text:
# Thermodynamics and Kinetic Theory of Relativistic Gases in 2-D Cosmological Models

## I Introduction

The combination of general relativity with the kinetic theory of gases is remarkably useful to construct cosmological models Bern . In these formulations the cosmic sources of gravitational interactions are represented by the energy-momentum tensor of a fluid; in addition we have the hypothesis of homogeneity and isotropy in the form of the well-known Robertson-Walker metric Wein1 . Although these theories have explained several important features of our universe fundamental questions still remain to be answered Olive .

Models in lower dimensions offer interesting results that, if properly analyzed, can be used to gain insight in the realistic formulations. Two-dimensional (2-D) gravity models have been under intensive investigation during the last two decades Teit ; Jackiw ; Pol ; Stro ; Mann ; Mann1 . The old problem of quantum gravity, black holes physics and string dynamics were tested in these theories. In particular Teitelboim Teit  and Jackiw Jackiw  proposed a consistent model in two dimensions analogous of general relativity. As imediate results, among others Jackiw ; Mann , this model offer a consistent Newtonian limit, gravitational collapse solutions that are basically a 2-D Schwarzschild analogue and cosmological models based in a 2-D Robertson-Walker metric.

For cosmological applications, a refinement in the construction of these models can be obtained by considering a non-equilibrium scenario, including a bulk viscosity term in the energy-momentum tensor (for a review on viscous cosmology up to 1990 one is referred to Gron Gron ). In the four-dimensional case the inclusion of this term to analyze the evolution of the cosmic scale factor with the time was done by Murphy Mur  who has found a solution that corresponds only to an expansion. Other models were based on the coupling of the Einstein field equations with the balance equations of extended thermodynamics MR  (also known as causal or second-order thermodynamic theory) and among others we cite the works of Belinskiǐ et al Bel , Zimdahl Zim  and Di Prisco et al Di .

In this work we develop a kinetic theory of relativistic gases in a two-dimensional space. The balance laws for the particle flow, energy-momentum tensor and entropy flow are obtained from the Boltzmann equation. We find also the equilibrium distribution function and the expressions for the fields of energy per particle, pressure, entropy per particle, enthalpy per particle and heat capacities in equilibrium in a two-dimensional space. Moreover, by using the method of Chapman and Enskog for the kinetic model of the Boltzmann equation proposed by Anderson and Witting AW  we calculate the bulk viscosity and the entropy production rate. We apply the ideas of Murphy Mur  to the 2-D gravitational field equations and we show that opposed to the four-dimensional case the cosmic scale factor attains a maximum value at a finite time decreasing to a ”big crunch” and that there exists a solution of the gravitational field equations corresponding to a ”false vacuum”. The difference between the solutions in the four- and two-dimensional cases is due to the fact that the relationship between the metric tensor and the sources in the 2-D case is modified because the Einstein field equations give no dynamics for the 2-D case.

The manuscript is structured as follows. In Section II we introduce the two-dimensional Robertson-Walker metric. The kinetic theory of relativistic gases in 2-D is developed in Section III. In Section IV we introduce the gravitational equations of motion in the 2-D case and in Section V we search for the solutions of the gravitational field equations. Finally, in Section VI we discuss the solutions that came out from the gravitational field equations.

## II Robertson-Walker Metric

One fundamental feature of 2-D cosmological models is that they show considerably less mathematical complexity and at the same time they preserve the physical principles that are used to construct their four-dimensional counterparts. One impressive result was that in 2-D models the quantization of the gravitational field is consistent Jackiw ; Pol , opening the possibility of quantum cosmological models for the very early universe. These results in the 2-D theories are of relevance to include new ingredients in the “realistic” versions Mann ; Mann1 .

As it is well known, the so-called cosmological principle is based on the assumption that the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic. The metric that describes such kind of universe, known as the Robertson-Walker metric, has the following form in a two-dimensional Riemannian space characterized by the metric tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ with signature $`(+)`$ Mann ; Mann1

$$ds^2=(cdt)^2\kappa (t)^2\frac{(dr)^2}{1\epsilon r^2}.$$
(1)
In the above equation $`\kappa (t)`$ \- the so-called cosmic scale factor - is an unknown function of the time and has dimension of length, while $`r`$ is a dimensionless quantity. If we introduce a new variable $`x=\mathrm{arcsin}(\sqrt{\epsilon }r)/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ the equation (1) reduces to

$$ds^2=(cdt)^2\kappa (t)^2(dx)^2.$$
(2)
The components and the determinant $`g=det((g_{\mu \nu }))`$ of the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ for the Robertson-Walker metric (1) with respect to the coordinates $`(x^\mu )=(ct,x)`$ are

$$g_{00}=g^{00}=1,g_{11}=\kappa ^2=\frac{1}{g^{11}},g=\kappa ^2$$
(3)
The corresponding non-zero Christoffel symbols read

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^0=\dot{\kappa }\kappa ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}^1=\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }.$$
(4)
where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the coordinate $`x^0=ct`$. Once the Christoffel symbols are known the non-vanishing components of the Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \tau \nu }^\tau `$ and the curvature scalar $`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$ can be calculated and it follows

$$R_{00}=\frac{\ddot{\kappa }}{\kappa },R_{11}=\ddot{\kappa }\kappa ,R=2\frac{\ddot{\kappa }}{\kappa }.$$
(5)
## III Kinetic Theory of Relativistic Gases in 2-D

### III.1 Boltzmann equation and fields in equilibrium

We consider a relativistic ideal gas with particles of rest mass $`m`$ which is described in the phase space by the one-particle distribution function $`f(x^\mu ,p^\mu )`$. The momentum $`(p^\mu )=(p^0,p)`$ has a constraint of constant length $`g_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\mu =m^2c^2`$ so that $`f(x^\mu ,p^\mu )f(x,p,t)`$.

The evolution equation of the one-particle distribution function in the phase space is described by the Boltzmann equation, which in the presence of a gravitational field is given by CK1 ; Cher

$$p^\mu \frac{f}{x^\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^1p^\mu p^\nu \frac{f}{p}=\frac{U^\mu p_\mu }{c^2\tau }(ff^{(0)}),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^1`$ is the affine connection. In the right-hand side of the above equation we have replaced the collision term of the Boltzmann equation by the model equation proposed by Anderson and Witting AW , which refers to a relativistic gas in the Landau and Lifshitz description LL . Further $`\tau `$ is a characteristic time of order of the time between collisions, $`f^{(0)}`$ is the equilibrium distribution function and $`U^\mu `$ is the two-velocity such that $`U^\mu U_\mu =c^2`$.

The first moments of the one-particle distribution function are: the particle flow $`N^\mu `$ and the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ which are defined by

$$N^\mu =cp^\mu f\sqrt{g}\frac{dp}{p_0},T^{\mu \nu }=cp^\mu p^\nu f\sqrt{g}\frac{dp}{p_0}.$$
(7)
Furthermore, the entropy flow $`S^\mu `$ is defined by

$$S^\mu =kcp^\mu f\mathrm{ln}f\sqrt{g}\frac{dp}{p_0},$$
(8)
where $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant.

The balance equations for the particle flow $`N^\mu `$, energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ and entropy flux $`S^\mu `$ can be obtained from the Boltzmann equation (6) and read

$$N_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0,T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0,S_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=\varsigma 0.$$
(9)
Above $`\varsigma `$ denotes the entropy production rate defined through

$$\varsigma =\frac{kU^\mu }{c\tau }p_\mu f^{(0)}\left(\frac{f}{f^{(0)}}1\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{f}{f^{(0)}}\sqrt{g}\frac{dp}{p_0}.$$
(10)
In the Landau and Lifshitz description LL  the particle flow and the energy-momentum tensor are decomposed according to

$$N^\mu =nU^\mu +𝒥^\mu ,$$
(11)
$$T^{\mu \nu }=p^{\mu \nu }(P+\varpi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }+\frac{en}{c^2}U^\mu U^\nu ,$$
(12)
where $`n`$ is the particle number density, $`𝒥^\mu `$ the non-equilibrium part of the particle flow, $`p^{\mu \nu }`$ the pressure deviator, i.e., the traceless part of the pressure tensor, $`P`$ the hydrostatic pressure, $`\varpi `$ the dynamic pressure, i.e., the non-equilibrium part of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, $`e`$ the internal energy per particle and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }`$ the projector defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{c^2}U^\mu U^\nu ,\text{such that}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }U_\nu =0,\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu ^\sigma =\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \sigma },\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }=1.$$
(13)
The the non-equilibrium part of the particle flow $`𝒥^\mu `$ and the pressure deviator $`p^{\mu \nu }`$ are perpendicular to $`U^\mu `$.

One can also decompose the entropy flow as

$$S^\mu =nsU^\mu +\varphi ^\mu $$
(14)
where $`s`$ denotes the entropy per particle and $`\varphi ^\mu `$ the entropy flux which is perpendicular to $`U^\mu `$.

