text:
# The amenability of affine algebras

## 1 Introduction

First, let us recall the classical notion of amenability. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a discrete group. We call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ paradoxical , if it can be written as a disjoint union $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_m`$ such that for some elements $`g_1,h_1,g_2,h_2,\mathrm{},g_m,h_m\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ the sets $`A_1g_1,A_1h_1,A_2g_2,A_2h_2,\mathrm{},A_mg_m,`$

$`A_mh_m`$ are disjoint as well. The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called amenable if it is not paradoxical. The theorem below is one the fundamental results on amenability.

###### Theorem 1

The following conditions are equivalent.

1. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable.
2. There exists a finitely additive measure on the subsets of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{\Gamma })=1`$ and $`\mu (Ag)=\mu (A)`$ for any $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
3. There exists a sequence of finite subsets (Følner-exhaustion)

$`_1_2\mathrm{},_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, such that for any $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|_n_ng|}{|_n|}=1.$$

The goal of this paper is to define and study the appropriate version of amenability for affine algebras. Throughout this article $`R`$ denotes an affine algebra (not necessarily unital) over a commutative field $`K`$.

###### Definition 1.1

The affine algebra $`R`$ is (left) amenable if there exists a sequence of finite dimensional linear subspaces $`W_1W_2\mathrm{},_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}W_n=R`$, such that for any $`rR`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nr+W_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}=1.$$
(1)
We call such an exhaustion by subspaces a Følner-exhaustion. Now we define the analogues of paradoxicality and the invariant finitely additive measure for algebras without zero-divisors.

###### Definition 1.2

Let $`R`$ be an affine algebra without zero divisors. We say that $`R`$ is paradoxical, if any basis of $`R`$ over $`K`$, $`\{f_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be written as the disjoint union $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_m`$ such that for some non-zero elements $`g_1,h_1,g_2,h_2,\mathrm{},g_m,h_mR`$, the sets
$`A_1g_1,A_1h_1,A_2g_2,A_2h_2,\mathrm{},A_mg_m,A_mh_m`$ are mutually independent.

Now let $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a basis of $`R`$, where again $`R`$ has no zero-divisors. An independent subset $`LR`$ is called regular with respect to $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ if there exists subsets of $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$: $`A_1,A_2,A_3,\mathrm{},A_n`$ and $`\{r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_n\}R`$ such that $`L`$ can be written as the disjoint union of $`A_1r_1,A_2r_2,\mathrm{},A_nr_n`$.

###### Definition 1.3

An invariant finitely additive dimension-measure with respect to $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a non-negative function $`\mu `$ on the set of regular subsets satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`\mu (\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}})=1`$ and $`\mu (A)1`$ for any independent regular subset $`A`$.
2. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are independent regular subsets then $`\mu (AB)=\mu (A)+\mu (B)`$.
3. For any non-zero $`rR`$ and regular set $`A`$, $`\mu (A)=\mu (Ar)`$.

The main result of the paper is that the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

The following conditions are equivalent for affine algebras $`R`$ without zero-divisors.

1. $`R`$ is amenable.
2. $`R`$ is not paradoxical.
3. There exists a finitely additive invariant dimension-measure on $`R`$ with respect to some basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We shall also study the algebraic properties of amenable algebras, extending Rowen’s work on algebras of subexponential growth e.g. we prove that amenable affine algebras has the unique rank property.

## 2 The proof of Theorem 2.

### 2.1 The Doubling Lemma

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`R`$ be a non-amenable affine algebra with no zero-divisor. Then there exists a finite dimensional linear subspace $`ZR`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ such that for any finite dimensional linear subspace $`VR`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(VZ+V)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V)}>1+ϵ.$$

Proof: Let $`Z_1Z_2\mathrm{},_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}Z_n=R`$ be a sequence of finite dimensional subspaces. Suppose that the statement of the Lemma is not true, then there exist finite dimensional linear subspaces $`V_1,V_2,\mathrm{},V_n,\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_nZ_n+V_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_n)}<1+\frac{1}{2^n}.$$

Obviously, $`\mathrm{dim}_K(V_n)\mathrm{}`$. Now we construct a Følner-exhaustion for $`R`$ inductively. Let $`W_1=V_1`$. If we have already constructed $`W_1W_2\mathrm{}W_{n1}`$ then choose $`k`$ such a way that

$$\mathrm{dim}_K(V_k)(\mathrm{dim}_K(W_{n1})+\mathrm{dim}_K(Z_n))2^n.$$

Let $`W_n=V_k+W_{n1}+Z_n.`$ Then $`\{W_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ will satisfy (1), leading to a contradiction.

As a corollary we have the following Doubling Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`R`$ be a non-amenable affine algebra with no zero-divisor. Then there exists a finite dimensional linear subspace $`ZR`$ such that for any finite dimensional linear subspace $`VR`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(VZ)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V)}>2.$$

### 2.2 Amenability implies the existence of finitely additive invariant dimension measure

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`R`$ be an amenable affine algebra with no zero divisor. Then one can construct a sequence of finite dimensional vector spaces, $`\overline{V}_1V_1\overline{V}_2V_2\mathrm{}R`$ with the following properties.

* $`\{V_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfy (1).
* $`lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(\overline{V}_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_n)}=1`$ .
* For any finite dimensional linear subspace $`ZR`$ there exists $`k>0`$, such that if $`n>k`$, then $`\overline{V}_n+\overline{V}_nZV_n`$.

Proof: First choose an exhaustion $`W_1W_2\mathrm{},_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}W_n=R`$ satisfying (1). Let $`\overline{V}_1=W_1,V_1=W_1`$. Suppose that we have already chosen

$$\overline{V}_1V_1\overline{V}_2V_2\mathrm{}\overline{V}_{n1}V_{n1}.$$

Let us pick $`k`$ so large that $`V_{n1}W_k`$. Then we choose $`l>k`$ so that

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K((W_lW_k+W_l)W_k+(W_lW_k+W_l))}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_l)}1+\frac{1}{2^n}.$$

Then let $`\overline{V}_n=W_l`$ and $`V_n=W_lW_k+W_l.`$

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`R`$ be an amenable affine algebra with no zero divisor. Then there exists a finitely additive invariant dimension-measure on $`R`$ with respect to some basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}.`$

Proof: Let us choose a basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`R`$ inductively, such a way that if $`\overline{V}_i`$ is a $`k_i`$-dimensional space, then $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{k_i}\}`$ form a basis of $`\overline{V}_i`$, similarly if $`V_i`$ is a $`l_i`$-dimensional space, then $`\{e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{l_i}\}`$ form a basis of $`V_i`$.

###### Lemma 2.4

For $`0sR`$, let

$$F_k(s)=\{e_jV_k:e_jsV_k\}$$

$$B_k(s)=\{e_jV_k:e_jsV_k\}$$

Then,

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|F_k(s)|}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_k)}=0$$
(2)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|B_k(s)|}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_k)}=0$$
(3)
Proof: First note that if $`k`$ is large, then $`\overline{V}_ksV_k`$, consequently (2) holds. Then (3) follows from the fact that the right multiplication by $`s`$ is an injective map.

Now we define the finitely additive invariant dimension-measure. For any regular independent subset $`L`$, $`\mu (L)=lim_\omega \frac{|LV_k|}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_k)}.`$ Then of course, $`\mu (L)1`$, $`\mu (\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}})=1`$ and $`\mu (A)+\mu (B)=\mu (AB)`$ if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are independent. In order to finish the proof of Proposition 2.1 it is enough to see that for any $`0rR`$ and regular independent subset $`L`$,

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{|\mathrm{dim}_K(LrV_k)\mathrm{dim}_K(LV_k)|}{\mathrm{dim}_K(V_k)}=0.$$
(4)
However, by additivity, we may suppose that $`L`$ is constructed by using only one translation, that is for any $`a_iL`$ there exists $`e_{n_i}`$ such that $`a_i=e_{n_i}s.`$ Let $`N_L\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the set of all such $`e_{n_i}`$’s. Then $`L=N_Ls`$. By Lemma 2.4, $`\mu (N_L)=\mu (N_Ls)`$ and $`\mu (N_L)=\mu (N_Lsr)`$ that implies the invariance of $`\mu `$.

### 2.3 Non-amenability implies paradoxicality

The goal of this subsection is to prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2

If the amenable affine algebra is not amenable then it is paradoxical.

We apply the “algebraization” of the tools used in . Our first lemma is just the linear algebraic analog of the classical Hall lemma of graph theory.

###### Lemma 2.5

Let $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_m`$ be a basis for the $`m`$-dimensional vector space $`K^m`$ and let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_k`$ be a finite collection of linear transformations from $`K^m`$ to $`K^n`$. Suppose that for any $`l`$-tuple $`\{e_{i_1},e_{i_2},\mathrm{},e_{i_l}\}`$, the linear vector space spanned by the vectors
$`\{_{t=1}^l_{j=1}^kT_j(e_{i_t})\}`$ is at least $`l`$-dimensional. Then, there exists a
function $`\varphi :\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$ such that the vectors
$`\{T_{\varphi (1)}(e_1),T_{\varphi (2)}(e_2),\mathrm{}T_{\varphi (m)}(e_m)\}`$ are independent.

Proof: We proceed by induction. The lemma obviously holds for $`m=1`$. Suppose that the lemma holds for any $`1k<m`$.

If for any $`l`$-tuple $`l<m`$, $`\{e_{i_1},e_{i_2},\mathrm{},e_{i_l}\}`$, the linear vector space spanned by the vectors $`\{_{t=1}^l_{j=1}^kT_j(e_{i_t})\}`$ is at least $`l+1`$-dimensional, then first define $`\varphi (1)`$ such a way that $`T_{\varphi (1)}(e_1)`$ is non-zero. Then for the remaining basis vectors $`\{e_2,e_3,\mathrm{},e_m\}`$ let us consider the quotient maps $`T_j^{}:K^{m1}K^n/\{T_{\varphi (1)}(e_1)\}`$. This new system of vector spaces and maps must satisfy the conditions of our lemma. Hence we can extend $`\varphi `$ to the whole set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

Now, if for some $`l`$-tuple $`\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_l\}`$ $`l<m`$, the linear vector space spanned by the vectors $`\{_{t=1}^l_{j=1}^kT_j(e_{i_t})\}`$ is exactly $`l`$-dimensional, then first define $`\varphi `$ for $`\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_l\}`$. Then for the remaining vectors, we can again consider the quotient maps
$`T_j^{}:K^{ml}K^n/\{T_{\varphi (i_1)}(e_{i_1}),T_{\varphi (i_2)}(e_{i_2}),\mathrm{}T_{\varphi (i_l)}(e_{i_l})\}`$. Again, the new system of vector spaces and maps must satisfy the conditions of our lemma, hence we can extend $`\varphi `$ onto the whole set $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

Now we have the following corollary.

