format: text

text:
# Lattice QCD at finite isospin density at zero and finite temperature.

## I Introduction

Neutron stars are made of dense cold nuclear matter – hadronic matter at high baryon-number density and low temperature. Large nuclei can be considered as droplets of nuclear matter. The relativistic heavy-ion collisions now being observed at RHIC and the CERN heavy-ion program can produce hadronic matter at high temperature and finite baryon-number density. Nuclear matter also has a finite (negative) isospin ($`I_3`$) density due to Coulomb interactions, and it has been suggested that at very high densities it would have a finite strangeness density. Hence it is of interest to study QCD at finite quark/baryon-number density, finite isospin density and finite strangeness density at both zero and finite temperature.

Finite density is customarily studied through the introduction of a chemical potential for the charge of interest in the action. Introducing a finite chemical potential for quark-number leads to a complex fermion determinant with a real part of indefinite sign, which precludes use of standard simulation methods which rely on importance sampling. If we include a finite chemical potential, $`\mu _I`$, for $`I_3`$ in the absence of any quark-number chemical potential, the fermion determinant remains non-negative, and simulations are possible. Such simulations can determine the QCD phase structure on one surface in the phase diagram for nuclear matter. One can hope that this will identify phases which will persist to finite baryon/quark-number density, and determine their properties.

We have performed simulations of lattice QCD with 2 flavours of light staggered quarks at finite $`\mu _I`$ for both zero and finite temperatures. Preliminary results of these simulations were reported at Lattice2001 lattice2001 . We included a small explicit $`I_3`$-breaking interaction needed to observe spontaneous symmetry breaking on a finite lattice. In addition to allowing us to observe spontaneous breaking of $`I_3`$ (and parity), this term renders the fermion determinant strictly positive. Our zero temperature simulations were performed on an $`8^4`$ lattice at an intermediate value of the coupling constant. In the limit that our symmetry-breaking parameter vanishes, there is some $`\mu _I=\mu _c`$ above which $`I_3`$ and parity are broken spontaneously by a charged pion condensate. This is in accord with the predictions of Son and Stephanov using effective (chiral) Lagrangians sonstep . We observe critical scaling consistent with the mean-field predictions of these effective (chiral) Lagrangians. In drawing these conclusions, it is important to use equations of state of the forms predicted by such effective Lagrangians. These results are similar to those obtained in studies of the quenched version of this theory quenched . They are also similar to what is observed for 2-colour QCD at finite chemical potential $`\mu `$ for quark-number qcd2us ; qcd2it ; qcd2jp ; newqcd2 . This is not surprising since the effective Lagrangian analysis of 2-colour QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$ cpt2  is similar to that for QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$.

Our finite temperature simulations were performed on $`8^3\times 4`$ lattices. At sufficiently high temperature and $`\mu _I>\mu _c`$, we observe the evaporation of the symmetry-breaking pion condensate. For $`\mu _I`$ sufficiently large, this transition is first order. As $`\mu _I\mu _c`$ this transition softens and appears to become second order. Such a transition from first to second order should occur at a tricritical point. Again these results are similar to what we observed for 2-colour QCD at finite quark-number chemical potential qcd2t .

Section 2 gives details of the actions and their symmetries. In section 3 we present our zero temperature results and scaling analyses. The finite temperature results are presented in section 4. Discussions, conclusions and an outline of planned extensions are given in section 5.

## II Lattice action and symmetries

The staggered fermion part of the action for lattice QCD with degenerate $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks at a finite chemical potential $`\mu _I`$ for isospin ($`I_3`$) is

$$S_f=\underset{sites}{}\overline{\chi }[D/(\tau _3\mu _I)+m]\chi $$
(1)
where $`D/(\mu )`$ is the standard staggered $`D/`$ with links in the $`+t`$ direction multiplied by $`e^{\frac{1}{2}\mu }`$ and those in the $`t`$ direction multiplied by $`e^{\frac{1}{2}\mu }`$ quenched . When $`\mu _I=m=0`$, this action has a global $`U(2)\times U(2)`$ flavour symmetry under which

$`\chi `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta +ϵ\varphi ).\tau ]\chi `$
$`\overline{\chi }`$ $``$ $`\overline{\chi }\mathrm{exp}[i(\theta ϵ\varphi ).\tau ]`$ (2)
where $`\tau =(1,\stackrel{}{\tau })`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are site-independent 4-component “vectors”, and $`ϵ=ϵ(x)=(1)^{x+y+z+t}`$. Spontaneous symmetry breaking can occur in any direction in this space. If we keep $`\mu _I=0`$ and allow $`m0`$, the symmetry is broken down to $`U(2)_V`$. On the other hand if we keep $`m=0`$ and allow $`\mu _I0`$, the symmetry is broken down to $`U(1)\times U(1)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$ generated by $`1`$, $`\tau _3`$, $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ\tau _3`$. Finally in the general case where neither $`\mu _I`$ nor $`m`$ vanishes, the symmetry is reduced to $`U(1)_V\times U(1)_V`$ associated with $`1`$ and $`\tau _3`$.

In order to predict potential symmetry breaking patterns we make several simple modifications of the arguments of Son and Stephanov sonstep  to apply them to the staggered lattice action. The generic quark bilinear which creates a meson has the form

$$M=\overline{\chi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\chi .$$
(3)
The propagator for such a meson obeys the inequality

$$|M(x)M^{}(0)|constS(x,0)S^{}(x,0).$$
(4)
Thus, meson operators $`M`$ whose propagators are proportional to $`S(x,0)S^{}(x,0)`$, are potential Goldstone bosons. Now we note that our Dirac operator obeys

$$\tau _{1,2}ϵ[D/(\tau _3\mu _I)+m]ϵ\tau _{1,2}=[D/(\tau _3\mu _I)+m]^{},$$
(5)
so $`i\overline{\chi }ϵ\tau _{1,2}\chi `$ are Goldstone candidates. These are linear combinations of $`\pi ^+`$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ creation operators which means that if spontaneous breaking of the remnant flavour symmetry should occur, one linear combination of $`\pi ^\pm `$ will become a Goldstone boson while the orthogonal linear combination will develop a vacuum expectation value – a charged pion condensate. We note, in passing, that in the limit of massless quarks

$$\tau _{1,2}D/(\tau _3\mu _I)\tau _{1,2}=D/(\tau _3\mu _I)^{},$$
(6)
and we have 2 additional Goldstone boson candidates, $`\overline{\chi }\tau _{1,2}\chi `$, and if spontaneous symmetry breaking does occur we will have 2 Goldstone bosons rather than 1.