The equilibrium distribution function in a two-dimensional space, which is the so-called Maxwell-Jüttner distribution function, can be written as

$$f^{(0)}=\frac{n}{2mcK_1(\zeta )}e^{\frac{1}{kT}U^\mu p_\mu },\text{where}\zeta =\frac{mc^2}{kT},$$
(15)
where $`T`$ denotes the absolute temperature. The parameter $`\zeta `$ represents the ratio between the rest energy of a particle and the thermal energy of the gas. Moreover, $`K_n(\zeta )`$ denotes the modified Bessel function of second kind (see for example AS )

$$K_n(\zeta )=\left(\frac{\zeta }{2}\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}_1^{\mathrm{}}e^{\zeta y}(y^21)^{n\frac{1}{2}}𝑑y.$$
(16)
Once the equilibrium distribution function is known, one can obtain the following expressions for the fields of energy per particle, pressure and entropy per particle in equilibrium:

$$e=mc^2\left[\frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )}\frac{1}{\zeta }\right],P=nkT,s_E=k\left\{\frac{e}{kT}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{n}{2mcK_1(\zeta )}\right]\right\}.$$
(17)
The thermodynamic quantities enthalpy per particle $`h`$ and heat capacities per particle at constant volume $`c_v`$ and at constant pressure $`c_p`$ follows from its definitions by using (17), yielding

$$h=e+\frac{P}{n}=mc^2\frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )},c_v=\left(\frac{e}{T}\right)_v=k\left[\zeta ^2+3\zeta \frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )}\zeta ^2\left(\frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )}\right)^21\right],$$
(18)
$$c_p=\left(\frac{h}{T}\right)_p=k\left[\zeta ^2+3\zeta \frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )}\zeta ^2\left(\frac{K_2(\zeta )}{K_1(\zeta )}\right)^2\right]=c_v+k.$$
(19)
The above thermodynamic fields in the non-relativistic limiting case where $`\zeta 1`$, i.e., for low temperatures, read

$$emc^2+\frac{kT}{2}\left[1+\frac{3}{4\zeta }+\mathrm{}\right],s_Ek\left[\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2\pi mk}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{T}}{n}+\frac{1}{\zeta }+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(20)
$$hmc^2+\frac{3kT}{2}\left[1+\frac{3}{4\zeta }+\mathrm{}\right],c_v\frac{k}{2}\left[1+\frac{3}{2\zeta }\frac{9}{4\zeta ^2}+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(21)
In the ultra-relativistic limiting case where $`\zeta 1`$, i.e., for high temperatures and/or for very small rest mass, we have that the leading term of each thermodynamic field is given by

$$ekT=\frac{P}{n},s_Ek\left[1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{2kT}{nc}\right],h2kT,c_v3k.$$
(22)
### III.2 Dynamic Pressure in a Homogeneous and Isotropic Universe

We shall determine in this section the dynamic pressure and the entropy production rate in a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe. In the four-dimensional case these topics were discussed by Weinberg Wein  within the framework of a phenomenological theory and by Bernstein Bern  within the framework of a kinetic theory of gases. Without loss of generality, we shall use here the Anderson and Witting model of the Boltzmann equation (6) in order to simplify the calculations.

We begin by neglecting the space gradients - since we are dealing with a spatially homogeneous and isotropic universe - and by considering a comoving frame where $`(U^\mu )=(c,0)`$ in a two-dimensional space. Hence it follows that the Boltzmann equation (6) reduces to

$$\frac{f}{x^0}2\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }p\frac{f}{p}=\frac{1}{c\tau }(ff^{(0)}).$$
(23)
We use now the Chapman and Enskog method (see for example CK1 ) and search for a solution of the Boltzmann equation (23) of the form

$$f=f^{(0)}(1+\varphi ),$$
(24)
where $`f^{(0)}`$ is the Maxwell-Jüttner distribution function (15) and $`f^{(0)}\varphi `$ is the deviation from equilibrium of the one-particle distribution function. We insert the above representation into the Boltzmann equation (23) and by taking into account only the derivatives of the Maxwell-Jüttner distribution function we get that the deviation $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$\varphi =c\tau \left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}f^{(0)}}{x^0}2\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }p\frac{\mathrm{ln}f^{(0)}}{p}\right)$$

$$=c\tau \left[\frac{\dot{n}}{n}+\left(1\zeta \frac{K_2}{K_1}\right)\frac{\dot{T}}{T}+\frac{c}{kT}p_0\frac{\dot{T}}{T}+\frac{c}{kT}\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }\frac{p^2}{p_0}\right].$$
(25)
For the elimination of $`\dot{n}`$ and $`\dot{T}`$ from (25) we use the balance equations of the particle flow and energy-momentum tensor of a non-viscous and non-heat-conducting relativistic gas whose constitutive equations read:

$$N^\mu =nU^\mu ,T^{\mu \nu }=(ne+P)\frac{U^\mu U^\nu }{c^2}Pg^{\mu \nu }.$$
(26)
Insertion of the above representations into the balance equations $`N_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0`$ and $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0`$ lead to

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\sqrt{g}nU^\mu \right)=0,$$
(27)
$$\frac{P}{x^\nu }g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{}{x^\nu }\left[\sqrt{g}(ne+P)\frac{U^\mu U^\nu }{c^2}\right]+(ne+P)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \nu }^\mu \frac{U^\lambda U^\nu }{c^2}=0.$$
(28)
In a comoving frame (27) becomes

$$\frac{\dot{n}}{n}=\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa },$$
(29)
while the spatial components of (28) are identically satisfied due to the constraint that all quantities $`n,P,e`$ and $`\kappa `$ are only functions of the time coordinate. The temporal component of (28) can be written as

$$\frac{\dot{T}}{T}=\frac{k}{c_v}\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa },$$
(30)
where the heat capacity per particle at constant volume $`c_v`$ is given by (18)2. Equations (29) and (30) are used to eliminate $`\dot{n}`$ and $`\dot{T}`$ from (25), yielding

$$\varphi =c\tau \left[1+\left(1\zeta \frac{K_2}{K_1}\right)\frac{k}{c_v}+\frac{c}{c_vT}p_0\frac{c}{kT}\frac{p^2}{p_0}\right]\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }.$$
(31)
Once the non-equilibrium distribution function (24) is known it is possible to calculate the projection of the energy-momentum tensor in a comoving frame which corresponds to the sum of the hydrostatic pressure with the dynamic pressure, i.e.,

$$P+\varpi =\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }=\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{U_\mu U_\nu }{c^2}\right)cp^\mu p^\nu f\sqrt{g}\frac{dp}{p_0}=c\kappa ^3p^2f\frac{dp}{p_0}.$$
(32)
We insert (24) together with (31) into (32) and integrate the resulting equation, yielding

$$\varpi =\eta c\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa },\text{where}\eta =P\tau \left\{\zeta ^2\left[\frac{K_2}{\zeta K_1}1+\frac{\mathrm{Ki}_1}{K_1}\right]1\frac{1}{c_v}\right\}.$$
(33)
In the above equation $`\mathrm{Ki}_1`$ denotes the integral for the modified Bessel functions (see Abramowitz and Stegun AS  p. 483):

$$\mathrm{Ki}_n(\zeta )=_\zeta ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Ki}_{n1}(t)𝑑t=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{\zeta \mathrm{cosh}t}}{\mathrm{cosh}^nt}𝑑t.$$
(34)
Hence we have identified the coefficient of proportionality between $`\varpi `$ and $`c\dot{\kappa }/\kappa `$ as the bulk viscosity $`\eta `$. If we compare (33) with the constitutive equation for the dynamic pressure, given in terms of the divergence of the two-velocity, i.e., $`\varpi =\eta U_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}`$, we infer that here $`c\dot{\kappa }/\kappa `$ plays the same role as $`U_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}`$. Furthermore due to the fact that the bulk viscosity is a positive quantity the dynamic pressure decreases when the universe is expanding ($`\dot{\kappa }>0`$) while it increases when the universe is contracting ($`\dot{\kappa }<0`$).

As in the four-dimensional case the coefficient of bulk viscosity vanishes in the non-relativistic and ultra-relativistic limiting cases. This can be seen from Figure 1 where the coefficient of bulk viscosity $`\eta \sigma /\sqrt{kTm}`$ is plotted versus the parameter $`\zeta =mc^2/(kT)`$. Here we have chosen the following expression for the characteristic time CK3

$$\tau =\frac{1}{n\sigma v_s},\text{with}v_s=\sqrt{\frac{c^2c_pkT}{c_vh}},$$
(35)
where $`\sigma `$ is a differential cross-section and $`v_s`$ the adiabatic sound speed.

If we consider that the distribution function is given by (25), i.e., $`f=f^{(0)}(1+\varphi )`$, we can use the approximation $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\varphi )\varphi `$ valid for $`|\varphi |1`$ in order to write the entropy production rate (10) in a comoving frame as

$$\varsigma =\frac{k}{\tau }f^{(0)}\varphi ^2\sqrt{g}𝑑p.$$
(36)
We insert now (24) together with (31) into (36) and get by integrating the resulting equation

$$\varsigma =\frac{\eta c^2}{T}\left(\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }\right)^2.$$
(37)
Hence the entropy production rate is connected with the bulk viscosity. Weinberg Wein  has derived a similar formula in a four-dimensional space by using a phenomenological theory and has also shown that the bulk viscosity alone could not explain the high entropy of the present microwave background radiation. For more details one is referred to Weinberg Wein ; Wein1 .

## IV Gravitational Equations of Motion

Given the sources of our universe it is possible to obtain the equations of motion for the gravitational field in the whole space-time. The starting point is of course, the Einstein theory of gravitation.

As far as we are working in 2-D some fundamental problems appear. In fact, the main point is that the Einstein action in 2-D furnishes no dynamics. In other words the usual left-hand side of Einstein equations of motion that follows by using the Hamilton variational principle

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R0,$$
(38)
are in fact an identity in 2-D. This is related to the gauge invariances of gravitation in 2-D: space-time diffeomorphisms and (local) conformal transformations. With this in mind Teitelboim Teit  and Jackiw Jackiw  proposed as 2-D action111From this section on units have been chosen so that $`G=c=k=1`$.

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left\{N(x)\left[R(x)+8\pi T_\mu ^\mu (x)\right]\right\},$$
(39)
where $`T_\mu ^\mu (x)`$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. Above we have not taken into account the term that refers to the cosmological constant. Using the variational principle for the auxiliary field $`N(x)`$ the equation of motion that follow is

$$R(x)=8\pi T_\mu ^\mu (x),$$
(40)
together with the conservation law $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0`$. Equation (40) relates the curvature scalar with the trace of the energy-momentum tensor.