###### Lemma 2.6

Let $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_m`$ be a basis for the $`m`$-dimensional vector space $`K^m`$ and let $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_k`$ be a finite collection of linear transformations from $`K^m`$ to $`K^n`$. Suppose that for any $`l`$-tuple $`\{e_{i_1},e_{i_2},\mathrm{},e_{i_l}\}`$, the linear vector space spanned by the vectors
$`\{_{t=1}^l_{j=1}^kT_j(e_{i_t})\}`$ is at least $`2l`$-dimensional. Then, there exist two functions
$`\varphi :\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$ and $`\psi :\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$ such that the vectors $`\{T_{\varphi (1)}(e_1),T_{\varphi (2)}(e_2),\mathrm{},T_{\varphi (m)}(e_m),T_{\psi (1)}(e_1),T_{\psi (2)}(e_2),\mathrm{}T_{\psi (m)}(e_m)\}`$ are independent.

Proof: First define $`\varphi `$ by our previous lemma then apply the same lemma for the quotient map $`T_j^{}:K^mK^n/[\{T_{\varphi (i_1)}(e_1),T_{\varphi (i_2)}(e_2),\mathrm{},T_{\varphi (i_n)}(e_n)\}`$ The next proposition is a simple corollary of the previous lemma and the classical König-lemma (or compactness) argument (see also ).

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a basis for the infinite dimensional affine algebra $`R`$. Let $`S=\{r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_s\}`$ be a set of elements in $`R`$. Suppose that for any $`l`$-tuple $`\{e_{i_1},e_{i_2},\mathrm{},e_{i_l}\}`$ the linear vector space spanned by the vectors $`\{_{t=1}^l_{j=1}^se_{i_t}r_j\}`$ is at least $`2l`$-dimensional. Then one has a partition of $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}=A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_m`$ and elements
$`g_1,h_1,g_2,h_2,\mathrm{},g_m,h_mS`$ such that the sets $`A_1g_1,A_1h_1,A_2g_1,A_2h_1,\mathrm{},A_mg_m,A_mh_m`$ are mutually independent.

Now we prove Proposition 2.2. If $`R`$ is non-amenable, then by Lemma 2.2, for any basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, there exist a subset $`\{r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_s\}R`$ satisfying the conditions of Proposition 2.3. Consequently, $`R`$ is paradoxical.

### 2.4 Paradoxicality implies the non-existence of finitely additive invariant dimension- measure

###### Proposition 2.4

If $`R`$ is a paradoxical amenable algebra, then there is no finitely additive dimension-measure on $`R`$.

Proof: Suppose that $`\mu `$ is a finitely additive invariant dimension-measure with respect to the basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Then consider the paradoxical decomposition $`\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}=A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_m`$ as in the definition of paradoxicality. Then $`B=A_1g_1A_1h_1\mathrm{}A_mg_mA_mh_m`$ is a regular independent subset of dimension $`2`$. This is a contradiction.

Now Theorem $`2`$ follows from Propositions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4.

## 3 The algebraic properties of amenable algebras

### 3.1 The basic properties

In this section we prove some of the basic algebraic properties of the amenable algebras.

###### Proposition 3.1

Any affine algebra of subexponential growth is amenable

Proof: Suppose that $`S=\{r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_k\}R`$ is a generator system for $`R`$ that is $`R=K(r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_k)`$. We denote by $`R_m`$ the $`m`$-ball with respect to $`S`$ that is $`R_m=_{j=1}^mKS^j`$. Let $`d_m=\mathrm{dim}_K(R_m)`$. Since $`R`$ has subexponential growth, for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`C_ϵ>0`$ such that $`d_mC_ϵ(1+ϵ)^m`$ for all $`m1`$. Therefore there exists a subsequence $`\{d_{m_n}\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$d_{m_n+n}d_{m_n}(1+\frac{1}{2^n}).$$

Consequently, if $`W_n=R_{m_n}`$, then

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nr+W_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}1+\frac{1}{2^n},$$

provided that $`r_{j=1}^nKS^j`$ .

On the other hand, there are amenable algebras of exponential growth. It is easy to check that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a finitely generated amenable group, then the group algebra $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is amenable. Indeed, $`W_n`$ can be chosen as the linear subspace spanned by the elements of $`_n`$, where $`_1_2\mathrm{}`$ is a Følner-exhaustion. If $`r=k_1g_1+k_2g_2+\mathrm{}+k_sg_sK\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, then for sufficiently large $`n`$,

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nr+W_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n+W_ng_1+W_ng_2+\mathrm{}+W_ng_s)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}1+ϵ.$$

As it is well-known, there are amenable groups of exponential growth. In this case $`K\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has exponential growth.

###### Proposition 3.2

If $`R`$ is an amenable affine algebra and $`R`$ has no zero-divisors, then $`R`$ has Goldie dimension $`1`$, that is $`R`$ does not contain two independent left ideals.

Proof: Let $`I,JR`$ be left ideals, $`0aI,0bJ.`$ If $`n`$ is large enough, then $`\mathrm{dim}_K(W_naW_n)>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nbW_n)>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)`$, hence $`\mathrm{dim}_K(W_naW_nb)>0.`$

The previous proposition shows that the group algebra of the free group of two generators is not amenable. Later we shall need the following technical result on the doubling property of non-amenable algebras.

### 3.2 The ranks of finitely generated modules

Slightly modifying the arguments of Rowen  we define a real-valued rank function on finitely generated (left) modules over unital amenable affine algebras. Let $`\omega `$ be an ultrafilter and $`lim_\omega :l^{\mathrm{}}()`$ be the corresponding ultralimit that is a linear functional on the space of bounded sequences such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\{a_n\}\underset{\omega }{lim}\{a_n\}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\{a_n\}$$

and $`lim_\omega \{a_n\}=lim_n\mathrm{}\{a_n\}`$ if $`\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a convergent sequence of real numbers. Note that for any finite dimensional linear subspace $`ZR`$ containing the unit,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nZ)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}=1.$$

Let $`R`$ be a unital amenable affine algebra with a given sequence of subspaces $`\{W_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfying (1). Suppose that $`M`$ is a finitely generated $`R`$-module such that $`M=_{j=1}^rRx_i`$, where $`\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_r\}M`$. Then the rank of $`M`$ is defined as follows,

$$\text{rank}(M)=\underset{\omega }{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nx_1+W_nx_2+\mathrm{}+W_nx_r)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}.$$

We shall see that the rank function might depend on the choice of the exhaustion $`\{W_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proposition 3.3

The rank defined above does not depend on the particular choice of the generator system $`\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_r\}`$. Also, the rank is bounded above by the minimal number of elements spanning $`M`$.

Proof: It is enough to prove that if $`ZR`$ is a finite dimensional linear subspace containig the unit then,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(_{i=1}^rW_nZx_i)\mathrm{dim}_K(_{i=1}^rW_nx_i)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}=0.$$

We have the following inequalities,

$$0\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(_{i=1}^rW_nZx_i)\mathrm{dim}_K(_{i=1}^rW_nx_i)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nZx_i)\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nx_i)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}r\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nZ)\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}.$$

However, by amenability,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_nZ)\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}=0\text{ }$$

###### Corollary 3.1

If $`R`$ is a unital amenable affine algebra then,

1. $`\text{rank}(R^n)=n`$, that is an amenable affine algebra always satisfies the unique rank property. (,)
2. If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are finitely generated $`R`$-modules and $`M`$ is either a submodule or a homomorphic image of $`N`$, then $`\text{rank}(M)\text{rank}(N)`$.
3. If $`N`$ and $`M`$ are finitely generated $`R`$-modules, then $`\text{rank}(MN)=\text{rank}(M)+\text{rank}(N)`$.

### 3.3 Exact sequences

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`0MNN/M0`$ be an exact sequence of finitely generated $`R`$-modules and let $`X=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ be a system of generators for $`N`$, containing a system of generators for $`M`$. Then the relative rank is defined as follows:

$$\text{rank}_X(M)=\underset{\omega }{lim}\frac{\mathrm{dim}_K(M_{i=1}^rW_nx_i)}{\mathrm{dim}_K(W_n)}.$$

Obviously, $`\text{rank}_X(M)\text{rank}(M)`$.

###### Proposition 3.4

$`\text{rank}(N)=\text{rank}(M/N)+\text{rank}_X(M)`$ .

Proof: Denote by $`[x_i]`$ the image of the quotient map $`NN/M`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{dim}_K(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}W_nx_i)=\mathrm{dim}_K(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}W_n[x_i])+\mathrm{dim}_K(M\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}W_nx_i).$$

Hence the statement follows.

###### Corollary 3.2

$`\text{rank}(N)\text{rank}(M/N)+\text{rank}(M)`$

Example: Let $`R`$ be the unital algebra generated by $`1,x,y`$, where $`x^2=0,xy=0`$. Let $`W_n`$ ne the linear subspace with basis $`\{1,y,y^2,\mathrm{},y^n,x,yx,y^2x,\mathrm{},y^{n^2}x\}`$ and let $`M=Rx+Ry`$, $`N=R`$. Then it is easy to see that $`\text{rank}(N)=1,\text{rank}(M)=0,\text{rank}(N/M)=0`$. Note however, that if the linear subspaces $`W_n`$ are defined as $`\{1,y,y^2,\mathrm{},y^n,x,yx,y^2x,\mathrm{},y^nx\}`$, then $`\text{rank}(M)=1,\text{rank}(N/M)=0`$, that is the additivity holds. In  the author claims that for his rank function

$$\text{rank}_S(N)\text{rank}_S(M)+\text{rank}_S(N/M).$$
(5)
It seems to me that there might be a gap in in his argument. The previous example suggests that the space of the exhaustion must play a greater role, and if (5) is true then an ultralimit constuction would result in an actual additive real valued rank function on the set of finitely generated modules over affine algebras of subexponential growth. That is

$$\text{rank}(N)=\text{rank}(M/N)+\text{rank}(M).\text{ }$$

It would immediately imply that $`[R^n]=[R^m]`$ in the Grothendieck group $`G_0(R)`$. This would be much stronger than the unique rank property. (see  for a discussion).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The total cross section for virtual photon - proton scattering in the region of small $`x`$ and intermediate $`Q^2`$ can be surprisingly well described by a simple parametrization  inspired by saturation effects related to nonlinear phenomena due to gluon recombination for instance. This is called Saturation Model (SM) in the literature. The very good agreement with experimental data can be extended even to the region of rather small $`Q^2`$ by adjusting an effective quark mass ($`m_{eff}`$). The value of the parameter found from the fit to the photoproduction data is between the current quark mass and the constituent quark mass. At present there is no deep understanding of the fit value of the parameter as we do not understand in detail the confinement and the underlying nonperturbative effects related to large size QCD contributions.