Since, in order to observe spontaneous symmetry breaking on a finite lattice, one needs to add a small explicit symmetry breaking term in the direction defined by the condensate, we choose to work with the fermion action

$$S_f=\underset{sites}{}\left[\overline{\chi }[D/(\tau _3\mu _I)+m]\chi +i\lambda ϵ\overline{\chi }\tau _2\chi \right]$$
(7)
where the term proportional to the (small) parameter $`\lambda `$ serves this purpose. The Dirac operator now has the determinant

$$det[D/(\tau _3\mu _I)+m+i\lambda ϵ\tau _2]=det[𝒜^{}𝒜+\lambda ^2]$$
(8)
where we have defined

$$𝒜D/(\mu _I)+m.$$
(9)
(Note that this is a $`1\times 1`$ matrix in the flavour space on which the $`\tau `$s act.) We see that adding this symmetry breaking term has the effect of rendering the determinant strictly positive, which enables us to use the hybrid molecular-dynamics (HMD) algorithm to simulate this theory. Note that this theory has 8 continuum flavours. We use the HMD method to take the required fourth root of the determinant reducing this to 2 continuum flavours. For the purpose of simulation, it is convenient to multiply the Dirac operator on the left by the matrix diag$`(1,ϵ)`$ and on the right by the matrix diag$`(1,ϵ)`$. The transformed matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, has the same determinant as the original Dirac operator, and $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is block diagonal, with the upper and lower blocks having the same determinant. This means that we use ‘noisy’ fermions and generate Gaussian noise for both upper and lower components of $`\stackrel{~}{}\dot{\chi }`$, but only keep the upper components of $`\dot{\chi }`$ after the inversion. Thus we still have only 8 flavours in the quadratic formulation. This is completely analogous to the odd-even lattice separation which prevents further species doubling in staggered lattice QCD at zero chemical potential.

Quantities we measure include the chiral condensate,

$$\overline{\psi }\psi \overline{\chi }\chi ,$$
(10)
the charged pion condensate

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi i\overline{\chi }ϵ\tau _2\chi $$
(11)
and the isospin density

$$j_0^3=\frac{1}{V}\frac{S_f}{\mu _I}.$$
(12)
Here we have included both the lattice and continuum versions of the condensates. To get this simple continuum form for the charged pion condensate requires absorbing a factor of $`\xi _5`$ (the flavour analogue of $`\gamma _5`$) into the definition of the $`d`$-quark field.

## III Lattice simulations at zero temperature

We have simulated $`N_f=2`$ lattice QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$ on an $`8^4`$ lattice at an intermediate coupling $`\beta =6/g^2=5.2`$. This $`\beta `$ was chosen since it represents an approximate lower bound to estimates of the finite temperature transition value for $`N_t=4`$ in the chiral limit. This was used to keep finite volume effects at acceptable levels. We performed simulations at 2 different quark masses ($`m=0.025`$ and $`m=0.05`$) to see that varying the mass did not affect the qualitative behaviour of the theory and that we understood the effects of changing the quark mass.

At $`m=0.025`$, we performed runs, each of 2000 molecular-dynamics time units in length, at 17 different $`\mu _I`$ values ($`0\mu _I2`$) for each of $`\lambda =0.0025`$ and $`\lambda =0.005`$. Using 2 $`\lambda `$ values, both chosen to be much less than $`m`$, enabled us to extrapolate to the $`\lambda =0`$ limit, which is our ultimate interest. (We also ran at $`\mu _I=3.0`$, $`\lambda =0.005`$ to check saturation.)

The charged pion condensates, $`i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi `$ from these simulations are presented in figure 1 as functions of $`\mu _I`$, along with a linear extrapolation to $`\lambda =0`$. This extrapolation strongly suggests that the $`\lambda 0`$ condensate vanishes for $`\mu _I<\mu _c0.30.45`$, above which it is finite. This would indicate a phase transition to a phase in which $`I_3`$ symmetry is broken spontaneously by a charged pion condensate, with an associated Goldstone mode.

This behaviour is predicted by the effective (chiral) Lagrangian analyses of Son and Stephanov, which also predict that the transition should be second order with mean-field exponents sonstep . We fit our extrapolated ‘data’ to the critical scaling form

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi =const(\mu _I\mu _c)^{\beta _m}$$
(13)
for $`\mu _I>\mu _c`$ close to the transition. Fitting to this form over the range $`0.4\mu _I1.0`$, we find $`\mu _c=0.394(1)`$, $`\beta _m=0.230(9)`$ and $`const=1.23(2)`$ at a $`62\%`$ confidence level. This appears inconsistent with mean field scaling for which $`\beta _m=\frac{1}{2}`$, and closer to the tricritical scaling for which $`\beta _m=\frac{1}{4}`$. Indeed, good fits to a tricritical scaling form over this range of $`\mu _I`$ and both $`\lambda `$s can be obtained (confidence level $`25\%`$).

However, as we have noted in our paper on the quenched theory quenched  such fits can be deceptive and can be because the true scaling behaviour of these theories is best described by the scaling forms given by effective Lagrangian analyses. When this form of scaling is described in terms of $`\mu _I\mu _c`$ rather than the natural scaling variables these forms imply, the true scaling window is very narrow. Outside this window these theories can appear to scale with $`\beta _m`$ which is half the true value when analyzed in terms of $`\mu _I\mu _c`$. We now introduce the scaling forms (equations of state) suggested by such effective Lagrangians, both of which give mean-field scaling behaviour.