## V Solution of Gravitational Field Equations

The gravitational field equations are obtained from (40) together with $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0`$ and by taking into account the constitutive equation for the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }=ϵU^\mu U^\nu (P+\varpi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`ϵ=ne`$ is the energy density. Hence it follows that

$$\ddot{\kappa }=4\pi (ϵP\varpi )\kappa ,\dot{\kappa }(ϵ+P+\varpi )+\kappa \dot{ϵ}=0.$$
(41)
Since $`\varpi =\eta \dot{\kappa }/\kappa `$, the above system is closed if we can relate the pressure $`P`$ and the coefficient of bulk viscosity $`\eta `$ to the energy density $`ϵ`$. Here we follow Murphy Mur  and assume a barotropic equation of state for the pressure and a linear relationship between the coefficient of bulk viscosity and the energy density, so that

$$P=(\gamma 1)ϵ,\eta =\alpha ϵ.$$
(42)
Above $`\alpha `$ is a constant and $`\gamma `$ may range from $`0\gamma 2`$. The value $`\gamma =1`$ refers to a pure matter (dust), $`\gamma =2`$ to a pure radiation and $`\gamma <1`$ to a ”false vacuum”.

If we introduce the Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{\kappa }/\kappa `$ the field equations (41) can be written thanks to (42) as

$$\dot{H}+H^2=4\pi ϵ(\gamma 2\alpha H),H(\gamma \alpha H)ϵ+\dot{ϵ}=0.$$
(43)
The elimination of the energy density of the two above equations leads to an equation for the Hubble parameter that reads

$$(\ddot{H}+2H\dot{H})(\gamma 2\alpha H)+\alpha \dot{H}(\dot{H}+H^2)+H(\gamma 2\alpha H)(\gamma \alpha H)(\dot{H}+H^2)=0.$$
(44)
Let us search for a solution of (44) by considering $`H=H_{}=`$constant. In this case we get that (44) reduces to $`(\gamma 2\alpha H_{})(\gamma \alpha H_{})H_{}^3=0`$ and apart from the trivial solution $`H_{}=0`$ we have two other solutions, namely: i) $`\alpha =\gamma /H_{}`$ and ii) $`\alpha =(\gamma 2)/H_{}`$. Only the first solution is physically possible since $`0\gamma 2`$.

We proceed to analyze the two energy conditions Haw , namely the weak energy condition which dictates that the energy density is a semi-positive quantity, i.e., $`ϵ0`$ and the strong energy condition which imposes that the inequality $`ϵ+P+\varpi 0`$ must hold implying that $`H/H_{}1`$.

We are now ready to determine the solutions of the gravitational field equations. For that end we write the system of equations (41) and (43) as

$$(\gamma 1)\frac{\ddot{\kappa }}{\kappa }=4\pi P\left(\gamma 2\gamma \frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }\right),\gamma \frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }\left(1\frac{\dot{\kappa }}{\kappa }\right)+\frac{\dot{P}}{P}=0,$$
(45)
$$(\gamma 1)(\dot{H}+H^2)=4\pi P(\gamma 2\gamma H),H\gamma (1H)P+\dot{P}=0,$$
(46)
respectively, where the cosmic scale factor, the Hubble parameter, the pressure and the time are now taken as dimensionless quantities with respect to $`H_{}`$. ¿From the first system of equations (45) one may determine the cosmic scale factor $`\kappa (t)`$ and the pressure $`P(t)`$ while from the second one (46) the Hubble parameter $`H(t)`$ can be obtained. We have chosen two values for $`\gamma `$, one of them $`\gamma =0.5`$ correspond to a negative pressure (”false vacuum”) while the other $`\gamma =1.5`$ implies a positive pressure. For the solutions of the two systems of equations (45) and (46) the following initial conditions were taken into account:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{for}\gamma =0.5,\text{then}H(0)=0.5,\kappa (0)=1,P(0)=1,\hfill & \\ \text{for}\gamma =1.5,\text{then}H(0)=0.5,\kappa (0)=1,P(0)=1.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(47)
In Figures 2 through 5 it is shown the evolution with respect to the time of the cosmic scale factor, the Hubble parameter, the pressure and the energy density which follow from the systems of equations (45) and (46) by taking into account the initial conditions (47) and the barotropic equation of state.

Another important quantity which can be plotted versus the time is the entropy production rate. For the cases where $`\gamma >1`$ the dimensionless expression for entropy production rate (37) can be written as

$$\varsigma =\frac{\gamma H^2}{(\gamma 1)\kappa }.$$
(48)
In order to obtain the above equation we have used the equation of state $`P=nT`$ and the solution of the continuity equation (29) which reads $`n1/\kappa `$. In Figure 6 we show the evolution of the entropy production rate with respect to the time.

## VI Discussion of the Results

We proceed to discuss the results obtained in the last section. First we call attention to the fact that the period where this theory can be applied is the one where there exists an interaction between radiation and matter. The reason is that in the period of pure radiation the dynamic pressure vanishes while in the period of pure matter (dust) there is no interaction at all. Furthermore the solutions are not valid for all values of the time, since in some period the radiation decouples from matter and we have no more the interaction between the radiation and matter which implies a vanishing dynamic pressure.

In Figure 2 it is plotted the cosmic scale factor as function of the time. We have chosen that at the beginning of this period ($`t=0`$ by adjusting clocks) the cosmic scale factor is different from zero. We infer from this figure that the cosmic scale factor has a maximum at $`t0.0243`$ for $`\gamma =1.5`$ and at $`t0.0123`$ for $`\gamma =0.5`$. From these points on the cosmic scale factor decreases and tends to zero, i.e., it goes to a ”big crunch”. It is noteworthy to call attention to the fact that the corresponding solution in the four-dimensional case Mur  neither have this behavior for the cosmic scale factor nor admit a ”false vacuum” solution. As was previously pointed out the difference between the solutions in the four- and two-dimensional cases is due to the fact that the relationship between the metric tensor and the sources in the 2-D case is modified because the Einstein field equations give no dynamics for the 2-D case.

The Hubble parameter as a function of the time is shown in Figure 3. For both values of $`\gamma `$ the Hubble parameter decrease, attain a zero value for a time which correspond to the maximum of the cosmic scale factor and assume negatives values.

In Figures 4 and 5 the evolution of the pressure and of the energy density are represented as functions of the time, respectively. Both functions decrease with the time and attain their minimum values at the times where the cosmic scale factor has its maximum value. Since in this theory there exists no mechanism that could increase the pressure and the energy density, we infer that the solutions for $`t{}_{}{}^{>}0.0243`$ when $`\gamma =1.5`$ and for $`t{}_{}{}^{>}0.0123`$ when $`\gamma =0.5`$ are not physically possible. The same conclusion can be drawn out from Figure 6 where the evolution of the entropy production rate is plotted as a function of the time. From this figure we note that the entropy production rate decreases with the time and attains its minimum ($`\varsigma =0`$) when the cosmic scale factor reach its maximum value. At this point the entropy per particle $`s`$ attains its maximum value since $`nDs=\varsigma 0`$. There exists no mechanism in this theory that could increase the entropy density rate from its minimum value with a corresponding decrease of the entropy per particle from its maximum value.

## Figure Captions

Figure 1: Volume viscosity $`\eta \sigma /\sqrt{kTm}`$ vs. $`\zeta `$.

Figure 2: Cosmic scale factor $`\kappa (t)`$ vs. time $`t`$.

Figure 3: Hubble parameter $`H(t)`$ vs. time $`t`$.

Figure 4: Pressure $`P(t)`$ vs. time $`t`$.

Figure 5: Energy density $`ϵ(t)`$ vs. time $`t`$.

Figure 6: Entropy production rate $`\varsigma (t)`$ vs. time $`t`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

The decay $`K\mu \nu \pi ^0`$($`K_{\mu 3}`$) is known to be a key one in hunting for phenomena beyond the Standard Model (SM). In particular, significant efforts have been invested into T-violation searches by the measurements of the muon transverse polarization $`\sigma _T`$. In our analysis, based on $``$ 112K events of the decay, we present new search for S and T interactions by fitting the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ Dalitz plot distribution, similar to as it was done for the $`K_{e3}`$ decay: . Another subject of our study is the measurement of the V-A $`f_+(t)`$ $`f_0(t)`$ formfactor slopes $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\lambda _0`$.

## 2  Experimental setup

The experiment is performed at the IHEP 70 GeV proton synchrotron U-70. The experimental setup ”ISTRA+” has been described in some details in our recent paper on $`K_{e3}`$ decay . A schematic view of the detector is shown in Fig.1. The setup is located in the 4A negative unseparated secondary beam. The beam momentum is $`25`$ GeV with $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p2\%`$. The admixture of $`K^{}`$ in the beam is $`3\%`$. The beam intensity is $`310^6`$ per 1.9 sec. U-70 spill.

## 3 Event selection

During 3 weeks physics run in March-April 2001, when the muon identification was in full operation, 363M events were logged on DLT’s. This information is supported by about 100M MC events generated with Geant3 . Some information on the reconstruction procedure is presented in , here we touch only points relevant for the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ events selection.

The muon identification is based on the information from the $`SP_1`$ \- a 576-cell lead glass calorimeter and HC- a scintillator-iron sampling hadron calorimeter, subdivided into 7 longitudinal sections 7$`\times `$7 cells each . The calorimeters are located at the very end of the setup, after the main magnet (M2) and the last elements of the tracking system: drift tubes (DT) and the matrix scintillation hodoscope (MH). The first requirement is that the energy of the $`SP_1`$ cluster, associated with the charged track is less than $``$ 2.5 MIP’s; the HC energy, associated with the track should also be less than 2.5 MIP’s. The last selection requires that more than 10$`\%`$ of the HC associated energy is deposited in 2 last layers (out of 7) of the HC. The efficiency of the algorithm to muons is tested on $`K\mu \nu `$ events and is found to be $`70\%`$. The $`\pi \mu `$ misindification is measured on $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ decay and is $`3\%`$. After the muon identification, the selection of the events with two extra showers results in $`M_{\gamma \gamma }`$ spectrum shown in Fig.2.