We shall try to extend the succesful SM parametrization to quasi-real photon scattering. In the present analysis we shall limit to the production of heavy quarks which is, in our opinion, simpler and more transparent for real photons. Here we can partially avoid the problem of the poor understanding of the effective light quark mass, i.e. the domain of large (transverse) size of the hadronic system emerging from the photon.

It was shown recently that the simple SM description can be succesfully extended also to the photon-photon scattering . In order to better understand the success of such a description even more processes should be analysed on the same footing in the same framework.

The heavy quark production is interesting also in the context of a deficit of standard theoretical QCD predictions relative to the experimental data as observed recently for bottom quark production in proton-antiproton, photon-proton and photon-photon scattering. This must be better understood in the future because usually the charm production in photon-photon collisions is considered as a good tool to extract the gluon distribution in the photon (see for instance ).

In the present paper we discuss and analyze many details of the heavy quark production simultaneously in photon-nucleon and photon-photon scattering. In particular we quantify some new terms not included so far in the literature on this subject. We discuss the range of applicability of the SM parametrization for heavy quark production. We put emphasis on some open unresolved problems and propose ways of their resolving.

## 2 Heavy quark production in photon-nucleon scattering

In the picture of dipole scattering the cross section for heavy quark-antiquark ($`Q\overline{Q}`$) photoproduction on the nucleon can be written in general as

$$\sigma _{\gamma NQ\overline{Q}}(W)=d^2\rho 𝑑z|\mathrm{\Phi }_T^{Q\overline{Q}}(\stackrel{}{\rho },z)|^2\sigma _{dN}(\rho ,z,W),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_T`$ is (transverse) quark-antiquark photon wave function (see for instance ) and $`\sigma _{dN}`$ is the dipole-nucleon total cross section. Because of higher-order perturbative effects as well as nonperturbative effects the latter cannot be calculated in a simple way. In the following, inspired by its phenomenological success  we shall use the Saturation Model parametrization for $`\sigma _{dN}`$. It phenomenologically incorporates color transparency at $`r1/Q_s`$ and saturation at $`r1/Q_s`$. Here $`Q_s`$ is the saturation scale. Because for real photoproduction the Bjorken-$`x`$ is not defined we are forced to replace $`x`$ by a new appropriate variable. The most logical choice would be to use gluon longitudinal momentum fraction $`x_g`$ instead of Bjorken $`x`$. This would lead to only minor modification of parameters to describe experimental data for virtual photon - nucleon scattering. In the following we take

$$\sigma _{dN}(\rho ,z,W)=\sigma _0\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\rho ^2}{4R_0^2(x_Q)}\right)\right],$$
(2)
where

$$R_0(x_Q)=\frac{1}{Q_0}\left(\frac{x_Q}{x_0}\right)^{\lambda /2}.$$
(3)
Above we have introduced the quantity $`x_Q\frac{M_{Q\overline{Q}}^2(z)|_{min}}{W^2}`$, where $`M_{Q\overline{Q}}(z)|_{min}^2\frac{m_Q^2}{z(1z)}`$. The latter definition (prescription) will become clear after the discussion below.

In Fig.1 we show predictions of the SM for charm photoproduction. The dotted line represents calculations based on Eq.(1). The result of this calculation exceeds considerably the fixed target experimental data . One should remember, however, that the simple formula (1) applies at high energies only. At lower energies one should include effects due to kinematical threshold. In the momentum representation this can be done by requiring: $`M_{Q\overline{Q}}<W`$, where $`M_{Q\overline{Q}}`$ is invariant mass of the final $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system. This cannot be done strictly in the mixed representation used to formulate the Saturation Model as here the information about heavy quark/antiquark momenta is not available. An approximate way to include the obvious limitation for heavy quark production is to neglect momenta and include only heavy quark masses in calculating $`M_{Q\overline{Q}}`$. This upper limit still exceeds the low energy experimental data. There are phase space limitations in the region $`x_g`$ 1 which has been neglected so far. Those can be estimated using naive counting rules. Counting reaction spectators we get for our process an extra correction factor

$$S_{sup}=(1x_g)^7.$$
(4)
In our case of mixed representation we are forced to use rather $`x_Q`$ instead of $`x_g`$. Such a procedure leads to a reasonable agreement with the fixed target experimental data as can be seen by comparing the solid line and the experimental data points.

The deviation of the solid line from the dotted line gives an idea of the range of the safe applicability of the Saturation Model for the production of the charm quarks/antiquarks. The cross section for $`W>`$ 20 GeV is practically independent of the approximate treatment of the threshold effects. The only data in this region come from HERA. Here the Saturation Model seems to slightly underestimate the H1 collaboration data .

For comparison in Fig. 1 we show the result of similar calculations in the collinear approach (thick dash-dotted line). In this approach the cross section reads as

$$\sigma _{\gamma NQ\overline{Q}}(W)=𝑑x_Ng_N(x_N,\mu _F^2)\sigma _{\gamma gQ\overline{Q}}(\widehat{W}),$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{W}`$ is energy in the $`\gamma g`$ system. The gluon distribution in the nucleon is taken from Ref.. In the calculation shown in Fig.1 we have taken $`\mu _F^2=\mu _R^2=m_Q^2+p_{}^2`$ with $`p_{}`$ being the heavy quark/antiquark transverse momentum. The traditional collinear approach gives steeper energy dependence in the energy region considered than the SM prodictions. In order to test both approaches more, experimental data for different energies $`W>`$ 20 GeV are needed.

The calculation above is not complete. For real photons a soft vector dominance contribution due to photon fluctuation into vector mesons should be included on the top of the dipole contribution considered up to now. The VDM component seems unavoidable in order to understand the behaviour of $`F_2^pF_2^n`$ at small photon virtualities . Furthermore it seems rather a natural explanation of the strong virtuality dependence of the structure function of the virtual photon as measured recently .

In the present calculation we include only dominant gluon-gluon fusion component. In this approximation

$$\sigma _{\gamma NQ\overline{Q}}^{VDM}(W)=\underset{V}{}\frac{4\pi }{f_V^2}𝑑x_V𝑑x_Ng_V(x_V,\mu _F^2)g_N(x_N,\mu _F^2)\sigma _{ggQ\overline{Q}}(\widehat{W}).$$
(6)
Here the $`f_V`$ constants describe the transition of the photon into vector mesons ($`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$) and are taken in the on-shell approximation from the decay of vector mesons into dilepton pairs  taking into account finite width corrections. The gluon distributions in vector mesons are taken as that for the pion

$$g_V(x_V,\mu _F^2)=g_\pi (x_\pi ,\mu _F^2)$$
(7)
and that in the nucleon from Ref.. For factorization scale we take $`\mu _F^2=m_Q^2+p_{}^2`$ with $`p_{}`$ being the heavy quark/antiquark transverse momentum. The dash-dotted line in Fig.1 shows the VDM contribution calculated in the leading order (LO) approximation for $`\sigma _{ggQ\overline{Q}}`$ (see e.g.). The so-calculated VDM contribution cannot be neglected at high energies. Taking into account that usually the next-to-leading order approximation leads to an enhancement by a factor $`K`$ 2, the VDM contribution is as important as the continuum calculated above.

The situation for bottom photoproduction seems similar. In Fig.2 we compare the Saturation Model predictions with the data from the H1 collaboration . Here the threshold effects may survive up to very high energy $`W`$ 50 GeV. Again the predictions of the Saturation Model are slightly below the H1 experimental data point. The relative magnitude of the VDM component is similar as for the charm production.

The Saturation Model slightly underestimates high-energy data for both charm and bottom production. The parameters of the Saturation Model: $`\sigma _0`$ and $`m_{eff}`$ are to some extend correlated when extracted from the fit to the experimental data. In principle, because in the case of heavy quark production one is free of the uncertainty of the effective quark mass, one could allow to modify $`\sigma _0`$ to describe the HERA data on heavy quark production. It is obvious that then one would need to increase $`m_{eff}`$ to describe $`\sigma _{\gamma N}^{tot}`$. We shall leave this option for a separate study.

## 3 Heavy quark production in photon-photon scattering

### 3.1 Heavy quark-antiquark pair production

In the dipole-dipole approach (see for instance ) the total cross section for $`\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}`$ production can be expressed as

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{dd}(W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f_2Q}{}}{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Phi }^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _1,z_1)|^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{f_2\overline{f}_2}(\rho _2,z_2)|^2\sigma _{dd}(\rho _1,\rho _2,x_{Qf})d^2\rho _1𝑑z_1d^2\rho _2𝑑z_2}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f_1Q}{}}{\displaystyle |\mathrm{\Phi }^{f_1\overline{f}_1}(\rho _1,z_1)|^2|\mathrm{\Phi }^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _2,z_2)|^2\sigma _{dd}(\rho _1,\rho _2,x_{fQ})d^2\rho _1𝑑z_1d^2\rho _2𝑑z_2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{q\overline{q}}`$ are the quark-antiquark wave functions of the photon in the mixed representation and $`\sigma _{dd}`$ is dipole-dipole cross section. While for the heavy quark-antiquark pair the photon wave function is well defined, for light quarks one usually takes the perturbatively calculated wave function with the quark/antiquark mass replaced by $`m_{eff}`$. This parameter provides a useful cut-off of large-size configurations in the photon wave function.

There are two problems associated with direct use of (LABEL:SM\_QQbar). First of all, it is not completely clear how to generalize the dipole-dipole cross section from the dipole-nucleon cross section parametrized in . Secondly, formula (LABEL:SM\_QQbar) is correct only at sufficiently high energy $`W2m_Q`$. At lower energies one should worry about proximity of the kinematical threshold.