The form for the equation of state suggested by the lowest order tree-level analysis of effective Lagrangians of the non-linear sigma model type sonstep  is given in terms of $`\alpha `$ which minimizes the effective potential

$$=a\mu ^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )bm\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )b\lambda \mathrm{sin}(\alpha )$$
(14)
in terms of which

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi =b\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )$$
(15)
$$\overline{\psi }\psi =b\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )$$
(16)
and

$$j_0^3=4a\mu \mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha ).$$
(17)
$`b`$ is given in terms of $`\mu _c`$ and $`a`$, namely

$$b=\frac{2}{m}a\mu _c^2$$
(18)
The form for the equation of state which is derived from an effective Lagrangian of the linear sigma model type is obtained by extracting the values of $`R`$ and $`\alpha `$ which minimize the effective potential

$$=\frac{1}{4}R^4\frac{1}{2}aR^2\frac{1}{2}b\mu ^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha )cmR\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )c\lambda R\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )$$
(19)
in terms of which

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi =cR\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )$$
(20)
$$\overline{\psi }\psi =cR\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )$$
(21)
and

$$j_0^3=2b\mu R^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha ).$$
(22)
$`c`$ is given in terms of $`\mu _c`$ by

$$c=\frac{b\mu _c^2}{m}\sqrt{a+b\mu _c^2}.$$
(23)
Finally, the tricritical scaling form which we use for comparison, and which does not yield mean-field behaviour, is expressed in terms of the value of $`\varphi `$ which minimizes the effective potential

$$=\frac{1}{6}\varphi ^6\frac{1}{3}c\lambda \varphi ^3\frac{1}{2}(\mu _I\mu _c)\varphi ^2b\lambda \varphi $$
(24)
in terms of which,

$$i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\tau _2\psi =b\varphi +\frac{1}{3}c\varphi ^3$$
(25)
and

$$j_0=a\varphi ^2.$$
(26)
We fit our measurements of the charged pion condensate for $`0\mu _I1`$ and both $`\lambda `$s to the linear sigma model form of equation 20. We obtained a fit with $`\mu _c=0.4036(5)`$, $`a=0.52(1)`$, $`m=0.0253(1)`$ with $`\chi ^2/dof=2.2`$. Although worse than the tricritical fit, we note that it allows a reasonable fit for $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$ in addition to $`\mu _I>\mu _c`$ which the tricritical fit did not. $`\mu _c=0.426(3)`$ for the tricritical fit, which is close to the value expected for the apparent tricritical scaling produced by such sigma model scaling. One of the reasons the tricritical fit gives better results is that it includes a second symmetry breaking interaction, cubic in the order parameter, which rounds off the curve as $`\mu _I`$ approaches $`1.0`$ allowing a better fit to the ‘data’. Such cubic terms could be incorporated equation 19. However, now there is not one such term but several, which is why this possibility was not considered. Finally, as we shall see below, this fit makes good predictions for the chiral condensate and the isospin density.

In figure 2 we present the chiral condensate for the same set of simulations. The general characteristics of these graphs are that $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ remains roughly constant for $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$, after which it drops rapidly, approaching zero at large $`\mu _I`$. Although this can qualitatively be thought of as the condensate rotating from the chiral to the isospin-breaking direction, it is not a simple rotation, since the magnitude of the total condensate increases up until saturation effects take over. This contrasts with the predictions of lowest order effective Lagrangians of the non-linear sigma model type where it is a simple rotation. However, in the case of 2-colour QCD at finite quark-number chemical potential, whose effective Lagrangian is structurally very similar to that for the theory at hand, the effective Lagrangian/chiral perturbation theory calculations have been extended to next-to-leading order stv . Here, although mean field scaling survives, the rotation of the condensate is accompanied by a rescaling. Such behaviour is reproduced at tree level by effective Lagrangians of the linear sigma model variety which we use for our fits to the pion condensate. The predictions these fits make for the behaviour of the chiral condensate (equation 21), have been superimposed on the measurements of figure 2. Except for small departures at small $`\mu _I`$, which we attribute to the fact that $`m`$ for the fit differs slightly from the true $`m=0.025`$, these predictions are very good until the effects of saturation start to dominate.

Figure 3 presents the isospin ($`I_3`$) density as a function of $`\mu _I`$. While the 2 condensates are normalized to 4 flavours for comparison with previous ($`\mu _I=0`$) simulations, $`j_0^3`$ is normalized to $`8`$ flavours, which is the natural normalization for staggered quarks. Qualitatively, we note that $`j_0^3`$ is close to zero for $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$, rises slowly (in comparison with the pion condensate) up to $`\mu _I1`$, after which it starts to rise more rapidly reaching its saturation value of $`3`$ (1/2 for each of 3 colours and 2 ‘flavours’ per site) due to fermi statistics, at $`\mu _I2`$. (In fact measurements made at $`\mu _I=3.0`$ give a value consistent with $`3`$). Saturation is clearly a finite lattice spacing effect and hence requires no further discussion. We also note that there is very little $`\lambda `$ dependence. The predictions of equation 22 using the parameters of our fit are superimposed on our ‘data’ and show good agreement out to $`\mu _I0.8`$. Both ‘data’ and fit are approximately linear in $`\mu _I`$ over this range.

As also noted by Son and Stephanov, measuring $`j_0^3`$ as a function of $`\mu _I`$ at $`T=0`$ and constant volume (since $`\beta `$ is constant) yields the pressure $`p`$ and energy density $`ϵ`$ as functions of $`\mu _I`$, since

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mu _c}^{\mu _I}}j_0^3𝑑\mu _I`$ (27)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{j_0^3}}\mu _I𝑑j_0^3`$ (28)
for $`\mu _I>\mu _c`$ and zero for $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$. In the region where $`j_0^3const(\mu _I\mu _c)`$ these yield

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}const(\mu _I\mu _c)^2`$ (29)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}const(\mu _I^2\mu _c^2)`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{ϵ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _I\mu _c}{\mu _I+\mu _c}}`$ (31)
The last of these equations is a form of the equation of state for this system in the neighbourhood of $`\mu _c`$. Clearly we could extend each of these expressions beyond the scaling region by interpolating the ‘data’ of figure 3 and performing the relevant integrals analytically or numerically.

We performed similar simulations at the same coupling $`\beta =5.2`$ and mass $`m=0.05`$ at $`\lambda =0.005`$ and $`\lambda =0.01`$. Here we concentrated on the neighbourhood of the phase transition and used more closely spaced (in $`\mu _I`$) points with somewhat lower statistics. For $`\mu _I\mu _c`$ we find acceptable fits of the pion condensate to to both the non-linear sigma model scaling form and to the tricritical scaling form ($`34\%`$ and $`40\%`$ respectively). The fit to non-linear sigma model effective Lagrangian scaling (equation 15) enables one to extend this to low $`\mu _I`$. A fit of the ‘data’ over the complete range over which we have measurements at both $`\lambda `$ values — $`0.4\mu _I0.7`$ — yields $`\mu _c=0.569(2)`$, $`a=0.0868(9)`$ and $`m=0.0534(3)`$, with $`\chi ^2/dof=1.5`$ for the non-linear sigma model form. Even though this fit is worse than those restricted to $`\mu _I\mu _c`$, we feel that the ability to fit $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$ in addition to $`\mu _I>\mu _c`$ makes the argument for this form of fit more compelling. Not only do we see qualitative consistency with the smaller mass results, but our measured values of $`\mu _c`$ are consistent with the expectation that $`\mu _c(m=0.05)=\sqrt{2}\mu _c(m=0.025)`$ which would be true if, indeed, $`\mu _c=m_\pi `$, from PCAC. This ‘data’ for the pion condensate with the scaling fits superimposed is plotted in figure 4. We note that the fits appear to have validity beyond the range of $`\mu _I`$ over which the fits were performed.