The $`\pi ^0`$ peak has a mass of $`M_{\pi 0}=134.6`$ MeV, and a resolution of 8.6 MeV. The missing mass squared- $`(P_KP_\mu P_{\pi ^0})^2`$, where P are the corresponding four-momenta, is presented in Fig.3. The cut is $`\pm 0.01`$ GeV2.

The further selection is done by the requirement that the event passes 2C $`K\mu \nu \pi ^0`$ fit. The missing energy $`E_KE_\mu E_{\pi ^0}`$ after this selection is shown in Fig.4 The peak at low $`E_{miss}`$ corresponds to the remaining $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ background. The corresponding cut is $`E_{miss}>1.4`$ GeV. The surviving background is estimated from MC to be less than $`4\%`$.

The detailed data reduction information is shown in Table.1.

## 4  Analysis

The event selection described in the previous section results in selected 112K events in 2001 data. The distribution of the events over the Dalitz plot is shown in Fig.5. The variables $`y=2E_\mu /M_K`$ and $`z=2E_\pi /M_K`$, where $`E_\mu `$, $`E_\pi `$ are the energies of the muon and $`\pi ^0`$ in the kaon c.m.s are used.

The most general Lorentz invariant form of the matrix element for the decay $`K\mu \nu \pi ^0`$ is :

$$M=\frac{G_Fsin\theta _C}{\sqrt{2}}\overline{u}(p_\nu )(1+\gamma ^5)[m_Kf_S\frac{1}{2}[(P_K+P_\pi )_\alpha f_++(P_KP_\pi )_\alpha f_{}]\gamma ^\alpha +i\frac{f_T}{m_K}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }P_K^\alpha P_\pi ^\beta ]v(p_\mu )$$
(1)
It consists of scalar, vector and tensor terms. $`f_S`$, $`f_T`$, $`f_\pm `$ are functions of $`t=(P_KP_\pi )^2`$. In the Standard Model (SM) the W-boson exchange leads to the pure vector term. The ”induced” scalar and/or tensor terms, due to EW radiative corrections are negligibly small, i.e the nonzero scalar/tensor form factors indicate a physics beyond SM.

The term in the vector part, proportional to $`f_{}`$ is reduced(using the Dirac equation) to a scalar formfactor. In the same way, the tensor term is reduced to a mixture of a scalar and a vector formfactors. The redefined $`f_+`$(V), $`F_S`$(S) and the corresponding Dalitz plot density in the kaon rest frame $`\rho (E_\pi ,E_\mu )`$ are :

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`f_++(m_\mu /m_K)f_T`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`f_S+(m_\mu /2m_K)f_{}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{2m_K^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2E_\mu }{m_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_\pi }{m_K}}\right)f_T`$
$`\rho (E_\pi ,E_\mu )`$ $``$ $`A|V|^2+BRe(V^{}S)+C|S|^2`$ (2)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`m_K(2E_\mu E_\nu m_K\mathrm{\Delta }E_\pi )m_\mu ^2(E_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }E_\pi )`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu m_K(2E_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }E_\pi )`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }E_\pi ;\mathrm{\Delta }E_\pi =E_\pi ^{max}E_\pi ;E_\pi ^{max}={\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2m_\mu ^2+m_\pi ^2}{2m_K}}`$
Following  a scalar formfactor $`f_0`$ is introduced: $`f_0(t)=f_+(t)+\frac{t}{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}f_{}(t)`$ and linear dependence of $`f_+,f_0`$ on t is assumed: $`f_+(t)=f_+(0)(1+\lambda _+t/m_\pi ^2)`$; $`f_0(t)=f_+(0)(1+\lambda _0t/m_\pi ^2)`$. Then $`f_{}=f_+(0)(\lambda _0\lambda _+)\frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2}`$.

The procedure for the experimental extraction of the parameters $`\lambda _+`$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`f_S`$, $`f_T`$ starts from the subtraction of the MC estimated background from the Dalitz plot of Fig.4. The background normalization was determined by the ratio of the real and generated $`K^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ events. Then the Dalitz plot was subdivided into 20 $`\times `$ 20 cells. The background subtracted distribution of the numbers of events in the cells (i,j) over the Dalitz plot, for example, in the case of simultaneous extraction of $`\lambda _+`$, $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\frac{f_S}{f_+(0)}`$, was fitted with the function:

$`\rho (i,j){\displaystyle \underset{k_i;k_1+k_2+k_3=0,1,2}{}}W_{k_1k_2k_3}(i,j)\lambda _+^{k_1}\lambda _0^{k_2}\left(f_S/f_+(0)\right)^{k_3}`$ (3)
Here $`W_{k_1k_2k_3}`$ are MC-generated functions, which are build up as follows: the MC events are generated with constant density over the Dalitz plot and reconstructed with the same program as for the real events. Each event carries the weight w determined by the corresponding term in formula 2, calculated using the MC-generated(”true”) values for y and z. The radiative corrections according to  were taken into account. Then $`W_{k_1k_2k_3}`$ is constructed by summing up the weights w of the events in the corresponding Dalitz plot cell. This procedure allows to avoid the systematic errors due to the ”migration” of the events over the Dalitz plot because of the finite experimental resolution.

## 5 Results

The results of the fit are summarized in Table.2.

The first line corresponds to pure V-A SM fit. The first column is independent fit of our $`K_{\mu 3}`$ data. The $`\lambda _+÷\lambda _0`$ correlation parameter is: $`\frac{d\lambda _0}{d\lambda _+}=0.46`$. The $`\lambda _+`$ value $`\lambda _+^\mu =0.0321\pm 0.004`$ is in a good agreement with that, extracted from the analysis of our $`K_{e3}`$ data : $`\lambda _+^e=0.0293\pm 0.0015`$, i.e our data do not contradict the $`\mu e`$ universality.
In the second column the results of the joined fit of our $`K_{e3}`$ and $`K_{\mu 3}`$ data are presented(this is practically equivalent to fixing the $`\lambda _+`$ to it’s $`K_{e3}`$ value). This fit, of course, assumes the $`\mu e`$ universality. The $`\lambda _0`$ value $`\lambda _0=0.0209\pm 0.0042`$ is in a good agreement with the calculations in the framework of the chiral perturbation theory($`\chi PT`$): $`\lambda _0^{th}=0.017\pm 0.004`$.
All the errors presented are from the ”MINOS” procedure of the ”MINUIT” program  and are larger than the Gaussian ones. At present, we estimate an additional systematics error in $`\lambda _+`$, $`\lambda _0`$ to be $`\pm 0.002`$. The estimate is done by varying cuts, cell size during the fit of the Dalitz plots etc.

In the second and in the third lines the scalar and the tensor terms are added into the fit. As it is seen from the second line of formula (2), the $`f_S`$ term is $`100\%`$ anti-correlated with the V-A contribution $`(m_\mu /2m_K)f_{}`$, i.e an independent estimate of $`f_{}`$ is necessary to extract $`f_S`$. By definition, $`f_{}=f_+(0)(\lambda _0\lambda _+)\frac{m_K^2m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2}`$. $`\lambda _+`$ is, in fact, defined by the $`K_{e3}`$ data, and $`\lambda _0`$ is calculated by $`\chi PT`$: $`\lambda _0^{th}=0.017\pm 0.004`$. In our $`f_S`$ fit we fix $`\lambda _0`$ to this, theoretical, value. The error($`\pm 0.004`$) in the theoretical prediction induces an additional error in $`f_S`$ equal to $`\pm 0.005`$.

A possible example of theories, which give nonzero $`f_S`$ are the 2HDM  and the Weinberg 3HDM model . In these theories, $`f_S`$ comes from the diagram with the charged Higgs boson exchange $`H^{}`$. The calculation of the contributions gives :

$`f_S^{2hdm}/f_+(0)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{2m_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_H^2}}tg^2(\beta )`$ (4)
$`f_S^{3hdm}/f_+(0)={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{2m_K}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_K^2}{m_{H_1}^2}}Re(\alpha _1^{}\gamma _1)`$ (5)
Here $`m_H`$ is the charged Higgs-boson mass (mass of the lightest $`H^\pm `$ in case of 3HDM); $`tg(\beta )=v_2/v_1`$\- the ratio of the vacuum expectation values for 2 Higgs doublets; $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ are complex couplings of the 3HDM Higgs boson to d-quarks and leptons.
From our limit for $`f_S`$ :

$`\frac{tg(\beta )}{m_H}=0.39\pm 0.2(stat)\pm 0.2(theory)GeV^1;`$

$`Re(\alpha _1^{}\gamma _1)\frac{m_K^2}{m_{H_1}^2}=0.036\pm 0.047(stat)\pm 0.047(theory)`$

Our 2HDM limit is comparable with that from LEP searches for the decay $`b\tau \nu _\tau `$ : $`90\%`$ C.L. limit is $`\frac{tg(\beta )}{m_H}<0.4÷1`$ GeV-1(depending on collaboration).