In a very recent paper  a new phenomenological parametrization for the azimuthal angle averaged dipole-dipole cross section has been proposed:

$$\sigma _{dd}^{a,b}(x_{ab},\rho _1,\rho _2)=\sigma _0^{a,b}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r_{eff}^2}{4R_0^2(x_{ab})}\right)\right].$$
(9)
Here

$$R_0(x_{ab})=\frac{1}{Q_0}\left(\frac{x_{ab}}{x_0}\right)^{\lambda /2}$$
(10)
and the parameter $`x_{ab}`$ which controls the energy dependence was defined as

$$x_{ab}=\frac{4m_a^2+4m_b^2}{W^2}.$$
(11)
In order to take into account threshold effects for the produtcion of $`q\overline{q}q^{}\overline{q}^{}`$ an extra phenomenological function has been introduced

$$S_{thresh}(x_{ab})=(1x_{ab})^5$$
(12)
which is put to zero if $`x_{ab}>1`$. This factor strongly reduces the cross section at low energies. Different prescriptions for $`r_{eff}`$ have been considered in , with $`r_{eff}^2=\frac{\rho _1^2\rho _2^2}{\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2}`$ being the best choice phenomenologically .

The phenomenological threshold factor (12) does not guarantee automatic vanishing of the cross section exactly below the true kinematical threshold $`W=2m_a+2m_b`$. Therefore instead of the phenomenological factor we rather impose an extra kinematical constraint: $`M_{f\overline{f}}+M_{Q\overline{Q}}<W`$ on the integration in (LABEL:SM\_QQbar). The use of extra dynamical factor $`(1x_{ab})^5`$ for heavy quark production in photon-photon collisions is in our opinion disputable. Instead, in the present paper we shall estimate the effect of damping of the cross section in the neighbourhood of threshold due to simple kinematical limitations on the final quark/antiquark transverse momenta. As will be discussed in the course of this paper this leads to a similar suppression at least numerically.

Identically as for $`\gamma N`$ scattering in the mixed representation, where the transverse momenta are not given explicitly, the quark-antiquark invariant mass is not well defined. We suggest therefore to use rather the effective (z-dependent!) invariant masses $`<M_{q\overline{q}}>`$ with transverse momenta neglected and effective quark mass as used in many other mixed representation calculations for $`\gamma N`$ scattering known in the literature. It is not completely clear how to generalize the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{dN}`$ in photon-nucleon scattering to the energy dependence in $`\sigma _{dd}`$ in photon-photon scattering. In the following we define the parameter which controls the Saturation Model energy dependence of the dipole-dipole cross section in a symmetric way as

$`x_{Qf}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{Qf}(z_1,z_2)=C(<M_{Q\overline{Q}}>(z_1)+<M_{f\overline{f}}>(z_2))^2/W^2,`$
$`x_{fQ}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{fQ}(z_1,z_2)=C(<M_{f\overline{f}}>(z_1)+<M_{Q\overline{Q}}>(z_2))^2/W^2`$ (13)
instead of (11). Here we have made explicit the dependence on $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. In the following we shall use C = 1 and only in some cases compare to the results with C = 0.5. 111There is only small difference between the two prescriptions. 222By construction 0 $`<x_{Qf},x_{fQ}<`$ 1. In Fig.3 we compare our prescription with those used in  for the $`c\overline{c}`$ production (left panel) and for the $`b\overline{b}`$ production (right panel). In comparison to  our prescription leads to a small reduction of the cross section far from the threshold and a significant enhancement close to the threshold. Some consequences of this will be discussed separately in the context of the observed excess of $`b\overline{b}`$ production in positron-electron collisions.

For comparison we show in Fig.3 also a result obtained in the two-gluon exchange model. In this case

$$\sigma _{dd}(\stackrel{}{\rho }_1,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)=\frac{8}{9}\frac{d^2\kappa }{\kappa ^4}\alpha _s^2(\mu ^2)(2e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{\rho }_1}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{\rho }_1})(2e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{\rho }_2}e^{i\stackrel{}{\kappa }\stackrel{}{\rho }_2}).$$
(14)
In principle one can allow for running of $`\alpha _s(\mu ^2)`$. However, the choice of the scale $`\mu ^2`$ is not completely clear. In the present calculation a rather large constant value $`\alpha _s`$ = 0.35 was taken. If $`\alpha _s(m_c^2/m_b^2)`$ was used the cross section would be negligibly small. Thus it becomes clear that the Saturation Model leads to a huge enhancement relative to the two-gluon exchange model high above the threshold. Close to the threshold both results almost coincide. The departure of the 2g-exchange result from the constant value below $`W3(2m_Q)`$ is due to the threshold effects.

In calculating the main SM component above we have considered only obvious kinematical limitations possible to implement in the mixed representation. As already discussed it is not possible to include the transverse momentum limitations in the mixed representation. Now we shall estimate the effect due to the kinematically limited integration over transverse momenta of final heavy quarks/antiquarks. This effect can be taken into account consistently only in the momentum representation. This would require a reformulation of the whole Saturation Model and clearly goes beyond the scope of the present analysis. In order to gain experience we have studied first the effect of the kinematical constraint on the transverse momenta in the two-gluon exchange approximation in the momentum representation. In this case we can easily both include and exclude the kinematical limitations on transverse momenta. Then one can approximately correct our mixed representation calculation as

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{mixed}(W)|_{corr}=\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{mixed}(W)|_{approx}R_{c/a}(W).$$
(15)
Here for brevity we have introduced the ratio:

$$R_{c/a}(W)=\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{2g,mom}(W)|_{corr}}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{2g,mom}(W)|_{approx}}.$$
(16)
In Fig.4 we show the so-obtained correction factor as a function of W for both $`c\overline{c}`$ (solid) and $`b\overline{b}`$ (dashed) production. As can be seen from the figure the correction is significant even far from the threshold, i.e. leads to a significant damping of the cross section. We shall discuss this damping in the context of the $`b\overline{b}`$ deficit in a separate section.

### 3.2 $`2Q2\overline{Q}`$ final states

The dipole-dipole approach in general, and the Saturation Model as its particular realization, leads to a unique prediction for the $`2Q2\overline{Q}`$ (two identical heavy quarks and two identical heavy antiquarks) production in the final state

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma 2Q2\overline{Q}}^{dd}(W)=|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _1,z_1)|^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _2,z_2)|^2\sigma _{dd}(\rho _1,\rho _2,x_{QQ})d^2\rho _1𝑑z_1d^2\rho _2𝑑z_2.$$
(17)
The same prescriptions are used here as for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ final states in the previous section.

In Fig.5 we compare our prescription to that from  for four heavy quark production for Q=c (left panel) and for Q=b (right panel). Here there is even larger difference between the two prescriptions than for the heavy quark-antiquark pair production. In Fig.6 we show the ratio defined as

$$R_{4/2}(W)\frac{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma 2Q2\overline{Q}}(W)}{\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}(W)}.$$
(18)
Sufficiently above the kinematical threshold $`W4m_Q`$ the ratio saturates at the level of about 8 % and 1 % for $`2c2\overline{c}`$ and $`2b2\overline{b}`$, respectively. The fluctuations of the order of 1 % that one can observe in the figure are of numerical origin.

The predictions for $`\gamma \gamma 2Q2\overline{Q}`$ shown in Fig.5 and 6 are the only ones in the literature we know. In the standard collinear approaches the $`2Q2\overline{Q}`$ final states can be produced only in next-to-leading order calculations or/and in the hadronization process, if the charmed mesons, e.g. $`D^{}`$, are measured to identify charm quarks/antiquarks. It would be interesting to compare in the future the present result with the standard collinear NLO predictions. Also from the experimental side the $`2Q2\overline{Q}`$ production in photon-photon collisions is terra incognita. In our opinion, the $`2Q2\overline{Q}`$ channel has a better chance to be a stringent test of the dipole-dipole approaches and the Saturation Model in particular. It is not clear to us if the experimental verification can be feasible with the present LEP2 statistics. It seems, however, possible with the future photon-photon colliders like that planned at TESLA (see for instance ).

### 3.3 Short- versus long-distance phenomena

What are typical distances probed in heavy quark production ? Is the heavy quark production a short distance phenomenon ? These questions can be easily answered in the mixed representation formulation considered in the present paper. In Fig.7 we display the integrand of

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma c\overline{c}}(W)=I(\rho _1,\rho _2)𝑑\rho _1𝑑\rho _2.$$
(19)
The maxima in Fig.7 correspond to the most probable situations. For one light ($`m_u`$ = $`m_d`$ = $`m_0`$, $`m_s`$ = $`m_0`$ \+ 0.15 GeV) and second heavy quark-antiquark pair the map is clearly asymmetric. One can observe a ridge parallel to the $`\rho _1`$ or $`\rho _2`$ axis. There is not well localized maximum. Both short and long distances are probed.

For comparison, in the bottom part of the figure, we show similar maps when both pairs consist of light (u,d,s) quarks/antiquarks (left-bottom) and in the case when both pairs consist of charm quarks/antiquarks (right-bottom). For light quarks (u,d,s) one observes a clear maximum at $`(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ = (1 GeV-1, 1 GeV-1) = (0.2 fm, 0.2 fm). In this case a nonnegligible strength extends, however, up to large distances $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. Only in the case of the production of two $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs the cross section is dominated exclusively by short-distance phenomena.

### 3.4 Hadronic single-resolved processes

Up to now we have calculated the contribution when photons fluctuate into quark-antiquark pairs. Then the final quark and antiquark carry away the whole longitudinal momentum of the parent photon and are predominantly emitted in the same photon hemisphere. In the standard collinear approach one usually includes so-called resolved contributions, when heavy quark-antiquark pairs are created either in the photon-gluon / gluon-photon fusion or in the gluon-gluon fusion and quark-antiquark annihilation processes. In the first case, known as the single-resolved process, only a small fraction of the first or the second photon longitudinal momentum enters into the production of heavy quark or antiquark. In the second case, known as double-resolved process, this is true for both photons. The arguments above demonstrate that the resolved processes are different, at least kinematically, from those included in the Saturation Model, or more generally in the dipole-dipole interaction picture. This means that the resolved processes are not included in the dipole-dipole scattering approach. At the same time the standard collinear approach is not complete too. Can the dipole approach be supplemented to include the hadronic resolved processes? Let us try to answer this question by combining a simple vector dominance model and the dipole picture. For simplicity we shall limit to the dominant photon fluctuations into light vector mesons: $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, only. It is sufficient to include the light vector mesons because the contribution of heavier mesons, as being highly off-mass-shell, is expected to be considerably suppressed.