## IV Simulations at finite temperature

We have performed simulations of QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$ and finite temperature on an $`8^3\times 4`$ lattice, with $`m=0.05`$. Most of these simulations were performed at $`\lambda =0.005`$ and $`\lambda =0.01`$, i.e. $`\lambda <<m`$, with the objective of obtaining information about the $`\lambda =0`$ limit. The goal of these simulations is to map out the region of the $`(\beta ,\mu _I)`$ and hence the $`(T,\mu _I)`$ plane where $`I_3`$ is spontaneously broken by a charged pion condensate, and determine the nature of the phase transitions which demarcate its boundaries.

The first of these simulations was performed at a fixed, large (but well below saturation) value of $`\mu _I`$. The value chosen was $`\mu _I=0.8`$. At $`\beta `$ low enough to approximate zero temperature on an $`N_t=4`$ lattice, the system is in the phase where $`I_3`$ is spontaneously broken by a (large) pion condensate. As $`\beta `$ is increased we eventually reach a value $`\beta =\beta _c`$ at which this condensate evaporates. For $`\beta >\beta _c`$ we are in the phase where the pion condensate vanishes for $`\lambda 0`$ and $`I_3`$ is unbroken. A single $`\lambda `$ value, $`\lambda =0.005`$ was used for these runs.

Figure 5 shows the $`\beta `$ dependence of the pion condensate for these simulations. We see that for $`\beta 5.2`$ the condensate is large. Between $`\beta =5.2`$ and $`\beta =5.3`$ the condensate drops by an order of magnitude, and is small enough for $`\beta 5.3`$ that we are safe to assume that it would vanish in the $`\lambda 0`$ limit. This drop is so precipitous that we suspect that it is first order, although we really need a larger lattice to confirm this.

We have also measured the Thermal Wilson Line (Polyakov Loop) during these runs. These measurements are shown in figure 6. For $`\beta 5.2`$, the Wilson line is small indicating confinement. For $`\beta 5.3`$, the Wilson line becomes large indicating deconfinement. The jump between $`\beta =5.2`$ and $`\beta =5.3`$ is again great enough to suggest a first order transition. This behaviour of the Wilson Line indicates that this is the temperature-driven deconfinement transition.

We have also run simulations on an $`8^3\times 4`$ lattice with $`\beta =4.0`$ which gives us the low temperature behaviour. We chose $`m=0.05`$ again and ran at $`\lambda =0.005`$ and $`\lambda =0.01`$ for $`0.20\mu _I2.0`$ which covers both the transition from the $`I_3`$ symmetric phase to the phase where $`I_3`$ is spontaneously broken, and the approach to saturation. Our measurements of the pion condensate are shown in figure 7. Not surprisingly this graph resembles those we obtained on an $`8^4`$ lattice since at $`\beta =4.0`$, this lattice is essentially at zero temperature.

We fit the scaling behaviour of these measurements to the non-linear sigma model scaling form of equation 15 for both $`\lambda `$ values and $`0.2\mu _I0.8`$. The fit yielded $`\mu _c=0.519(1)`$, $`a=0.1400(4)`$ with the quark mass fixed at $`m=0.05`$ at a confidence level of $`41\%`$, which is very good. These fits are shown in figure 7. Again an acceptable tricritical fit was possible (confidence level $`48\%`$), but only for $`0.55\mu _I0.8`$, yielding the expected larger estimate for $`\mu _c`$.

In figure 8 we present the isospin density from these runs. $`j_0^3`$ rises from zero at $`\mu _I\mu _c`$. Again there is little $`\lambda `$ dependence. We have superimposed the form predicted from the fit to pion condensate using equation 17 on these plots. These curves are in reasonable agreement with the measured values up to $`\mu _I0.7`$. This indicates that the scaling window for $`j_0^3`$ is slightly less than that for the pion condensate. However, it is clear that the linear or near-linear increase of this quantity with $`\mu _I`$ continues beyond the point where the ‘data’ and curves diverge. This is born out by the fitting $`j_0^3`$ to the form

$$j_0^3=const(\mu _I\mu _c)^{\beta _I}.$$
(32)
Fitting the $`\lambda =0.005`$ ‘data’ over the range $`0.5\mu _I1.1`$ gives $`\mu _c=0.467(13)`$, $`\beta _I=0.94(6)`$ and $`const=1.22(3)`$ at a confidence level of $`18\%`$ while fitting the $`\lambda =0.01`$ ‘data’ yields $`\mu _c=0.382(9)`$, $`\beta _I=1.09(3)`$, $`const=1.20(1)`$ at a confidence level of $`85\%`$. These results are in excellent agreement with the effective Lagrangian prediction $`\beta _I=1`$. This graph also indicates a crossover to a more rapid increase at $`\mu _I1.5`$.

Finally we have performed $`m=0.05`$ simulations on an $`8^3\times 4`$ lattice at $`\beta =5.0`$, which lies below $`\beta _c`$ at high $`\mu _I`$, while being large enough that the effects of finite temperature should be apparent. Here again we ran with $`\lambda =0.005,0.01`$. Here we used higher statistics (2000 time-units per ‘run’) but at fewer $`\mu _I`$ values. Our measurements of the charged pion condensate are presented in figure 9. The transition from low to high values of this condensate shows no sign of a first order transition. The linear extrapolation to $`\lambda =0`$ gives values close to zero at low $`\mu _I`$, rising rapidly from zero above some $`\mu _c0.5`$. Here we find good fits of the ‘data’ for both $`\lambda `$ values and $`0.2\mu _I1.0`$ to the non-linear sigma model form with $`\mu _c=0.5521(5)`$, $`a=0.1040(4)`$, $`m=0.0523(1)`$ at a confidence level of $`31\%`$ and to the linear sigma model form with $`\mu _c=0.5513(5)`$, $`a=2.46(1)`$, $`b=0.0823(4)`$, $`m=0.0518(1)`$ at a confidence level of $`48\%`$. This second fit in included in figure 9. A tricritical fit is possible for $`0.55\mu _I0.8`$ and has a confidence level of $`28\%`$.

