the interacting phase. This is than qualitatively evaluated in Fig. 3.

We have shown in quantitative fashion how a measurement of the relative yields of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1520)`$ and $`K^0(892)`$ with respect to the ground states $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`K`$ allows to constrain the chemical freeze-out temperature, and the lifetime of the intermediate evolution period ranging between thermal and chemical freeze-outs in relativistic heavy ion collisions, and hence to distinguish between sudden and staged hadronization scenarios. We have suggested that present experiments should be also able to detect the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ resonance, which when subject to the same analysis method offers a consistency check for the reaction mechanism considered.

Acknowledgments:
Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, DE-FG03-95ER40937 .