The results of the fit with the tensor term are presented in the third line. The tensor term is also correlated with $`\lambda _0`$, $`df_T/d\lambda _0=3.5`$. That’s why we decided to apply the same approach for the tensor term as for the scalar one, i.e $`\lambda _0`$ is fixed to it’s theoretical value and the induced error in $`f_T`$, due to the theoretical error in $`\lambda _0`$ is calculated. The error equals $`\pm 0.02`$ for the single $`K_{\mu 3}`$ fit and $`\pm 0.014`$ for the combined one.
The tensor coupling $`f_T`$ appears naturally in the leptoquark models, as a result of the Fierz transformation . Unfortunately, we have not found complete theoretical consideration for this contribution.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

The $`K_{\mu 3}^{}`$ decay has been studied using in-flight decays of 25 GeV $`K^{}`$, detected by ”ISTRA+” magnetic spectrometer. Due to the high statistics, adequate resolution of the detector and good sensitivity over all the Dalitz plot space, the measurement errors are significantly reduced as compared with the previous measurements. The $`\lambda _+^\mu `$ parameter of the vector formfactor $`f_+(t)`$ is measured to be:

$`\lambda _+^\mu =0.0321\pm 0.004(stat)\pm 0.002(syst)`$.

and is in agreement with that obtained from our $`K_{e3}^{}`$ data:

$`\lambda _+^e=0.0293\pm 0.0015(stat)\pm 0.002(syst)`$.

The combined fit of both sets of data assuming the $`\mu e`$ universality gives:

$`\lambda _+=0.0296\pm 0.0014(stat)\pm 0.002(syst)`$.

The $`\lambda _0`$ parameter of the scalar formfactor $`f_0(t)`$ is measured to be:

$`\lambda _0=0.0209\pm 0.004(stat)\pm 0.002(syst)`$.

It is, at present, the best measurement of this parameter. It is in a good agreement with $`\chi PT`$ prediction.

The limits on the possible scalar and tensor couplings are derived:

$`f_S/f_+(0)=0.0039\pm 0.005`$(stat) $`\pm 0.005`$(theory) ;

$`f_T/f_+(0)=0.021\pm 0.028`$(stat) $`\pm 0.014`$(theory)

The second(theoretical) error comes from the uncertainty in the $`\chi PT`$ prediction for $`\lambda _0`$. Again, this is the current best estimates for these parameters.

We would like to thank V.V. Braguta, A.E. Chalov, A.A. Likhoded, A.K. Likhoded, R.N. Rogaliov, S.R. Slabospitsky for the discussions.

The INR part of the collaboration is supported by the RFFI fund contract N00-02-16074.


text:
# Neutron-proton interaction in rare-earth nuclei: Role of tensor force

## I Introduction

It has long been known that spectroscopy of doubly odd deformed nuclei evidences phenomena which can be directly associated with the interaction between the unpaired neutron and proton. The two most important effects of this kind are known as Gallagher-Moszkowski (GM) splitting  and Newby (N) shift .

Recently, use of large multi-detector $`\gamma `$-ray arrays with high analyzing power has largely extended the amount of experimental data on this class of nuclei. For instance, currently available data in the rare-earth region allow the empirical determination of 137 GM splittings and 36 N shifts for 25 doubly odd nuclei . These are to be compared with the 50 GM splittings and 19 N shifts known in the mid 1970s, as reported in the extensive review article by Boisson et al. . The new experimental data have also evidenced the occurrence of other phenomena which may provide further information on the neutron-proton (n-p) interaction. Of particular interest is the odd-even staggering in $`K0`$ bands, the most important mechanism responsible for it being the direct Coriolis coupling with one or more N-shifted $`K=0`$ bands . Also to be mentioned is the signature inversion phenomenon, which in the last few years has attracted much attention leading to several experimental and theoretical studies. Various attempts have been made to understand this phenomenon in term of different mechanisms, but its interpretation still remains an open question .

In a previous paper  (hereafter referred to as I) we have studied the doubly odd deformed nucleus 176Lu by performing a complete Coriolis band-mixing calculation within the framework of the particle-rotor model. We focused attention on the lowest $`K^\pi =0^{}`$ and $`K^\pi =1^+`$ bands, where the effects of the residual n-p interaction are particularly evident producing a significant N shift in the former and an odd-even staggering in the latter. The aim of our study was in fact to investigate the role of the tensor force, which has long been a controversial matter. A detailed discussion on this point can be found in I. In that paper we have used for the n-p interaction both a finite-range force with a Gaussian radial shape and a zero-range interaction. To completely explore the role of the tensor force, we have performed two different calculations with the Gaussian potential, with and without the tensor terms, respectively. The main result of these calculations was that the tensor force is absolutely essential for the description of the above mentioned bands in 176Lu. In I we have also confirmed the relevance of exchange forces, which was already emphasized in Refs. .

Here, we extend our calculations to other doubly odd deformed nuclei in the rare-earth region, focusing attention on N-shifted and odd-even staggered bands in 174Lu, 180Ta, 182Ta, and 188Re (some preliminary results have already been reported in Refs. ). The main motivation for this work is to verify if the conclusions based on the study of 176Lu are confirmed when considering a larger set of experimental data. In fact, the role of the tensor force in doubly odd deformed nuclei seems not yet completely recognized, as evidenced by the large number of recent calculations making use of zero-range forces (see for example Ref.  and references therein).

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we give a brief description of the model and some details of our calculations. Our results are presented and compared with the experimental data in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we draw the conclusions of our study.

## II Outline of the Model and Calculations

As mentioned in the Introduction, our calculations are performed within the framework of the particle-rotor model, in which the unpaired neutron and proton are strongly coupled to an axially symmetric core and interact through a residual effective interaction. This is a well known model and a detailed description can be found, for instance, in Refs. . For the sake of completeness, we give in the following the most relevant formulas. The total Hamiltonian is written as

$$H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{RPC}}+H_{\mathrm{ppc}}+V_{np}.$$
(1)
The term $`H_0`$ includes the rotational energy of the whole system, the deformed, axially symmetric field for the neutron and proton, and the one-body intrinsic contribution from the rotational degrees of freedom. It reads

$$H_0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2𝒥}(𝐈^2I_3^2)+H_n+H_p+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2𝒥}[(𝐣_n^2j_{n3}^2)+(𝐣_p^2j_{p3}^2)].$$
(2)
The two terms $`H_{\mathrm{RPC}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{ppc}}`$ in Eq. (1) stand for the Coriolis coupling and the coupling of particle degrees of freedom through the rotational motion, respectively. Their explicit expressions are

$$H_{\mathrm{RPC}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2𝒥}(I^+J^{}+I^{}J^+),$$
(3)
and

$$H_{\mathrm{ppc}}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2𝒥}(j_n^+j_p^{}+j_n^{}j_p^+).$$
(4)
In Eqs. (2)-(4), $`𝒥`$ is the moment of inertia of the core while $`𝐈`$ and $`𝐉=𝐣_p+𝐣_n`$ are the total and intrinsic angular momentum operators, respectively. $`I_3`$ and $`J_3`$ are their projections on the intrinsic symmetry axis and, owing to the axial symmetry, are represented by the same quantum number $`K`$.

The effective n-p interaction in (1) has the general form

$$V_{np}=V(r)[u_0+u_1𝝈_p𝝈_n+u_2P_M+u_3P_M𝝈_p𝝈_n+V_TS_{12}+V_{TM}P_MS_{12}],$$
(5)
where the notation is just the same as that adopted in Ref. .

As basis states we use the eigenfunctions of $`H_0`$, which are written as a symmetrized product of rotational functions $`D_{MK}^I`$ and intrinsic wave functions $`|\nu _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n|\nu _p\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$

$`|\nu _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n\nu _p\mathrm{\Omega }_pIMK=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2I+1}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[D_{MK}^I|\nu _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n|\nu _p\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$

$$+()^{I+K}D_{MK}^I|\nu _n\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_n|\nu _p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_p].$$
(6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the the quantum number corresponding to $`j_3`$ and $`\nu `$ stands for all the additional quantum numbers necessary to completely specify the states. The state $`|\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the time-reversal partner of $`|\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. The quantum number $`K`$ has two possible values

$$K_\pm =||\mathrm{\Omega }_n|\pm |\mathrm{\Omega }_p||,$$
(7)
corresponding to parallel or anti-parallel coupling of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

Each intrinsic state gives then rise to a rotational band, but the Hamiltonian (1) produces an admixture of different bands. The explicit expressions of the matrix elements of the total Hamiltonian can be found in Ref. , where it can be seen that while the Coriolis interaction has only $`\mathrm{\Delta }K=\pm 1`$ matrix elements, the two terms $`V_{np}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{ppc}}`$ give rise to diagonal and non-diagonal contributions. In particular, the latter has diagonal matrix elements different from zero only for $`K=0`$ bands with $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_n|=|\mathrm{\Omega }_p|=1/2`$. We would like to stress that all diagonal and non-diagonal terms of Hamiltonian (1) are explicitly taken into account in our calculations.

As regards the single-particle Hamiltonians $`H_n`$ and $`H_p`$, they have been generated by a standard Nilsson potential as defined, for instance, in . In our calculations for the four nuclei 174Lu, 180Ta, 182Ta, and 188Re the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\kappa `$ in this potential have been fixed by using the mass-dependent formulas of Ref. , while the harmonic oscillator parameter $`\nu `$ has been chosen according to the expression $`\nu =m\omega /\mathrm{}`$ fm-2. The deformation parameter $`\beta _2`$ has been deduced for each doubly odd nucleus from the even-even neighbor. In Table I, we report the values of $`\beta _2`$ together with those of the rotational parameter, $`\mathrm{}^2/2𝒥`$, used in our calculations. For each doubly odd nucleus this latter quantity has been deduced from low-lying bands with a pure rotational character. The adopted single-particle schemes for the neutron and proton are listed in Table II for the four considered nuclei, each scheme being essentially derived from the experimental spectra of the two neighboring odd-mass nuclei.