Thus the line of phase transitions which bound the region in the $`(\mu _I,T)`$ plane within which isospin ($`I_3`$) is broken spontaneously by a charged pion condensate, is second order for low temperatures and becomes first order at high $`\mu _I`$. The second order segment of this line appears to have mean-field critical exponents.

## V Discussion and conclusions

We have simulated QCD with 2 quark flavours ($`u`$,$`d`$) at a finite chemical potential ($`\mu _I`$) for isospin, $`I_3`$. At zero temperature and intermediate coupling ($`\beta =6/g^2=5.2`$) we found strong evidence for a second order transition to a phase in which $`I_3`$ is spontaneously broken by a charged pion condensate which also breaks parity, at $`\mu _I=\mu _c`$. The observed behaviour is what is predicted by effective Lagrangian methods for $`\mu _I`$ appreciably less than the value at which saturation, a lattice artifact, takes over. These effective Lagrangian analyses predict that $`\mu _c=m_\pi `$. Since we have not measured $`m_\pi `$ on these small lattices, all we have checked is that $`\mu _c\sqrt{m}`$ for the 2 quark masses which we use ($`m=0.025`$,$`m=0.05`$), and found that this is true within the uncertainties of our measurements. The critical scaling appears to be well described by an equation of state suggested by these effective Lagrangian analyses, which means that the critical point has mean-field critical exponents. However, tricritical behaviour cannot be completely excluded. Such behaviour was discussed in detail in our paper on the quenched theory quenched .

We also measured the isospin density ($`j_0^3`$) and found that it increases from zero, at or near $`\mu _c`$. The scaling behaviour appears to be linear close to $`\mu _c`$, as is predicted by effective Lagrangian analyses sonstep  and well described by the predictions given by the fits to the pion condensate, within the scaling window. For larger $`\mu _I`$ values it starts to increase considerably faster than linear. This is in qualitative agreement with the expectation that $`I_3`$ density should increase as $`\mu _I^3`$ at large $`\mu _I`$. We have not been able to determine if our observations are consistent with this $`\mu _I^3`$ increase because of the effects of saturation which cause the isospin density to approach $`3`$ at high $`\mu _I`$. Here we have indicated how the measurement of $`j_0^3`$ enables one to obtain the pressure ($`p`$) and the energy density ($`ϵ`$) as functions of $`\mu _I`$, and given explicit expressions for these quantities in the scaling regime.

The chiral condensate remains approximately constant for $`\mu _I<\mu _c`$. Above $`\mu _c`$ it starts to fall approaching zero for large $`\mu `$. Again this is in agreement with expectations, and the predictions from the fits to the pion condensate. However, the expectation from lowest-order effective Lagrangian tree-level analyses, that the chiral condensate simply rotates into the direction of the charged pion condensate, is not true. However, in closely related 2-colour QCD at finite quark-number chemical potential, chiral perturbation theory calculations through next-to-leading order show that, while scaling remains mean field, the condensate does not merely rotate, but also rescales stv . Since the structure of chiral perturbation theory (effective Lagrangians) for the two theories is so similar, we expect a similar result for QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$.

We have performed simulations at finite temperature ($`T`$) in addition to finite $`\mu _I`$. In particular we have heated the system at fixed $`\mu _I=0.8>\mu _c(T=0)`$ (in lattice units) by increasing $`\beta `$. On our $`N_t=4`$ lattice there is some $`\beta =\beta _c`$ ($`5.2\beta _c5.3`$) at which the charged pion condensate evaporates. This transition appears to be first order. Such first order behaviour was predicted for $`\mu _I`$ large enough by Son and Stephanov sonstep  who argued that at high $`\mu _I`$ the fermions would effectively decouple, and the phase transition would be that for pure glue, which is known to be first order. We note from our observations that the situation is not quite this simple. The pure glue transition on an $`N_t=4`$ lattice occurs at $`\beta 5.7`$ columbia ; ape . Since our observations place $`\beta _c`$ somewhat lower than this, and close to the value of the $`\mu _I=0`$ finite temperature transition, the quarks are having an effect. We also note that Son and Stephanov suggest that the first order deconfinement transition at high temperature is distinct from the $`I_3`$ symmetry restoring transition. Our evidence is that these 2 transitions are coincident. This means that the second order segment of the phase boundary can be considered as driven purely by the chemical potential, which makes their argument for $`O(2)`$ universality less compelling. We note that, in our paper on 2-colour QCD at finite $`\mu `$ and $`T`$ qcd2t , we present an alternative argument for the first-order finite-temperature transition which that theory exhibits for large $`\mu `$.

In addition, we have simulated our $`N_t=4`$ system at fixed $`\beta `$, varying $`\mu _I`$. In particular we have performed simulations at $`\beta =4.0`$ which is at near-zero temperature, and $`\beta =5.0`$ where the system is clearly at a finite temperature. Both of these simulations showed a second order transition. Again the scaling was well described by the scaling forms suggested by effective Lagrangian analyses which indicates that they have mean-field critical exponents.

We have noted throughout this paper the similarity between 3-colour QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$ and 2-colour QCD at finite quark-number chemical potential, $`\mu `$. The correspondence is seen by identifying $`\frac{1}{2}\mu _I`$ with $`\mu `$, the charged pion condensate with the diquark condensate and the isospin density with the quark number density. This similarity is seen both in simulations and in effective Lagrangian analyses. The expected position of the zero temperature transition is the same $`\mu _I=m_\pi `$ ($`\mu =\frac{1}{2}m_\pi `$). Its nature — second order with mean-field exponents — is the same as predicted stv  and observed qcd2it ; newqcd2  for 2-colour QCD. In both systems the spontaneous symmetry breaking is in the Goldstone mode (superfluid). At finite temperature the condensate evaporates at a transition which is first order for $`\mu _I`$ ($`\mu `$) large enough. This line of first order transitions softens to second order and the line of second order transitions connects to the zero temperature transition. Thus, we can use 2-colour QCD results at finite $`\mu `$ as a guide as to QCD at finite $`\mu _I`$.