If the first photon fluctuates into the vector mesons the so-defined single-resolved contribution to the heavy quark-antiquark production can be calculated analogically to the photon-nucleon case as

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{SR,1}(W)=\underset{V_1}{}\frac{4\pi }{f_{V_1}^2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _2,z_2)|^2\sigma _{V_1d}(\rho _2,x_1)d^2\rho _2𝑑z_2,$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{Q\overline{Q}}`$ is the second photon $`Q\overline{Q}`$ wave function and $`\sigma _{V_1d}`$ is vector meson - dipole total cross section. In the spirit of the Saturation Model, we shall parametrize the latter exactly as for the photon-nucleon case  with a simple rescaling of the normalization factor $`\sigma _0^{dV}=2/3\sigma _0^{dN}`$. In the present calculation $`\sigma _0^{dN}`$ as well as the other parameters of SM are taken from . Fully analogically if the second photon fluctuates into vector mesons

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{SR,2}(W)=\underset{V_2}{}\frac{4\pi }{f_{V_2}^2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{Q\overline{Q}}(\rho _1,z_1)|^2\sigma _{dV_2}(\rho _1,x_2)d^2\rho _1𝑑z_1.$$
(21)
This clearly doubles the first contribution (20) to the total cross section. Of course, if the rapidity distributions of heavy quark/antiquark are considered, both contributions must be treated independently. We leave the analysis of $`(\eta ,k_{})`$ distributions for a separate study. The integrations in (20) and (21) are not free of kinematical constraints. When calculating both single-resolved contributions it should be checked additionally if the heavy quark-antiquark invariant mass $`M_{Q\overline{Q}}`$ is smaller than the total photon-photon energy $`W`$. As in the previous cases in the mixed representation it can be done only approximately. In analogy to $`\gamma N`$ scattering the most logical definition of the parameter which controls energy dependence of $`\sigma _{V_1d}`$ or $`\sigma _{dV_2}`$ is: $`x_{2/1}=M_{Q\overline{Q}}^2(z_{2/1})/W^2`$ and corresponds to the gluon momentum fraction in the second or first photon (vector meson), respectively.

In Fig.8 we compare the present result with the result of the leading order collinear approximation. In the latter case

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{SR,coll}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{V_1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{f_{V_1}^2}}{\displaystyle g_{V_1}(x_{V_1},\mu _F^2)\sigma _{g\gamma Q\overline{Q}}𝑑x_{V_1}}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{V_2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{f_{V_2}^2}}{\displaystyle g_{V_2}(x_{V_2},\mu _F^2)\sigma _{\gamma gQ\overline{Q}}𝑑x_{V_2}}.`$
Also in this calculation the gluon distributions in the vector mesons are taken as that for the pion  $`g_V(x_g,\mu _F^2)=g_\pi (x_g,\mu _F^2)`$. The scale $`\mu _F^2=m_c^2+p_{}^2`$ is taken in practical calculation with $`p_{}`$ being the transverse momentum of the final heavy quark.

There is a difference in shape of the cross section as obtained in the SM (thin solid) and collinear (dashed) approaches. Part of the difference may come from the fact that up to now we have not included phase space limitations when $`x_{1/2}`$ 1 which may be important at low energies. In this case a naive application of counting rules would lead to the following suppression factor

$$S_{SR}=(1x_{1/2})^{2n_{SR}1}.$$
(23)
Following standard prescription by making use of the picture that the unresolved photon probes the resolved one and assuming that a vector meson consists of a valence quark and antiquark we get $`n_{SR}=3`$. The SM result corrected by (23) is shown by the thick solid line in Fig.8. After the correction the results obtained from the two different approaches are numerically fairly similar.

### 3.5 Summing all contributions to inclusive cross section

In Fig.9 we show different contributions to the inclusive $`c/\overline{c}`$ (left panel) and $`b/\overline{b}`$ (right panel) production in photon-photon scattering. The thick solid line represents the sum of all contributions.

Let us start from the discussion of the inclusive charm production. The experimental data of the L3 collaboration  are shown for comparison. The modifications discussed above lead to a small damping of the cross section in comparison to . The corresponding result (long-dashed line) stays below the recent experimental data of the L3 collaboration . The considered in the present paper hadronic single-resolved contribution constitutes about 30 - 40 % of the main Saturation Model contribution. At high energies the cross section for the $`2c2\overline{c}`$ component is about 8 % of that for the single $`c\overline{c}`$ pair component (see Fig.5). In inclusive cross section its contribution should be doubled because each of the heavy quarks/antiquarks can be potentially identified experimentally. In principle the events with $`2c2\overline{c}`$ can be subtracted both when flavour tagging is applied or charmed mesons are measured to identify $`c`$ or $`\overline{c}`$. In practice, because the efficiency of the flavour tagging is very small and only a small fraction of $`2c2\overline{c}`$ can be removed, the measured inclusive cross section is two times bigger than the integrated cross section to the $`2c2\overline{c}`$ final state.

At higher photon-photon energies the direct contribution is practically negligible. This is in contrast to the energy dependence in the positron-electron collisions. Here even at large energies the direct contribution constitutes almost half of the corresponding cross section. The reason is that even at high $`e^+e^{}`$ energies the contributions of small photon-photon energies are dominant which can be easily understood in the equivalent photon approximation to be discussed in the next section. The hadronic double-resolved contribution, when each of the two photons fluctuates into a vector meson, calculated as

$$\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{DR,coll}=\underset{V_1,V_2}{}\frac{4\pi }{f_{V_1}^2}\frac{4\pi }{f_{V_2}^2}g_{V_1}(x_{V_1},\mu _F^2)g_{V_2}(x_{V_2},\mu _F^2)\sigma _{ggQ\overline{Q}}(\widehat{W})𝑑x_{V_1}𝑑x_{V_2}$$
(24)
and shown by the thin solid line in the figure becomes important only at very high energies relevant for TESLA. Here we have consistently taken $`g_V(x_V,\mu _F^2)=g_\pi (x_V,\mu _F^2)`$ and $`\mu _F^2=m_Q^2+p_{}^2`$.

The situation for bottom production (see right panel) is somewhat different. Here the main SM component is dominant. Due to smaller charge of the bottom quark than that for the charm quark the direct component is effectively reduced with respect to the dominant SM component by the corresponding ratio of quark/antiquark charges: $`(1/9)^2:(4/9)^2=1/16`$. The same is true for the $`2b2\overline{b}`$ component. Here in addition there are threshold effects which play a role up to relatively high energy. Also the single-resolved component is relatively smaller which has no simple explanation.

The role of different mechanisms for charm and bottom production is also summarized numerically in Table 1, where we have collected corresponding cross sections for a few selected values of photon-photon energies.

### 3.6 $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X`$

Up to now no attempt was done to unfold experimentally the cross section for $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}X`$. Only cross section for the $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X`$ reaction was obtained recently by the L3 and OPAL collaborations at LEP2 . The measured, both positron and electron antitagged, cross sections can not be described as a sum of direct and single-resolved contributions, even if next-to-leading order corrections are included . The measured cross section exceeds the theoretical predictions by a large factor. This is a new situation in comparison to the charm production where the deficit is much smaller. We shall consider the case of bottom production in more detail below.

The cross section for the $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X`$ reaction when both positron and electron are antitagged can be easily estimated in the equivalent photon approximation (EPA) as

$`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X;W_{ee})={\displaystyle 𝑑x_A𝑑x_Bf_A(E_b,\theta _{max},x_A)f_B(E_b,\theta _{max},x_B)}`$
$`\sigma (\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}X;W),`$ (25)
where $`f_A`$ and $`f_B`$ are virtuality-integrated flux factors of photons in the positron and electron, respectively, and $`\theta _{max}`$ is the maximal angle of the positron/electron not to be identified by the experimental aparatus. In the present analysis we calculate the integrated flux factors $`f_A`$ and $`f_B`$ in a simple logarithmic approximation. The photon-photon energy can be calculated in terms of photon longitudinal momentum fractions $`x_A`$ and $`x_B`$ in positron and electron, respectively, as $`W=\sqrt{x_Ax_Bs_{ee}}`$. It is instructive to visualize how different regions of $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ contribute to $`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X;W_{ee})`$. For this purpose it is useful to transform variables from $`x_A,x_B`$ to $`x_Fx_Ax_B`$ and $`W_{\gamma \gamma }=W`$. Then

$`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X;W_{ee})={\displaystyle 𝑑x_F𝑑W𝒥f_A(E_b,\theta _{max},x_A)f_B(E_b,\theta _{max},x_B)}`$
$`\sigma (\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}X;W),`$ (26)
where the jacobian $`𝒥`$ is a simple function of kinematical variables.

Before we go to the $`b\overline{b}`$ production let us look at the corresponding $`c\overline{c}`$ production. In Fig.10 we compare the $`x_F`$-integrated cross section $`d\sigma /dW(e^+e^{}c\overline{c}X)`$ with recent experimental data of the L3 collaboration . Different mechanisms are shown separately. The agreement with the L3 collaboration experimental data here is even better than for the unfolded $`\gamma \gamma c\overline{c}`$ data shown in Fig.9. This is probably due to our simplified treatment of the photon flux factors. The good agreement of the sum of all contributions with the data gives credit to our model calculations.

The integrand $`I(x_F,W)`$ of (26) for $`b\overline{b}`$ is shown in Fig.11 for the direct production (left panel) and for the Saturation Model (right panel) including all contributions considered in the present analysis. Quite different pattern can be observed for both mechanisms. While for the direct production one is sensitive mainly to low-energy photon-photon collisions, in the Saturation Model the contributions of high-energies can not be neglected and one has to integrate over $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ essentially up to $`W_{ee}`$. This difference in $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ is due to different energy dependence of $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma b\overline{b};W_{\gamma \gamma })`$ for the different mechanisms considered as has been discussed above. But even in the latter case the integrated cross section is very sensitive to the region of not too high-energies $`W`$ 20 GeV, where the not fully understood threshold effects may play essential role.