As regards the residual n-p interaction (5), we have used a finite-range force with a radial dependence $`V(r)`$ of the Gaussian form

$$V(r)=\mathrm{exp}(r^2/r_0^2).$$
(8)
As mentioned in the Introduction, the main aim of this study is to assess the role of the tensor force. To this end, we have performed two different calculations with the Gaussian potential, with and without the tensor terms, respectively. In both cases, for all the parameters of the force we have adopted the values determined by Boisson et al. , the only exception being $`u_0`$, which does not contribute either to the GM splttings or to the N shifts. These values, as well as that of $`u_0`$, are reported in I, where the reasons of our choice are also discussed.

Before closing this Section it is worth mentioning that we have also performed calculations making use of a $`\delta `$ interaction with a strength of the spin-spin parameter varied over a large range of values. We have found that no value of this strength gives a satisfactory description of the N shifts and odd-even staggerings in any of the considered nuclei, thus confirming our results for 176Lu (see I). As a consequence, here we will not compare with experiment the results obtained by using a $`\delta `$ force, but make only some comments to point out the inadequacy of this force to explain the above mentioned effects.

## III Results and Comparison with Experiment

We report here the results of our calculations for 174Lu, 180Ta, 182Ta, and 188Re, which are all well deformed nuclei. The choice of these nuclei is motivated by the fact that enough experimental information relevant to our study is available for them. In fact, in the experimental spectra of 174Lu, 182Ta, and 188Re $`K=0`$ bands, which are not strongly perturbed but have a sizeable N shift, have been recognized, while in 180Ta and 188Re there are $`K=1`$ bands which exhibit a significant odd-even staggering. We have focused attention on those data which are directly related to the n-p interaction, so as to give a sound answer to the question regarding the role of the tensor term. In fact, aside from the residual n-p interaction, also the terms $`H_{\mathrm{ppc}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{RPC}}`$ of the Hamiltonian (1) may give a contribution to the odd-even shift (see Ref. ) and a complex interplay of all these interactions may occur in bands characterized by a strong admixture of different intrinsic wave functions. In these cases, even taking explicitly into account all contributions coming from Hamiltonian (1), it would be a very difficult task to disentangle the genuine effects of the n-p interaction.

In Figs. 1-3 the experimental spectra of the $`K=0`$ bands  are reported and compared with the calculated ones, which are obtained making use of the two different interactions mentioned in Sec. II. The $`K^+=0^+`$ $`p\frac{7}{2}[404]n\frac{7}{2}[633]`$ band of 174Lu starting at 281 keV excitation energy is shown in Fig. 1. This band, recognized in several other odd-odd nuclei, has been observed in 174Lu up to $`I^\pi =9^+`$. We see that a very good agreement with experiment is obtained for the Gaussian force with tensor terms. This is not the case for the calculations performed with the pure central interaction. From Fig. 1 it appears that the two calculations yield almost the same level spacings for states with even and odd angular momenta separately. The main difference between the two spectra resides in the energy displacement of levels of odd $`I`$ relative to those of even $`I`$, i.e. the N shift. In first order perturbation theory the N shift is just defined as the matrix element $`\nu _p\mathrm{\Omega }_p,\nu _n\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_n|V_{np}|\nu _p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_p,\nu _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. In Table III we report the values of this matrix element obtained with the central plus tensor force together with the individual contributions. For the above mentioned $`K=0`$ band in 174Lu we see that the magnitude of the matrix element is almost entirely determined by the tensor force, the central part giving only 1 keV contribution. This result is in line with the early findings of Refs. , where it was evidenced the importance of the contribution of tensor force to the N shift for bands based on antiparallel or parallel intrinsic spins. For the latter the effects of the tensor part are predominant, as expected from the study of Ref. , where an analysis in the asymptotic limit was performed. In this context, we should also mention that when using a $`\delta `$ force, as defined for instance in I, there is no reasonable way to reproduce the odd-even shift of this band. In fact, taking a negative value for the strength $`v_1`$ of the spin-spin term, the odd-even shift has the opposite sign as compared to the experimental one, its magnitude increasing almost linearly with $`v_1`$. As an example, when using $`v_1=`$-0.9 MeV, which is a reasonable value to reproduce the GM splitting in the rare earth region , the matrix element $`\nu _p\mathrm{\Omega }_p,\nu _n\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_n|V_{np}|\nu _p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_p,\nu _n\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ becomes 22 keV. The fact that a $`\delta `$ force produces a shift with the wrong sign while a pure central force gives a very small contribution, but with the right sign, makes evident the importance of the exchange forces.

In Figs. 2 and 3 we compare the experimental and calculated spectra for two lowest $`K=0`$ bands in 182Ta and 188Re, respectively. The first is the $`K^+=0^{}`$ $`p\frac{7}{2}[404]n\frac{7}{2}[503]`$ band with a bandhead energy at 558 keV while the second is the $`K^+=0^+`$ $`p\frac{9}{2}[514]n\frac{9}{2}[505]`$ band starting at 208 keV. Unfortunately, only low-spin members of these two bands have been identified, but, as for 174Lu, an excellent agreement is obtained in both cases when a Gaussian force with tensor terms is used. From Figs. 2 and 3 we see that the right level order is obtained while the discrepancies in the energies are less than 20 keV for all the states. As regards the calculations with a pure central force, the situation is quite similar to that discussed for 174Lu. In fact, the disagreement between the experimental data and the results of these calculations resides in the relative displacement in the energy of the states with odd and even angular momentum, which, as mentioned before, is essentially due to n-p interaction. In Table III we report the values of the relevant matrix elements. We see again that the pure central force gives only a small contribution, the magnitude of these matrix elements being essentially determined by the tensor force.

To conclude this discussion, we have shown that the tensor force is quite able to explain the odd-even shift in $`K=0`$ bands of 174Lu, 182Ta and 188Re. We now compare in Table IV the empirical GM splittings  for these three nuclei with those derived from the calculated bandhead energies. In this Table we only report the results obtained using the Gaussian plus tensor force. This is to show how this force, parametrized as in Ref. , leads to a very good description of the three nuclei 174Lu, 182Ta and 188Re on the whole. In fact, we see from Table IV that not only is the sign correctly reproduced in all cases, also the quantitative agreement is quite satisfactory. The discrepancy between the calculated and experimental values is always less than 50 keV, except in one case where it turns out to be 101 keV. In this case, however, the empirical GM splitting is affected by an error of 57 keV.

Let us now come to the odd-even staggering effect. In Fig. 4 the experimental  ratio $`[E(I)E(I1)]/2I`$ for the $`K^\pi =1^+p\frac{7}{2}[404]n\frac{9}{2}[624]`$ ground-state band in 180Ta is plotted vs $`I`$ and compared with the calculated ones. We see that this band exhibits a rather large odd-even staggering, the even $`I`$ states being energetically favored with respect to the odd ones. This behavior is satisfactorily reproduced by the calculation including the tensor force while with the pure central Gaussian force the staggering is almost nonexistent. It should be pointed out that the staggering in this band may be traced to direct Coriolis coupling with the $`K^\pi =0^+p\frac{7}{2}[404]n\frac{7}{2}[633]`$ band. In fact, in both our calculations we have found that the wave functions of the states of the $`K^\pi =1^+`$ band contain significant components (up to 30$`\%`$) of states of the above $`K^\pi =0^+`$ band. The fact that only the calculation including the tensor terms gives the right staggering implies therefore that only this force is able to produce a sizeable N shift for this $`K^\pi =0^+`$ band. Since this band has not been recognized in 180Ta, a direct comparison is not possible at the present time. It should be noted, however, that the $`K^\pi =0^+`$ band in 174Lu (see Fig. 1) has just to the same intrinsic n-p configuration. As we have already pointed out above, only with the Gaussian plus tensor force the energy of the even $`I`$ states of this band is decreased so as to bring the calculated spectrum in good agreement with the experimental one.

In Fig. 5 the experimental staggering observed in the $`K^\pi =1^{}p\frac{5}{2}[402]n\frac{3}{2}[512]`$ ground-state band of 188Re  is compared with the calculated ones. Although this band does not exhibit a large odd-even staggering, we see that only with the Gaussian plus tensor force the calculated behavior reproduces the experimental one. Also in this case the wave functions of the states of the $`K^\pi =1^{}`$ band obtained from both calculations contain appreciable components (5 - 10 $`\%`$) of states with $`K^\pi =0^{}p\frac{5}{2}[402]n\frac{5}{2}[503]`$. The difference in the two calculations may therefore be traced back to the different values of the matrix element $`p\frac{5}{2}[402]n\overline{\frac{5}{2}}[503]|V_{np}|p\overline{\frac{5}{2}}[402]n\frac{5}{2}[503]`$. In fact, as can be seen from Table III, only the matrix element of the Gaussian plus tensor force turns out to be adequate to produce a sizeable N shift for the $`K^\pi =0^{}`$ band. Unfortunately, this band has not been observed in 188Re or in other rare-earth nuclei.

## IV Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we have presented the results of a study of the well deformed doubly odd nuclei 174Lu, 180Ta, 182Ta, and 188Re within the framework of the particle-rotor model. We have performed complete Coriolis band-mixing calculations, focusing attention on the lowest $`K=0`$ and $`K=1`$ bands, where the effects of the neutron-proton interaction are particularly evident. As regards this interaction, we have used in our calculations a Gaussian force with and without tensor terms adopting in both cases the values of the parameters originally determined by Boisson et al. .

This study represents an extension of our previous work on 176Lu aimed at obtaining further insight into the role of the tensor force in the description of doubly odd deformed nuclei. The results presented here, as those reported in I, show that the tensor force is an essential ingredient, if not unique in some cases, to explain the odd-even shift in $`K=0`$ bands. Also the staggering in $`K0`$ bands, whose basic mechanism is the Coriolis mixing with N-shifted $`K=0`$ bands, is very well accounted for by our calculations with tensor terms.