We are extending these simulations to a larger lattice ($`12^3\times 24`$) and weaker coupling where we hope to observe the expected mean-field transition more clearly distinguished from the tricritical alternative and rule out the $`O(2)`$ alternative. This lattice will also enable us to measure the spectrum of Goldstone and pseudo-Goldstone excitations as functions of $`\mu _I`$. More extensive spectrum analyses at $`\mu _I=0`$ will give us a more definitive scale for these phenomena, in addition to a value for $`m_\pi `$ with which to compare $`\mu _c`$. Configurations will be stored so that we can make other spectroscopy measurements at finite $`\mu _I`$. We will also extend the finite temperature simulations to a $`12^3\times 6`$ lattice since it is difficult to determine the order of the continuum transitions from $`8^3\times 4`$ lattices. In addition we will study the instantons at large $`\mu _I`$ since it is believed that instantons and their interactions have a relatively simple structure at large isospin density, analogous to what has been predicted for large quark-number density ssz .

We are also starting lattice QCD simulations including both a chemical potential $`\mu _I`$ for isospin and a chemical potential $`\mu _s`$ for strangeness. Here effective Lagrangian analyses have indicated that there is a competition between the formation of pion and kaon condensates as $`\mu _I`$ and $`\mu _s`$ are varied independently and that the boundary between the region with a pion condensate and that with a kaon condensate is a line of first order transitions strange .

Although our simulations have been limited to zero baryon number density, it is interesting to know how much of this analysis is relevant to systems with finite baryon number density and isospin density. If it does have relevance, charged pion condensates could contribute to the equation-of-state of nuclear matter and thus be important in understanding the physics of neutron stars and perhaps large nuclei.

## Acknowledgements

DKS was supported by DOE contract W-31-109-ENG-38. JBK was supported in part by an NSF grant NSF PHY-0102409. JBK wishes to thank D. Toublan for many useful discussions. DKS would like to thank R. Pisarski for emphasizing the importance of extracting pressure and energy density.


text:
# Benchmark calculation of the three-nucleon photodisintegration

## I INTRODUCTION

The total photodisintegration cross sections of the three–body nuclei are important quantities for understanding electromagnetic processes in nuclei. Several approximate theoretical calculations have been performed in the past with simple NN-potential models . The first calculations with complete final state interaction were carried out with the Lorentz Integral Transform (LIT) method using semirealistic  and realistic NN and 3N forces . In this paper we intend to set a benchmark on the results of the three–nucleon total photodisintegration by calculating the cross section with modern realistic two– and three–nucleon forces. To this end we use two different methods, namely the Faddeev and the LIT approaches. On the one hand the comparison between the results gives an idea of the precision reached by three-body calculations involving continuum states while on the other hand it may stimulate more accurate measurements.

It has long been believed that the photonuclear cross section is dominated by unretarded dipole transitions. The contributions of magnetic and higher order electric multipoles, of retardation, as well as of meson exchange currents have been discussed extensively. However, rigorous results have only been given for the deuteron . In this paper we give for the first time a quantitative discussion of these issues for the three-body nuclei.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we briefly summarize the two methods for obtaining the total photodisintegration cross section. In Sec. 3 we present the comparison between the two calculations and discuss the effects of the Coulomb force, as well as the contributions beyond the unretarded dipole operator. Conclusions are drawn at the end.

## II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The total unpolarized photodisintegration cross section is given by

$$\sigma _T(E_\gamma )=R_T(E_\gamma )\frac{1}{E_\gamma }4\pi ^2\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}.$$
(1)
In terms of the matrix elements of the transverse current operator $`𝐉_𝐓`$ the transverse response function $`R_T(E_\gamma )`$ is

$$R_T(E_\gamma )=𝑑f|\mathrm{\Psi }_f|𝐉_𝐓|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2\delta (E_\gamma E_f+E_0\frac{E_\gamma ^2}{2M_t}),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the three–nucleon bound state wave function with energy $`E_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ are final state wave functions. The term $`E_\gamma ^2/(2M_t)`$ in the energy conserving delta–function represents the small recoil energy of the whole 3–body nucleus with mass $`M_t`$. In the following subsections it is described how $`R_T`$ is calculated using the Faddeev equations and the LIT method.

### A The Faddeev equations

The way the transverse response function $`R_T`$ is calculated in the Faddeev framework for inclusive electron scattering without a 3N force is described in Refs.  and . Here we sketch the corresponding derivation for the case when a 3N force is additionally taken into account.

For a general operator $`𝒪`$ and using closure the function in Eq. (2) is rewritten as

$$R_𝒪(E_\gamma )=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0|𝒪^{}\frac{1}{E+iϵH}𝒪\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(3)
where $`E=E_0E_\gamma ^2/(2M_t)+E_\gamma `$ and $`H`$ is the 3N Hamiltonian. Next we define an auxiliary state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{E+iϵH}𝒪|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(4)
which fulfils the following equation

$$(E+iϵH)|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒪|\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(5)
This leads to an intermediate equation

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=G_0(V_1+V_2+V_3+V_4)|\mathrm{\Psi }+G_0𝒪|\mathrm{\Psi }_0.$$
(6)
Here $`V_i`$ is the NN potential (we use the notation $`V_1=V_{23}`$ etc.), $`V_4`$ is a 3N force and $`G_0`$ the free 3N propagator. Both the operator $`𝒪`$ and the 3N force $`V_4`$ can be written as a sum of three parts having the same symmetry under particle exchanges.

$`𝒪={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}𝒪_i,`$ (7)
$`V_4={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_4^{(i)}`$ (8)
Introducing the Faddeev decomposition of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=G_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}|U_i$$
(9)
we obtain from Eq. (6) (for three identical nucleons) the following equation on $`|U_1`$:

$$(1V_1G_0)|U_1=V_1G_0P|U_1+V_4^{(1)}G_0(1+P)|U_1+𝒪_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,$$
(10)
where $`P`$ is the sum of a cyclical and anticyclical permutation of 3 particles. Using the identities for the NN t-operator $`t_1`$

$`(1V_1G_0)^1=1+t_1G_0,`$ (11)
$`(1V_1G_0)^1V_1G_0=t_1G_0`$ (12)
we obtain the final Faddeev-like equation on $`|U_1`$:

$$|U_1=(1+t_1G_0)𝒪_1|\mathrm{\Psi }_0+\left(t_1G_0P+(1+t_1G_0)V_4^{(1)}(1+P)G_0\right)|U_1.$$
(13)
The response function $`R_T`$ is then obtained as

$$R_T(E_\gamma )=\frac{3}{\pi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_0|𝒪_1^{}(1+P)G_0U_1,$$
(14)
where $`𝒪`$ is taken as the transverse current operator of Ref.