For LEP2 averaged energy $`<W_{ee}>`$ 190 GeV the cross section integrated taking into account experimental cuts is $`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X)`$ = 6.1 pb (C = 1) or 7.4 pb (C = 1/2) for the dipole-dipole SM scattering process. If the limitations on transverse momenta are included in addition through the factor $`R_{c/a}`$ (see (16)), then the corresponding cross section is reduced to 3.2 pb (C = 1) or 3.9 pb (C = 1/2). 333For comparison in the two-gluon exchange approximation with $`\alpha _s`$ = 0.35 the corresponding cross section is 10.9 pb. Corresponding cross section for the direct production is $`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X)`$ = 1.2 pb. The hadronic single-resolved contribution calculated here in the Saturation Model as described in the present paper is very similar in size to that calculated in the standard collinear approach . As can be seen in Table 2 the $`2b2\overline{b}`$ contribution is practically negligible. We have completely omitted the double-resolved contribution which is practically negligible (see Table 1). The sum of the direct, $`b\overline{b}`$ SM, $`2b2\overline{b}`$ SM and the hadronic single resolved SM component is 9.3-10.6 pb in the case when no transverse momenta cuts on the main SM component are included and 6.4-7.1 pb with the cuts. These numbers should be compared to experimentally measured $`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X)`$ = 13.1 $`\pm `$ 2.0 (stat) $`\pm `$ 2.4 (syst) pb  (L3) and preliminary $`\sigma (e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X)`$ = 14.2 $`\pm `$ 2.5 (stat) $`\pm `$ 5.0 (syst) pb  (OPAL). In comparison to earlier calculations in the literature, the theoretical deficit is much smaller. The success of the present calculation relies on the inclusion of a few mechanisms neglected so far, in particular the dipole-dipole contribution which, in our opinion, is not contained in the standard collinear approach.

Up to now only $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$-integrated cross section has been determined experimentally. This, in fact, does not allow to identify experimentally whether the problem is in low or high $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$. In order to identify better the region where the standard collinear approach fails it would be useful to bin the experimental cross section in the intervals of $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ making use of a possibility to measure $`W_{vis}`$ which can be related to $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ via a suitable Monte Carlo program. At present, even splitting the cross section for $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X`$ into $`\sigma (W_{\gamma \gamma }<W_0)`$ and $`\sigma (W_{\gamma \gamma }>W_0)`$ for $`W_0`$ 20 GeV would be useful and should shed more light on the problem of the experimental excess of $`b\overline{b}`$ relative to the “standard” QCD approach.

### 3.7 Subasymptotic components to the dipole-dipole approach to $`\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}`$

The Saturation Model by construction includes only dominant asymptotic contributions relevant at very high energies. As discussed above the problem of heavy quark production (especially $`b\overline{b}`$) may be a bit more complicated. In the following we shall try to generalize the dipole-dipole approach to include dynamics which may be of relevance also close to threshold. As discussed above this can be the region of the deficit of theoretical predictions observed for the bottom production in photon-photon collisions.

In the following as an example we shall try to estimate the cross section for the process when the quark associated with one photon annihilates with the same-flavour antiquark associated with the second photon. Then the heavy quark-antiquark pair can be produced via exchange of s-channel gluon. In the dipole-dipole approach this effect can be estimated(!) in terms of the familiar quark-antiquark photon wave functions as follows

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{sub}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f_1,f_2}{}}\delta _{f_1f_2}{\displaystyle 𝑑z_1d^2\rho _1𝑑z_2d^2\rho _2|\mathrm{\Psi }^{f_1\overline{f}_1}(z_1,\rho _1)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }^{f_2\overline{f}_2}(z_2,\rho _2)|^2}`$ (27)
$``$ $`[\sigma _{q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}}(\widehat{s},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)+\sigma _{\overline{q}qQ\overline{Q}}(\widehat{s},\stackrel{}{\rho }_1,\stackrel{}{\rho }_2)].`$
The Kronecker $`\delta `$ reflects flavour conservation in QCD. In the following we shall include only light flavours (u,d,s) as “constituents” of both photons and use the same treatment (suppression) of large size physics as in all cases before. For the purpose of the estimate a sensible approximation is to neglect light quark/antiquark transverse momenta and write

$`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma Q\overline{Q}}^{sub}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle q_{f/\gamma _1}^{eff}(z_1)\overline{q}_{f/\gamma _2}^{eff}(z_2)\sigma _{q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}}(\widehat{s})𝑑z_1𝑑z_2}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}{\displaystyle \overline{q}_{f/\gamma _1}^{eff}(z_1)q_{f/\gamma _2}^{eff}(z_2)\sigma _{\overline{q}qQ\overline{Q}}(\widehat{s})𝑑z_1𝑑z_2},`$
where $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}}`$ or $`\sigma _{\overline{q}qQ\overline{Q}}`$ are calculated in the Born approximation with collinear incoming light quark and antiquark . The argument of $`\alpha _s(\mu _R^2)`$ is set to $`\mu _R^2=\widehat{s}`$ in practical calculations. In Eq.(28) we have introduced for brevity

$$q_f^{eff}(z)|\mathrm{\Psi }^{f\overline{f}}(z,\rho )|^2d^2\rho .$$
(29)
Because the perturbative photon wave function is singular at $`\rho `$ = 0, the expression above is formally divergent. However, there is a natural cut-off at small $`\rho `$’s: $`\rho _{min}1./\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ which makes the integral finite. This cut-off corresponds to the upper limit on transverse momenta in the momentum representation calculations.

In Fig.12 we show the cross section for the subasymptotic contribution considered for both $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ production. The maximum of the cross section is concentrated in the close neighbourood of corresponding kinematical thresholds at $`W`$ 10 GeV and $`W`$ 30 GeV for charm and bottom, respectively. This concentration of the strenght at threshold justifies the introduced name “subasymptotic” for the process considered. The main (asymptotic) component of SM is shown for comparison by the dashed line and the QPM contribution by the dotted line. The subasymptotic contribution considered shows similar energy dependence as the QPM component. 444In fact the contribution considered can be viewed as higher order correction to leading order QPM. At high energies it is rather small in comparison to the leading asymptotic component. Only, at threshold it constitutes a nonnegligible fraction of the heavy quark production cross section. When integrating $`\sigma _{\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}X}^{sub}`$ with virtual photon flux factors over $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ and $`x_F`$ we obtain $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X}^{sub}`$ 0.1 pb at $`W_{ee}`$ = 190 GeV. This is rather a conservative estimate because in the present calculations we have used leading order formulas for $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}}`$. This seems tiny in comparison to the contributions considered before (see Table 2). We could increase slightly the cross section by a different choice of the renormalization scale $`\mu _R^2`$ in calculating $`\sigma _{q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}}`$. We expect that in reality $`\sigma _{e^+e^{}b\overline{X}}^{sub}`$ should not exceed 0.5 pb.

### 3.8 Quark-antiquark correlations

So far mainly integrated cross section for heavy quark/antiquark production was considered in the literature. Only in a few cases inclusive distributions in transverse momentum or rapidity (see e.g.) were presented. No attempts were done so far to analyze the final state in more detail. In our opinion investigating correlations between heavy quark - heavy antiquark could be much more conclusive to identify the production mechanisms than the integrated cross section or even a single variable distribution.

In principle any correlation between two kinematical variables of the final quark and antiquark would be of interest. We suggest that the following final quark/antiquark momentum fractions:

$`x_Q={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_Q}{|\stackrel{}{p}_Q|}}\widehat{n}_{\gamma _1},`$
$`x_{\overline{Q}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{Q}}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{Q}}|}}\widehat{n}_{\gamma _1},`$ (30)
where

$$\widehat{n}_{\gamma _1}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{\gamma _1}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_{\gamma _1}|}$$
(31)
would be very useful to separate the different mechanisms (approches) analysed in the present paper. In the definition above $`\stackrel{}{p}_Q`$ and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\overline{Q}}`$ are momenta of heavy quark and antiquark, respectively, and $`\stackrel{}{p}_{\gamma _1}`$ is the momentum of the first photon, all in the photon-photon center of mass frame. By definition -1 $`<x_Q,x_{\overline{Q}}<`$ 1. Similar quantities are being used at present when analyzing e.g. jet production at HERA to separate out resolved and direct processes.

In Fig.13 we present a sketch of naive expectations. Although a precise map requires detailed calculations for each mechanism separately, which is beyond the scope of the present analysis, it is obvious that the separation of different mechanisms here should be much better then for any inclusive spectra. In the case of dipole-dipole approach (the elongated ellipses) this would require to go to the momentum representation. The mixed representation used in the present paper is useful only for integrated cross sections.

Experimentally, the suggested analysis would be difficult at LEP2 because of rather limited statistics. We hope that such an analysis will be possible at the photon-photon option at TESLA. At present, even localizing a few LEP2 coincidence $`c\overline{c}`$ events in the diagram $`x_c`$ versus $`x_{\overline{c}}`$ would be instructive.

## 4 Conclusions

There is no common consensus in the literature on detailed understanding of the dynamics of photon-nucleon and photon-photon collisions. In this article we have limited the discussion to the production of heavy quarks simultaneously in photon-nucleon and photon-photon collisions at high energies.

A special emphasis has been put on the application of the Saturation Model which turned out recently very succesfull in the description of experimental data for DIS at small Bjorken $`x`$. We have suggested how to generalize the model to applications with real photons. The sizeable mass of charm or bottom quarks sets natural low energy limit on naive application of the Saturation Model. Here a careful treatment of the kinematical threshold is required. In the mixed representation used to formulate the Saturation Model the effect can be included only approximately.

We have started the analysis from (real) photon-nucleon scattering, which is very close to the domain of the Saturation Model as formulated in . If the kinematical threshold corrections are included the SM gives numerically similar results as the standard collinear approach for both charm and bottom production. We have numerically estimated the vector dominance contribution to the heavy quark production.

The major part of the present analysis has been devoted to real photon - real photon collisions. For the first time in the literature we have estimated the cross section for the production of $`2c2\overline{c}`$ final state. Furthermore we have discussed how to include this component to the inclusive charm production as derived in the present experimental analyses. We have found that this component constitutes up to 10-15 % of the inclusive charm production at high energies and is negligible for the bottom production. We have shown how to generalize the Saturation Model to the case when one of the photons fluctuates into light vector mesons. It was found that this component yields a significant correction of about 30-40 % for inclusive charm production and 15-20 % for bottom production. We have shown that the double resolved component, when both photons fluctuate into light vector mesons, is nonnegligible only at very high energies, both for the charm and bottom production.