It should be mentioned that in more complex situations, where there is a strong band mixing, other mechanisms may play a significant role and only the right interplay between them can explain the observed effects. This is, for instance, the case of the so called doubly decoupled bands, namely of bands based on high-$`j`$ unique-parity shell-model states. Also in this context, however, the tensor force should not be neglected, as is done in most of the existing studies to date. The use of an incomplete neutron-proton interaction may in fact lead to an incorrect evaluation of the weight of other mechanisms.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported in part by the Italian Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST). NI thanks the European Social Fund for financial support.


text:
# Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering Observables in Large-𝑁_𝑐 QCD

\[

## Abstract

Nucleon-nucleon scattering observables are considered in the context of the large $`N_c`$ limit of QCD for initial states with moderately high momenta ($`pN_c`$). The scattering is studied in the framework of the time-dependent mean-field approximation. We focus on the dependence of those observables on the spin and isospin of the initial state which may be computed using time-dependent mean-field theory. We show that, up to corrections, all such observables must be invariant under simultaneous spin and isospin flips (i.e. rotations through $`\pi /2`$ in both spin and isospin) acting on either particle. All observables of this class obtained from spin unpolarized measurements must be isospin independent up to $`1/N_c`$ corrections. Moreover, it can be shown that the leading correction is of relative order $`1/N_c^2`$ rather than $`1/N_c`$.

\]

The strong interaction between two nucleons is the basic ingredient of nuclear physics. We wish to explore qualitative features of the nucleon-nucleon interaction which may be understood from QCD. In this context, it may be useful to consider the interaction in the limit when the number of colors, $`N_c`$, of QCD becomes large , and to treat $`1/N_c`$ as an expansion parameter. Certain aspects of QCD can be deduced in this limit in a model-independent way. For example, the spin-flavor structure of certain amplitudes in the single baryon sector may be fixed . The large $`N_c`$ limit can also be used to determine the leading spin-isospin dependence of certain nucleon-nucleon scattering observables.

Baryons in large-$`N_c`$ QCD were first discussed by Witten, , who argued that they are well approximated by a Hartree-type mean-field treatment. This picture works cleanly when dynamical gluons are integrated out. For the case of light quarks, explicitly deducing the Hartree equations of motion is not a tractable problem with present techniques. However, the $`N_c`$ dependence of various baryon properties can still be deduced. Thus, for example, the baryon mass is of order $`N_c`$ and the baryon size is of order unity .

Witten also considered the baryon-baryon interaction. He argued that the strength of this interaction is of order $`N_c`$ and the proper framework is the time-dependent mean-field theory (TDMFT). The argument is similar to the single baryon case: each quark moves in an average potential due to the other $`2N_c1`$ quarks which in this context is time-dependent. The mean-field nature of the nucleon-nucleon scattering in the large $`N_c`$ limit imposes constraints on spin-isospin dependence of certain observables. One of the limitations of such an approach is that only certain observables can be calculated in TDMFT. This limitation can be quite severe. For example, both the elastic and total scattering cross sections are not calculable in TDMFT.

Witten pointed out that baryon-baryon scattering observables are expected to possess a smooth limit only for momenta of order $`N_c`$. For this reason we will focus on this regime. The regime of momenta of order $`N_c^0`$ has been considered elsewhere where the stress has been on the nucleon-nucleon potential .

Although we do not know the TDMFT equations for large $`N_c`$ QCD, we know its general form and can deduce from this the leading order spin-isospin dependence of certain obervables. As this form may not be immediately familiar, it is useful to also derive results in the context of TDMFT for the Skyrme model. The Skyrme model describes nucleons as topological solitons of a chiral field $`U`$ and is believed to capture all of the model-independent large $`N_c`$ results of QCD. It has the virtue that the mean-field theory is trivially equal to the classical field theory. In both the Skyrme model and the Hartree treatment the mean-field solution for a single baryon is a “hedgehog” form which breaks both rotational and isorotational invariance. At the mean-field level this means that there exist manifolds of degenerate baryon states corresponding to rotated hedgehogs. These manifolds are parameterized by the three independent variables which specify a rotation.

One can specify these as being the three Euler angles; an alternative parameterization is to specify the rotation in terms of a matrix $`A`$ given by $`Aa_0+\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{\tau }SU(2)`$, where $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ are real collective variables satisfying a constraint $`a_0^2+\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{a}=1`$. The standard interpretation of these states at the full quantum level is that the mean-field states correspond to linear combinations of nearly degenerate states—i.e. states whose masses are split by $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$. The quantized states can be viewed as collective wave functions associated with the variable parameterizing the rotations of the hedgehog; up to normalization constants, these collective wave functions are simply the Wigner $`D`$ matrices : $`\mathrm{\Psi }(A)=(J+1/2)^{1/2}\pi ^1D_{m,m_I}^{I=J}(A)`$, where $`J`$ and $`I`$ are spin and isospin of the quantized state.

In TDMFT treatments of baryon-baryon scattering, the initial conditions are two well-separated baryons moving towards each other along some axis, $`\widehat{n}`$ (which in an experimental situation is the beam direction), off-set by an impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. The initial baryon states are (rotated) hedgehogs. The initial states can be parameterized by two sets of rotation parameters—one associated with the orientation of each initial hedgehog. When a quantity, $`𝒪`$, is calculated in TDMFT its value will depend on the relative orientation of the two initial hedgehogs and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. Up to $`1/N_c`$ corrections quantities which are amenable to calculation in TDMFT can be written as $`𝒪(A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$, where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ represent the initial orientations of the two hedgehog baryons, $`\widehat{n}`$ is the beam direction, $`E`$ is the initial kinetic energy of each baryon (in the center-of-mass frame) and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is the impact parameter (the projection perpendicular to $`\widehat{n}`$ of the initial displacement of the two particles from each other). The orientations, $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, are associated with particular linear combinations of spin and isospin components of the baryons states. By varying these orientations one can extract the part of the result which is associated with the various spin-isospin configurations of the initial nucleon states. This allows us to deduce our principal result: all observables which can be deduced from TDMFT must be invariant under simultaneous spin and isospin flips (i.e. rotations through $`\pi /2`$ in both spin and isospin) acting on either particle up to $`1/N_c`$ corrections.

To compute an obseravble from TDMFT requires that at the QCD level the observable can be expressed directly in terms of an expectation value of some Heisenberg-picture operator (which we will denote as $`𝒪`$) in an initial plane wave state of two nucleons. All sensitivity to the future time evolution is contained in the operator. First one argues that in the $`pN_c`$ regime the expectation value in these plane-wave states can be expressed in terms of integrals of expectation values of initial states consisting of well localized wave packets of two (rotated) hedgehog baryons heading towards each other and off-set by an impact parameter $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. The integrations are over $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ and the parameters specifying the initial rotations of the hedgehogs.

The integrations over $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is quite standard. For $`pN_c`$, the characteristic momentum is much larger than the inverse size of the region of interaction. Only a small part of the interaction region is probed coherently . The variable $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ is essentially classical and the various types of cross sections we will use as observables can be written as an integral over the impact parameter which specifies the section of the interaction region being probed.

The integration over the hedgehog orientations follows the strategy of Ref. . The mean-field theory, which is essentially classical in nature, accurately describes all of the variables except the collective ones—i.e. those degrees of freedom which at the classical level can be excited with no energetic cost. These variables must be quantized in order to project onto physical states with the correct quantum numbers. The variables associated with the collective isorotations of the widely-separated hedgehogs are collective variables. The way the quantization is realized is simple: one expresses the observable at the mean-field level in terms of the $`A`$’s and their time derivatives $`\dot{A}`$. The $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`\dot{A}_{1,2}`$ are dynamical variables which can be quantized.

To proceed further, one must analyze the time scale of the interaction. The interaction takes place in a time of order $`N_c^0`$: the size of the baryons is order $`N_c^0`$ and in this regime the velocity is also $`N_c^0`$. Thus it takes a time of order $`N_c^0`$ for the two baryons to substantially overlap and interact. This in turn, implies that the observable as a function $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`\dot{A}_{1,2}`$ should be independent of $`N_c`$. Once the observable is written as a function of $`A_{1,2}`$ and $`\dot{A}_{1,2}`$, the next step is to make a Legendre transformation to express the observable as a function of the $`A`$’s and their conjugate momenta. The conjugate momenta can be expressed in terms of the isospin and the intrinsic isospin in the body-fixed frame which in hedgehog models is the spin. However, in the process of making this Legendre transformation, any variables $`\dot{A}_{1,2}`$ get mapped into $`\stackrel{}{I}_{1,2}/`$ and $`\stackrel{}{S}_{1,2}/`$. Note, that $``$, the moment of inertia, is $`𝒪(N_c)`$ as can be seen in explicit model calculations, , and from the model independent analysis . Since in our initial states the isospin and spin are of order $`N_c^0`$, it is clear that if one does a $`1/N_c`$ expansion of the Legendre transformed operator, the leading order terms can depend on the $`A`$’s but not on the spins or isospins. Thus at leading order in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion we can neglect the spin and isospins and treat the operator as a diagonal operator in $`A_{1,2}`$. A simple way to understand this is that because of the large moment of inertia the characteristic rotational period of the hedgehogs is $`N_c`$ and, in the large $`N_c`$ limit, is irrelevant during reactions taking place during time scales of order unity.

The operators obtained from TDMFT are of the form $`𝒪(A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$. The variables $`A_{1,2}`$, $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ are fixed by initial conditions in the TDMFT; $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ will be integrated over in the standard manner. The observables which we focus are expectation values in states with fixed initial nucleon spins and isospins. In experiments this is obtained by creating the given initial state multiple times and averaging over measurements. To compute nucleon matrix elements of operators which are functions of $`A_{1,2}`$, one integrates the operator weighted by the appropriate collective wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(A)`$: the expectation value of an operator $`f(A_1,A_2)`$ in a two-nucleon state with spin projections along an arbitrary axis $`m^{(1,2)}`$ and isospin projections $`m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1,2)}`$ is

$`f_{m^{(1)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)};m^{(2)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}=`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle dA_1dA_2\left|D_{m^{(1)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}}^{1/2}(A_1)\right|^2\left|D_{m^{(2)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}^{1/2}(A_2)\right|^2f(A_1,A_2)}`$ (2)
where $`𝑑A`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ invariant measure normalized so that $`𝑑A=2\pi ^2`$.