The response function $`R_T`$ can also be obtained by means of direct integrations in Eq. (2). This gives not only a possibility for a check of numerics, but provides information about two– and three–body parts of the total cross section.

### B The Lorentz Integral Transform Method

In the LIT approach the need to compute final state continuum wave functions is avoided . In fact the response function $`R_T`$ is obtained via evaluation and subsequent inversion of its LIT

$$L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)=_{E_{th}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E_\gamma \frac{R(E_\gamma )}{(E_\gamma \sigma _R)^2+\sigma _I^2}.$$
(15)
Neglecting the small recoil term in Eq. (2) $`E_\gamma =E_fE_0`$ and applying closure the transform $`L(\sigma )`$ of the response $`R_T`$ is found as

$$L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\sigma _R,\sigma _I),$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the localized solution of the Schrödinger–like equation

$$(HE_0\sigma _R+i\sigma _I)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=Q$$
(17)
with the source term $`Q=𝐉_T\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the ground state solution for the same hamiltonian.

In order to calculate $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ expansions on correlated hyperspherical harmonics (CHH) are used

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{i}{}c_i\varphi _i,$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a correlation operator and $`\varphi _i`$ is a totally antisymmetric basis set constructed from a spatial part $`\chi _{i,\mu }`$ and a spin-isospin part $`\theta _\mu `$

$$\varphi _i=\underset{\mu }{}\chi _{i,\mu }\theta _\mu .$$
(19)
The operator $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a state dependent correlation operator. Further details can be found in Ref. . Calculating $`L(\sigma _R,\sigma _I)`$ for a sufficient number of $`\sigma _R`$ and fixed $`\sigma _I`$, one obtains $`R_T`$ from the inversion of the LIT (for details of the inversion see Ref. )

### C Comparison between the two Approaches

It is evident that the Faddeev and LIT methods are completely different. The Faddeev results are obtained essentially by solving Eq. (13) in momentum space while the LIT results are obtained by first solving Eq. (17) in configuration space and then inverting Eq. (15) with $`L(\sigma )`$ given by Eq. (16). Therefore the comparison between the results obtained with the two methods is a very significant test of accuracy reached by these approaches.

There is an interesting similarity between the two methods, namely, the fact that closure plays an important role in both approaches. Indeed it is just the use of closure that leads to Eqs. (5) and (17), respectively. Actually these two equations are equal provided that $`\sigma _Iϵ`$. However in the LIT case the finite $`\sigma _I`$ in Eq. (17) effectively makes it a bound state problem, while the Faddeev-like equation (13) remains a continuum problem.

In judging the quality of agreement between the results of the two methods one has to take into account that the LIT results are obtained in the “unretarded dipole approximation”. In the following we recall this approximation briefly. It consists in replacing the total current operator $`𝐉(𝐐)`$ by its limit $`𝐉(Q=0)`$. Then one makes use of the continuity equation

$$𝐐𝐉_{f0}(𝐐)=E_\gamma \rho _{f0}(𝐐),$$
(20)
where $`\rho (𝐐)`$ represents the charge operator. Expanding $`\rho _{f0}(𝐐)`$ in powers of $`𝐐`$ and taking into account that $`\rho _{f0}(Q=0)=0`$, one gets

$$𝐐𝐉_{f0}(Q=0)=E_\gamma 𝐐\left[\left(\stackrel{}{}_𝐐\rho \right)_{Q=0}\right]_{f0}.$$
(21)
As the direction of $`𝐐`$ is arbitrary, one has

$$𝐉_{f0}(Q=0)=E_\gamma \left[\left(\stackrel{}{}_𝐐\rho \right)_{Q=0}\right]_{f0}.$$
(22)
Since the gradient of $`\rho `$ for $`Q=0`$ is the dipole operator one writes

$$\left[\left(\stackrel{}{}_𝐐\rho \right)_{Q=0}\right]_{f0}=i𝐃_{f0}.$$
(23)
Thus Eq. (1) becomes the well known result for the photonuclear cross section in unretarded dipole approximation

$$\sigma =4\pi ^2\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}c}E_\gamma R_D(E_\gamma )$$
(24)
with

$$R_D(E_\gamma )=𝑑f|\mathrm{\Psi }_f|𝐃|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|^2\delta (E_\gamma E_f+E_0).$$
(25)
For the LIT only $`R_D`$ is calculated. Since our energy range of interest is below pion threshold the unretarded dipole approximation should be very good. In the following discussion a check of this assumption will be presented in the framework of the momentum space Faddeev approach. In this framework one can use the representation of the electric multipoles of the transition operator obtained in Ref.  employing the continuity equation (20) with $`E_\gamma =Q`$:

$`T_{J\xi }^{el}(Q)=T_{J\xi }^\rho +T_{J\xi }^{res},`$ (26)
$`T_{J\xi }^\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{J+1}{J}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{Q}Y_{J\xi }(\widehat{Q})\rho _{f0}(𝐐)},`$ (27)
$`T_{J\xi }^{res}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2J+1}{J}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{Q}\left(𝐘_{J,J+1,1}^\xi (\widehat{Q})𝐉_{f0}(𝐐)\right)}.`$ (28)
Here $`\xi =\pm 1`$ and $`𝐘_{J,J+1,1}^\xi `$ are vector spherical harmonics. In the limit $`Q0`$ the contribution (28) behaves as $`Q^{J+1}`$, while the contribution (27) behaves as $`Q^J`$. Expressing $`T_{J\xi }^\rho `$ in terms of the density matrix elements $`\rho _{f0}(𝐑)`$ one finds that

$$\underset{Q0}{lim}\left[Q^JT_{JM}^{el}(Q)\right]=\underset{Q0}{lim}\left[Q^JT_{JM}^\rho (Q)\right]=i^J\sqrt{\frac{J+1}{J}}\frac{1}{(2J+1)!!}𝑑𝐑R^JY_{JM}(\widehat{R})\rho _{f0}(𝐑),$$
(29)
which is known as Siegert’s theorem, namely that the electric multipole transitions are completely determined via the charge density in the limit $`Q0`$. In particular, for $`J=1`$ one has

$$\left(D_M\right)_{f0}=i\sqrt{6\pi }\underset{Q0}{lim}\left[Q^1T_{1M}^\rho (Q)\right].$$
(30)
This is the relation which has been used in the framework of the Faddeev calculation to test the quality of the unretarded E1 approximation.