We have shown that the production of $`c\overline{c}`$ pairs (the same is true for $`b\overline{b}`$) is not completely of perturbative character and involves both short- and large-size contributions. The latter as nonperturbative are unavoidably subjected to some modeling. Present experimental statistics do not allow to extract cross section for the $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$ reaction and therefore it is not clear where the observed deficit reside. It is not excluded that the apparent deficit of bottom quarks may reside at photon-photon energies close to threshold. This is a region where the underlying physics was never carefully studied. We have made a crude estimate of the subasymptotic quark-antiquark annihilation component to $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$. Although very small at high $`W_{\gamma \gamma }`$ its contribution to the $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ reaction was found to be not completely negligible. Adding all contributions considered in the present analysis together removes a huge deficit observed in earlier works on $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}X`$.

The present analysis is based on the leading order impact factors. It would be desirable in the future to perform complete next-to-leading order calculation of heavy quark/antiquark production in the $`k_{}`$-factorization approach. We expect that calculating photon impact factors consistently up to next-to-leading order  may be crucial for heavy quark production.

Finally we have discussed a possibility to distniguish experimentally the different mechanisms discussed in the present paper by measuring heavy quark - antiquark correlations. This suggestion requires, however, further detailed studies of the Monte Carlo type, including experimental possibilities and limitations.

Acknowledments I am indebted to Jan Kwieciński and Leszek Motyka for the discussion of their recent work  and Akos Csilling and Valerii Andreev for the discussion of the recent OPAL and L3 collaboration experimental results.


text:
# Electric dipole moments of Hg, Xe, Rn, Ra, Pu, and TlF induced by the nuclear Schiff moment and limits on time-reversal violating interactions

## I Introduction

Recently, a stringent upper limit on the ground-state atomic electric dipole moment (EDM) of 199Hg was obtained ,

$$d(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=(1.06\pm 0.49\pm 0.40)\times 10^{28}e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(1)
(The respective errors are statistical and systematic.) This is the best experimental upper limit on an atomic EDM to date. Combined with calculations, this limit can be interpreted in terms of limits on fundamental parity- and time-invariance-violating ($`P,T`$-odd) parameters. These limits tightly constrain competing theories of $`CP`$ violation.

Hg has closed electronic subshells, $`J=0`$. The measurement (1) is therefore sensitive to $`P,T`$-violating mechanisms which originate from the nucleus. The $`P,T`$-odd nuclear moment that can induce a Hg EDM is the Schiff moment (the nuclear EDM is screened by atomic electrons  and the magnetic quadrupole moment does not contribute due to zero electron angular momentum). Note that there are other mechanisms by which the Hg EDM can be induced, such as the $`P,T`$-odd electron-nucleon interaction (see, e.g. ), and the electron EDM (it contributes due to the hyperfine interaction) .

A value for the EDM of Hg induced by the Schiff moment $`S`$ was estimated in , $`d(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=4\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$ . This value has been used for the interpretation of the measurements of the Hg EDM in terms of $`P,T`$-odd nuclear parameters. However, this value was obtained indirectly from an atomic calculation  of the EDM of Hg induced by the $`P,T`$-odd electron-nucleon tensor interaction.

In this work we have performed numerical calculations of the EDMs induced by $`S`$ in Hg and in other diamagnetic atoms of current experimental interest. Our result for Hg,

$$d(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=2.8\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{S}{e\mathrm{fm}^3}\right)e\mathrm{cm},$$
(2)
differs from the previous estimate (about $`40\%`$ smaller) and places a more conservative constraint on $`S`$, and hence the underlying $`P,T`$-odd mechanisms that induce it.

The other atoms we have studied in this work are 129Xe, 223Rn, 225Ra, and 239Pu, in their ground-states. There has been a recent measurement of the EDM induced in 129Xe ,

$$d(^{129}\mathrm{Xe})=(0.7\pm 3.3\pm 0.1)\times 10^{27}e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(3)
A calculation for the Xe EDM induced by $`S`$ has previously been performed at the Hartree-Fock level , $`d(^{129}\mathrm{Xe})=0.27\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$ . In this work we have found that with core polarization included this value becomes

$$d(^{129}\mathrm{Xe})=0.38\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{S}{e\mathrm{fm}^3}\right)e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(4)
This value is $`40\%`$ larger than the previous calculation and hence places a tighter constraint on the $`P,T`$-odd parameters extracted from the Xe measurement.

No experiments or direct calculations have been performed for the ground-state EDMs of Rn, Ra, and Pu. In these atoms there is a possibility for an enhanced Schiff moment due to static  or even soft  octupole deformation.

Measurements of EDMs of Rn isotopes are in preparation . Rn is a heavier analog of Xe. As well as the nuclear enhancement in Rn compared to Xe, there is an electronic enhancement arising from the increase of the electronic density near the nucleus with higher $`Z`$. An estimate of the Rn EDM was made in Ref.  by extrapolation of the EDM of Xe , taking into account the enhancement due to increase in $`Z`$.

Also, estimates for Ra  and Pu  have previously been carried out using the same extrapolation method as for Rn, although here the results were extrapolated from the estimate of the EDM of Hg .

In Section IV (Table VII) the values of previous calculations/estimates for the atomic EDMs induced by $`S`$ in Xe, Rn, Ra, Hg, and Pu and the results of this work are presented.

The experimental study of the $`P,T`$-odd effects induced by the nuclear Schiff moments is not restricted to atoms. In the paper  the $`P,T`$-odd spin-axis interaction in TlF molecule was measured. From this experiment a limit can be placed on the Schiff moment of the 205Tl nucleus. Recently the accuracy of the molecular calculations was significantly increased (see  and references therein) and here we want to use these new molecular calculations to obtain a more reliable limit on $`S({}_{}{}^{205}\mathrm{Tl})`$. This is dealt with in Section III D.

## II Method of calculation

The nuclear Schiff moment $`S`$ produces a $`P,T`$-odd electrostatic potential $`\phi `$. The interaction Hamiltonian

$$H_W=\underset{i}{}h_W^i=e\underset{i}{}\phi (𝐑_i)$$
(5)
mixes states of opposite parity and induces a static atomic EDM. In previous calculations the contact form for the electrostatic potential was used,

$$\phi (𝐑)=4\pi 𝐒\mathbf{}\delta (𝐑).$$
(6)
However, for relativistic electrons the matrix element of this potential diverges. Usually this problem is solved by a cutoff of the electron wave functions at the nuclear surface. In the work  it was found that there is a more convenient form for $`\phi `$ suitable for relativistic atomic calculations,

$$\phi (𝐑)=\frac{3𝐒𝐑}{B}\rho (R),$$
(7)
where $`B=\rho (R)R^4𝑑R`$, and $`\rho (R)`$ is the nuclear density. This expression arises because the Schiff moment produces a constant electric field, along the nuclear spin, inside the nucleus .

The atomic EDM induced in the many-body state $`N`$ by the $`P,T`$-odd interaction $`H_W`$ can be expressed as

$$d=2\underset{M}{}\frac{N|H_W|MM|D_z|N}{E_NE_M},$$
(8)
where the sum $`M`$ runs over a complete set of many-body states, $`E_N`$ and $`E_M`$ are atomic energies, and $`D_z`$ is the atomic electric dipole operator.

The atoms we have studied in this work are 129Xe, 223Rn, 225Ra, 199Hg, and 239Pu. Of course, the method of calculation of the electronic states depends on the electron configuration of the atom. The starting point for the calculations is to self-consistently solve the single-particle relativistic Hartree-Fock (HF) equation

$`h_0|i=ϵ_i|i`$ (9)
$`h_0=c𝜶𝐩+(\beta 1)c^2Z\alpha /r+V`$ (10)
for each electron $`|i`$ contributing to the potential $`V`$.

For the noble gases Xe and Rn the calculations are performed in the Hartree-Fock approximation in the $`V^N`$ potential. This corresponds to solving (9,10) for the $`N`$ electrons of the atom, that is, in a self-consistent potential $`V^N`$ formed from all $`N`$ electrons.

The atoms Ra and Hg can be treated as closed shell systems or as atoms with two electrons above closed shells. Correspondingly, we have performed two separate calculations for these atoms: one in the $`V^N`$ potential; and a more detailed calculation in the $`V^{N2}`$ potential (solving (9,10) for the $`N2`$ electrons in the atom) with correlations between the external electrons and between the external electrons and the core included. The interaction of the two external electrons is treated using the configuration interaction (CI) method and the correlations of the external electrons with the core accounted for by many-body perturbation theory (MBPT). This technique, the CI+MBPT method, was developed in the works .

Pu corresponds to an open shell atom, with electron configuration $`5f^67s^2`$. We have performed a simple calculation for this atom, in the $`V^N`$ approximation, but with the contribution of the open $`f`$-shell weighted according to its occupancy. (This simple calculation in the $`V^N`$ potential, with no correlations accounted for, is justified by comparison of the results of the calculations for Hg and Ra in the potentials $`V^N`$ and $`V^{N2}`$; see Section III B.)

As a test of our wave functions we have performed calculations of the ionization potentials and the scalar polarizabilities $`\alpha `$ of the ground-state for each atom. These can then be compared with the available experimental data. It is easy to calculate the polarizability

$$\alpha =2\underset{M}{}\frac{|N|D_z|M|^2}{E_NE_M},$$
(11)
by replacing the operator $`H_W`$ in (8) by the dipole operator $`D_z`$.

Below we outline the $`V^N`$ and $`V^{N2}`$ calculations.

### A $`V^N`$ approximation

In the $`V^N`$ calculation, we can write the atomic EDM induced by the Schiff moment as

$$d=2\underset{n}{}\delta n_W|d_z|n,$$
(12)
where the sum runs over the core states $`|n`$, $`d_z`$ is the single-particle dipole operator, and $`|\delta n_W`$ denotes the correction to the state $`|n`$ due to the $`P,T`$-odd Hamiltonian $`h_W`$. The correction $`|\delta n_W`$ can be expressed as

$$|\delta n_W=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\alpha |h_W|n}{ϵ_nϵ_\alpha }|\alpha ,$$
(13)
where $`|\alpha `$ corresponds to an excited state. It is found by solving the equation

$$(h_0ϵ_n)|\delta n_W=h_W|n.$$
(14)
(Of course, calculating the correction to $`|n`$ due to the electric dipole (E1) field and taking the matrix element of the weak Hamiltonian is equivalent.)