The observable is a cross section associated with the $`𝒪`$ for nucleons with fixed initial spins and isospins, $`\sigma _{m^{(1)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}m^{(2)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}^𝒪`$. It is obtained by an integration of $`𝒪(\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E))_{m^{(1)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}m^{(2)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}`$ over $`\stackrel{}{b}`$:

$`\sigma _{m^{(1)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}m^{(2)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}^𝒪=`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{b}𝒪(\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E))_{m^{(1)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)};m^{(2)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}`$ (4)
where corrections are higher order in $`1/N_c`$.

The central result of our paper is contained in Eqs. (1) and (3). The dependence on the initial spin and isospin projections of the individual nucleons of the cross section comes about entirely from the Wigner $`D`$ matrices inside the integrals of Eq. (1). Note, however, that what is relevant is the square modulus of the $`D`$ matrices. There is a well-known property of the Wigner $`D`$ matrices $`\left(D_{m,n}^J\right)^{}=(1)^{mn}D_{m,n}^J`$ which implies $`\left|D_{m,n}^{1/2}(A)\right|^2=\left|D_{m,n}^{1/2}(A)\right|^2`$. This means that up to $`1/N_c`$ corrections the observed cross section will be unchanged if one simultaneously flips both the spin and the isospin of either particle 1 or particle 2. This strongly constrains the spin and isospin dependence of the cross section.

To illustrate this constraint, consider some observable which averages over the direction of all detected particles. Thus, apart from the spins, the only vector left in the problem is the beam axis $`\widehat{n}`$. Suppose further that the observable in question is time reversal, parity even and isoscalar. Then from general invariance properties one has

$`\sigma ^𝒪`$ $`=A_0+B_0(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)})+C_0(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)})(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)})`$ (7)
$`+\left(A_I+B_I(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)})+C_I(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(1)})(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{(2)})\right)`$
$`\times (\tau ^{(1)}\tau ^{(2)})`$
where the $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ coefficients are functions of energy. The leading order amplitude must be invariant under a simultaneous spin and isospin flip of either of the two particles. This implies that $`A_I=0`$, $`B_0=0`$, $`C_0=0`$ at leading order, since the terms they multiply change signs under this transformation. For a more general observable the same scheme may be employed: one finds all vectors in the problem and constructs the most general form the amplitude can take contracting the initial spins into all vectors in all ways consistent with the symmetry. One then imposes the large $`N_c`$ rule to eliminate all terms which change signs under a simultaneous spin and isospin flip of either particle. One immediate consequence of this analysis is that all observables in this regime which are obtained from unpolarized measurements must be isoscalars.

There are several fundamental limitations in the use of TDMFT to directly compute scattering observables . TDMFT is a treatment of average quantities rather than any particular scattering channel. Thus, one cannot directly compute S-matrix elements since S-matrix elements are defined for particular channels. Moreover, the form of the initial and final states are constrained by the form of the trial wave function which are not rich enough to include the correlations necessary to get the translationally invariant time-independent plane-wave asymptotic states of the full quantum theory. Thus the initial states are time-dependent solutions of two lumps moving towards each other while the final states are even more complicated. Clearly, since TDMFT cannot compute the S-matrix it can only give sensible information about quantities which average over many S-matrix elements. Such observables might, for example, be associated with various kinds of collective flow. Moreover, such flow must be expressible in terms of operators which do not encode correlations beyond those built into the mean-field trial states; one can follow the flows of various quantum numbers but not of particular correlations of individual hadrons.

It is not hard to determine which experimental observables are accessible in mean-field theory. One simply does, or imagines doing, a TDMFT calculation. Any quantity which one both knows how to compute and to relate to an experimentally accessible quantity is fair game. To make this concrete we should consider the following experimental observable. If we scatter two nucleons at moderately high energy ($`EN_c`$), one will generally produce a final state with a number of mesons along with two baryons (and at high enough energies possibly additional baryon-anti-baryon pairs). One can do the following experiment—fix a detector at angle, $`\theta `$ relative to the beam axis and measure whether an outgoing baryon (or anti-baryon) hits the detector. By dividing the number of baryons striking the detector minus the number of anti-baryons in solid angle $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ per unit time by the incident flux, one obtains a semi-inclusive partial differential cross section, $`d\sigma ^B/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Note that this quantity is semi-inclusive; while we know the position of one baryon, it does not specify its correlations with the other baryon, nor does it specify correlations with outgoing mesons. As such this quantity averages over multiple final states and is not associated with any single S-matrix element. (In fact, with the kinematics restricted to $`pN_c`$, the total amplitude for producing anti-baryons is both exponentially suppressed in $`N_c`$  and is experimentally small so one can simply use the semi-inclusive baryon differential cross section in place of the difference of the baryon from the anti-baryon. At higher energies one would have to use the difference of the two.)

It is easy to see how to compute this in TDMFT. First consider using the Skyrme model at the classical level. While the details of the Skyrme model need not reproduce QCD, it is thought that the Skyrme model captures all of the model independent large $`N_c`$ results from QCD. The model is given in terms of the dynamics of a chiral field $`U(r,t)SU(2)`$ with baryons treated as solitons. We can fix initial conditions $`U(r,0)`$ and $`\dot{U}(r,0)`$ corresponding to widely separated two hedgehogs with orientations $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ moving with a velocity of $`\pm v\widehat{n}`$ (with $`v=\sqrt{2M_NE}`$) and with their centers offset from the $`\widehat{n}`$ axis by $`\pm \stackrel{}{b}/2`$. Solving the equations of motion gives $`U(r,t;A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$ where $`A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E`$ parameterize the initial state. In the Skyrme model the baryon current is given by the standard topological current,

$$B_\mu =\frac{ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{24\pi ^2}Tr[(U^1^\nu U)(U^1^\alpha U)(U^1^\beta U)].$$
(8)
Using $`U(r,t;A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$ gives the baryon current as a function of time and space as parameterized by the initial conditions: $`B_\mu (\stackrel{}{r},t;A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$. Now consider a large sphere of radius $`R`$ centered on the nominal classical collision point of the two solitons (which we will take to be the origin). The radius $`R`$ can be taken to be large compared to all distance scales in the problem. The average baryon number per unit solid angle flowing at fixed direction (specified by polar angle $`\theta `$ and azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$) out of a single collision is simply given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn^B(\theta ,\varphi )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}=`$ (9)
$`R^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\widehat{r}(\theta ,\varphi )\stackrel{}{B}(R\widehat{r}(\theta ,\varphi ),t;A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E).`$ (10)
Integration of $`dn^B(\theta ,\varphi )/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ as in Eqs.(1) and (3) yields the physical observable

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^B(\theta ,\varphi )}{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{m^{(1)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}m^{(2)}m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}=`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{b}dA_1dA_2\left|D_{m^{(1)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}}^{1/2}(A_1)\right|^2\left|D_{m^{(2)},m_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}}^{1/2}(A_2)\right|^2}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\widehat{r}(\theta ,\varphi )\stackrel{}{B}(R\widehat{r}(\theta ,\varphi ),t;A_1,A_2,\stackrel{}{b},\widehat{n},E)`$ (13)
plus corrections higher order in $`N_c`$. While the proceeding derivation was done in the context of the Skyrme model it is clear that we would get the same structure in any mean-field theory including a direct time-dependent Hartree calculation (were that technically possible). And thus the form obtained is, in fact, model-independent. The semi-inclusive differential cross section, $`d\sigma ^B/d\mathrm{\Omega }`$, is given by the generalization of Eq. (7). The spin averaged semi-inclusive differential cross section then is given by $`A_0`$ and is isospin independent.

From this example it is clear how to construct other observables accessible in TDMFT. One can construct a variable measuring the fraction of total energy flowing out at a fixed angle. However, the most commonly used observables to describe nucleon-nucleon scattering—the total cross section and the total and differential elastic cross sections—are not amenable to mean-field treatments. Elastic cross sections are not calculable since they are directly associated with particular S-matrix elements. Moreover, it seems impossible to imagine any way in mean-field theory to extract the elastic cross section. The total cross section includes forward scattering and, as is well known, semi-classical treatments fail for forward scattering .

Next we consider possible corrections to the spin-isospin structure of Eq. (7) and its generalizations. One difficulty with following Witten’s strategy and beginning with TDMFT as giving the leading order result is that we have not systematically formulated the full $`1/N_c`$ expansion. Nevertheless, it seems apparent that while generic $`1/N_c`$ terms can affect the values of the various coefficients in Eq. (7), they are unlikely to change the spin-isospin structure. The spin-isospin structure came about when we neglected terms sensitive to the initial rotational velocities of the separated hedgehogs which in turn implied that each explicit power of $`I`$ or $`S`$ came with a factor of $`1/N_c`$. If we are considering observables associated with operators of good parity and isospin, the spin or isospin can only come in as pairs: e.g. there are no terms proportional to $`I^{(1)}+I^{(2)}`$ but only to $`I^{(1)}I^{(2)}`$. This suggests that all corrections to Eq. (7) and its generalizations will be of order $`1/N_c^2`$.

It is not clear whether the data on a semi-inclusive differential cross sections is readily accessible in a form that can be compared to Eq. (7). Presumably such data has been collected at some point. Comparisons with Eq. (7) would be very interesting. It would also be of interest to see if data on other observables computable from TDMFT can be found.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-93ER-40762.