Corrections to the unretarded E1 approximation consist of two parts. The first part is due to the difference between $`T_{1M}^\rho (Q)`$ of Eq. (27) and its limit for $`Q0`$. We shall refer to this correction as a retardation correction. The second part is $`T_{J\xi }^{res}`$ of Eq. (28). It is seen from above that both corrections vanish at small $`Q`$. Additional contributions come from magnetic multipoles (see Eq. (4) in ) and higher EJ multipoles.

## III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the calculation of the total photoabsorption cross section $`\sigma _T`$ we use the AV18 NN interaction , the 3–body force Urbana IX  and for the LIT case also the Coulomb force. Only the unretarded dipole approximation $`R_D`$ is considered within the LIT method. The Faddeev results also include retardation effects, additional multipoles of the usual one-body current and explicit MEC.

We start the discussion with the benchmark test. In Fig. 1 the comparison between LIT and Faddeev results is presented in unretarded dipole approximation without (Fig. 1a) and with (Fig. 1b) the 3N force. There are two curves for the LIT case showing the small uncertainties in the inversion of the transform. Besides small differences at higher energies the agreement between the two methods is excellent for AV18. Inclusion of the 3N force gives slightly poorer agreement in the peak region and at the low energy side of the peak, where the two curves have a relative shift of 0.2 MeV. We do not think that this small difference is of relevance at present; only in case of future high precision experiments would it be reconsidered. Fig. 1b shows also the result for AV18 only. As already pointed out in Refs.  one finds a decrease of the peak and enhancement of the tail due to the 3N force.

In Fig. 2 we show the retardation effects (Fig. 2a) and those due to the additional contributions of $`T_{1\xi }^{res}`$ and of magnetic and higher electric multipoles (Fig. 2b). Only the one-body current was employed to calculate these additional contributions. One sees that the retardation effects reduce the cross section. They are very small below 50 MeV (1 % or less) and become somewhat more sizable at higher energies (5 % at 100 MeV, 17 % at pion threshold). As seen in Fig. 2b the increase due to additional multipoles is rather similar with and without 3N force. Only beyond 80 MeV does the difference become somewhat more pronounced. At low energy there is a tiny decrease due to the additional E1 contribution. Above 30 MeV the higher multipole contributions are increasing up to 30 % at pion threshold. It is interesting to note that one finds a partial compensation of retardation and higher multipole effects as predicted by Gerasimov via sum rule considerations .

In Fig. 3 we illustrate the effect of the Coulomb force in the threshold region. The neglect of the Coulomb force leads to an increase of the cross section close to threshold (about 10 % at 7 MeV), but becomes rather small beyond 15 MeV. Considering the Coulomb force only in the ground state is not a good approximation. It is better to neglect the Coulomb force completely.

Now we turn to the discussion of MEC effects. Generally it is a problem to construct a consistent exchange current for a given NN potential. Using, however, minimal coupling one obtains a MEC with the correct divergence of the current also in case of realistic NN potentials , while the rotor of the current remains model dependent. Here we use only the standard $`\pi `$\- and $`\rho `$-like exchange currents for AV18, which are determined according to the Riska prescription . In the present Faddeev calculation MEC are added to the one–body current without making a multipole decomposition, therefore without using Eq. (26). This differs from the usual approach where the gauge condition Eq. (20) is applied to obtain a representation similar to that of Eq. (26) and thus only MEC contributions beyond it are calculated explicitly. Such a procedure has the advantage that one violates gauge invariance in the minimal way since the divergence of the full current is taken into account correctly. For example, in a calculation with 3N forces one automatically takes into account a large part of three–nucleon MEC effects. Fig. 4 illustrates that the result with explicit MEC differs rather substantially from that with one–body current and implicit MEC via Siegert’s theorem. This suggests that the MEC are not fully consistent with the potential. Indeed, using Eq. (26) for a current satisfying the continuity equation the explicit MEC contribution to the E1 multipole would manifest itself only in the residual term (28) which vanishes for $`Q0`$. Even away from this limit $`T_{J\xi }^{res}`$ is probably small, as it is in the case of the deuteron . In addition, MEC contributions to other multipoles could not decrease the cross section, since the cross section is the incoherent sum of all multipoles and without explicit MEC such multipole contributions are negligible at low energies (see Fig. 2b).

The contributions of the two- and three–body break up channels are shown in Fig. 5a. The three-body break up cross section becomes larger than that of the two-body break up already at 14 MeV and at higher energies it is the dominating channel. In Fig. 5b we compare the total three–body break up cross section with that of the final isospin T=3/2 channel (which is three–body break up exclusively). It is interesting to see that at low energy the T=1/2 channel gives a small contribution to the three body break up, while it becomes increasingly important at higher energies.

In Fig. 6 we compare the triton results with experimental data. One finds a rather good agreement between theory and experiment at low energy for both channels. Since the experimental situation at higher energy is not settled, a definite comparison between theory and experiment cannot be made. In fact the two-body break up data are rather scattered and there is limited experimental information on the three-body break up.

In Fig. 7 we compare the total 3He cross section with data (the results for 3H with AV18 and UrbIX are presented in ). One finds a rather good agreement between theoretical and experimental data and it is evident that the 3N force improves the comparison with experiments at low energy. On the other hand due to the insufficient precision of the experimental data a more conclusive comparison between theory and experiment cannot be made.

We summarize our results as follows. Benchmark results of high precision have been set for the three–nucleon total photoabsorption cross sections. The theoretical quality of the results is considerably higher than the experimental uncertainties. Of course, one has to take into account that these experimental data are rather old. Thus new experimental activity in this field would appear to be timely. The classical approximation for photonuclear cross sections, i.e. the unretarded dipole approximation, is extremely good below 50 MeV. It is also rather good at even higher energies (error at 100 MeV below 20 %), since one has a partial cancellation of the E1 retardation effects and contributions from additional multipoles. The Coulomb force effects on the cross section become negligible about 6-7 MeV above threshold but are important at lower energy.

Acknowledgement

Parts of this work were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (J.G.), the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (grant 2P03B02818), a NATO Collaborative Research Grant (W.L.,G.O.,E.L.T.), the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (E.L.T.), the Russian Fund for Basic Research, grant 00–15–96590 (V.D.E.), and the Italian Ministry of Research (V.D.E.,W.L.,G.O.). A.N. acknowledges partial support from NSF grant #PHY0070858. Parts of the numerical Faddeev calculations have been performed on the Cray T90 and T3E of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.