To include polarization of the core due to the fields $`h_W`$ and $`d_z`$, we need only include the polarization due to one field, e.g. by replacing $`h_W`$ in (14) by $`h_{\stackrel{~}{W}}=h_W+\delta V_W`$. (The correction $`\delta V_W`$ accounts for the change in the self-consistent potential $`V^N`$ due to the modification of the wave functions. For more on the time-dependent Hartree-Fock (TDHF) method, or random-phase approximation (RPA) with exchange, see, e.g., .) This is because all the states $`|n`$ belong to the core (that is, they are included in the Hartree-Fock potential), so $`_n\delta n_{\stackrel{~}{W}}|d_z|n=_n\delta n_W|d_z+\delta V_d|n`$.

The scalar polarizabilities are easily calculated by replacing the correction $`|\delta n_W`$ due to the $`P,T`$-odd field by the correction $`|\delta n_d`$ due the E1 field.

### B $`V^{N2}`$ approximation

Hg and Ra can be considered as atoms with two valence electrons above closed cores, $`[1s\mathrm{}5d^{10}]`$ and $`[1s\mathrm{}5d^{10}6s^26p^6]`$, respectively. The calculations performed in the $`V^{N2}`$ approximation correspond to the CI+MBPT method developed in the works . An effective Hamiltonian is constructed for the valence electrons which is formed using MBPT for the interaction of the valence electrons with the core. In this way the correlations between the valence electrons $`6s^2`$ (for Hg) and $`7s^2`$ (Ra) are treated using the CI method, while the valence-core correlations are treated using MBPT. (For more on this procedure, please refer to .)

Note that calculations in the CI+MBPT method can be performed in a different potential, even in $`V^N`$. The final accuracies for $`V^{N2}`$ and $`V^N`$ potentials are comparable; however, calculations in $`V^{N2}`$ for Hg and Ra are somewhat simpler — there are no subtraction diagrams, see, e.g., Ref. .

For Hg the CI states were formed from the one-electron basis sets $`1s12s`$, $`2p13p`$, $`3d14d`$, and $`4f15f`$. The core $`1s5d`$ and the states $`6s`$, $`6p`$, $`6d`$, $`5f`$ were HF ones, while the rest were virtual orbitals. The virtual orbitals were formed using the recurrent procedure, similar to that used in . Full CI was made for the two valence electrons. Two sets of virtual orbitals were constructed to test the saturation of the CI space. The results appeared to be very close, so we concluded that saturation was reached.

MBPT calculations generally require more basic functions for high energies and more partial waves, so the number of virtual orbitals was increased to construct the MBPT basis set: it included $`1s21s`$, $`2p22p`$, $`3d23d`$, $`4f21f`$, $`5g18g`$, and $`6h19h`$. For Ra the CI basis set was somewhat larger and included orbitals $`1s15s`$, $`2p16p`$, $`3d17d`$, and $`4f17f`$. The extended basis set for MBPT was similar to that used for Hg.

## III Results

### A Xenon and radon

The binding energies of the ground state of Xe and Rn performed in the HF approximation in the $`V^N`$ potential are presented in Table I. It is seen that the Hartree-Fock calculation serves as a good approximation for the noble gases, with the calculated and experimental ionization potentials in disagreement only at the level of $`1\%`$.

The ground-state scalar polarizabilities $`\alpha `$ are listed in Table II. Core polarization increases $`\alpha `$ only very slightly (about $`1\%`$) from the Hartree-Fock value. The value for Xe is in perfect agreement with the experimental value.

Our results for the electric dipole moments induced in Xe and Rn due to the nuclear Schiff moment are presented in Table III. The effect of core polarization increases the value of the EDMs in Xe and Rn by about $`30\%`$. Due to the increase in $`Z`$, the EDM induced in Rn is ten times larger that that induced in its lighter analog Xe.

A calculation for the Xe EDM has previously been performed at the HF level, with the result $`d(^{129}\mathrm{Xe})=0.27\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$ . Our HF result is in agreement with this value.

No direct atomic calculation has previously been performed for the atomic EDM of Rn, or for any of the remaining atoms in this work. The estimate for Rn, based on extrapolation of the HF result from Xe, is $`(^{223}\mathrm{Rn})=2.0\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$ . This value is not significantly different from our HF value.

### B Mercury and radium

The ionization potentials of Hg and Ra performed in the $`V^N`$ approximation are listed in Table I alongside the results for the noble gases. The deviation from experiment for Hg and Ra is $`14\%`$, indicating the importance of correlations.

The ground-state polarizabilities for Hg and Ra performed in the $`V^N`$ approximation are listed in Table II. We see here that core polarization increases $`\alpha `$, from the HF value, by about 10% for Hg. The effect of core polarization on Ra is more significant, with an increase of 45%. For both Hg and Ra, essentially the entire HF and TDHF results for $`\alpha `$ arise from the $`6s^2`$ and $`7s^2`$ contributions, respectively. We see that the result for Hg is strongly overestimated (about $`30\%`$ higher than the experimental value). This indicates that the $`V^N`$ calculations produce wave functions that are very poor at large distances from the nucleus for systems with two electrons above closed shells.

Our results for the EDMs induced in Hg and Ra due to the nuclear Schiff moment, in the $`V^N`$ approximation, are presented in Table III. The effects of core polarization in Hg and Ra are dramatic, with the EDM increased by a factor of $`2.5`$ and $`4.5`$, respectively. The dominating contributions to the EDMs of Hg and Ra come from $`6s^2`$ and $`7s^2`$, respectively. These contributions are larger than, and of opposite sign to, the contributions from the core. The instability of the results motivates us to study these atoms more carefully, taking into account valence-valence and valence-core correlations.

The $`V^{N2}`$ approximation is more appropriate for calculations of two-electron atoms. The results of the calculations for the binding energies of relevant states of Hg and Ra are presented in Table IV. The calculated value for the removal energy of both $`s`$-electrons for Hg and Ra deviates from experiment by about $``$10% at the CI level, and is then improved to +2% with MBPT included. This is a significant improvement compared to the $`V^N`$ result. The accuracy of the calculations of the energies of other states is not as good. These states are not directly relevant to our calculations of the EDMs, however we have presented them in the table as an indication of the accuracy of wave functions produced at various stages of the CI+MBPT method. At the CI stage of the calculations the energies of the $`ss`$ and $`sp`$ states are underestimated by $`1020\%`$. Note that for $`sd`$ states the energies are overestimated by about the same amount. With MBPT corrections included, the accuracy of the energies improves to $`29\%`$.

Results of the calculations of the ground-state scalar polarizabilities $`\alpha `$ of Hg and Ra in the $`V^{N2}`$ approximation are listed in Table V. We see that for Hg at the CI level of calculation $`\alpha `$ is strongly overestimated (by about $`60\%`$). However, both the MBPT and TDHF corrections reduce the value so that the final result is in excellent agreement with experiment (compare 32.99 a.u. with 34 a.u. ). We see that for Ra the MBPT and TDHF corrections bring about a cancellation of the CI value similar to what we see for Hg.

The results of the calculations of the EDM of Hg and Ra in the $`V^{N2}`$ approximation are presented in Table VI. We see here that for Hg the MBPT and TDHF corrections increase the CI approximation by a factor of two. The corrections for Ra are huge, the final value 3.6 times that of the CI value.

Even though these corrections are so large, it is certainly interesting that the result for $`d(\mathrm{Hg})`$ in the $`V^{N2}`$ approximation (with correlations) is in agreement ($`10\%`$) with the simple calculation in the $`V^N`$ approximation; compare the results of Hg and Ra in Table VI with those in Table III. This coincidence of the results is an argument in favour of the stability of the final values. Also it indicates that the simple $`V^N`$ approximation gives accurate results for EDM calculations of closed-shell atoms. From a consideration of the results, we take as our final value for the EDM in Hg induced by $`S`$,

$$d(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=2.8\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{S}{e\mathrm{fm}^3}\right)e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(15)
We take as our final value for the EDM induced in Ra

$$d(^{225}\mathrm{Ra})=8.5\times 10^{17}\left(\frac{S}{e\mathrm{fm}^3}\right)e\mathrm{cm}.$$
(16)
We can compare these new values for Hg and Ra with estimates calculated in Refs.  and , respectively. The value for Hg, $`d(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=4\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$, was obtained indirectly from an atomic calculation  of the Hg EDM induced by the $`P,T`$-odd electron-nucleon tensor interaction. The radium estimate, $`d(^{225}\mathrm{Ra})=7\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$, was found by extrapolation of the Hg EDM estimate, taking account of the enhancement due to higher atomic number $`Z`$.

### C Plutonium

We performed a simple calculation for Pu. We basically used the $`V^N`$ approximation. The unfilled $`f`$-shell was accounted for by weighting the corresponding angular coefficients according to the occupation number of the shell. In calculations of the atomic EDM, we can expect that Pu behaves in a similar way to Ra and Hg (there is a closed $`s`$-shell, $`7s^2`$, and an open $`f`$-shell). The $`f`$-shell does not contribute to the EDM at the HF level (the $`f`$-shell does not penetrate the nucleus due to the centrifugal barrier, and so does not contribute to the Schiff matrix element). However, it can contribute due to core polarization. Because the $`V^N`$ calculations for Ra and Hg turned out to be sufficient, we expect that the same is true for Pu.

Our result for the ionization potential of Pu (see Table I) deviates by -15% from experiment. The polarizability $`\alpha `$ is listed in Table II. As we saw for Hg and Ra, essentially the entire value is due to the $`7s^2`$ contribution. The results for the EDM of Pu are presented in Table III. These values are essentially due to the contribution of the $`7s`$-electrons, which are of opposite sign to the contributions of the core and $`f`$-electrons. With core polarization, the contribution of the $`f`$-electrons amounts only to 10% of the final value. The effect of core polarization increases the HF value 4 times. This is similar to what we see in Ra.

An estimate for the Pu EDM was performed in Ref.  by extrapolation from the estimate of the Hg EDM, $`d(^{239}\mathrm{Pu})=10\times 10^{17}S(e\mathrm{fm}^3)^1e\mathrm{cm}`$. Our calculation is in agreement with this estimate.

### D TlF molecule

All molecular calculations deal with the following matrix element:

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0|[\mathbf{}𝐧,\delta (𝐑)]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0,`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is the ground state wave function and $`𝐧`$ is the unit vector along the molecular axis. It is clear that this matrix element is related to the contact form of the Schiff moment potential given by Eq. (6):

$`4\pi \mathrm{\Psi }_0|𝐒[\mathbf{},\delta (𝐑)]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`6X𝐒𝐧.`$ (18)
It is not difficult to find the correction coefficient $`k_1`$ which accounts for the difference between the contact form of the Schiff moment interaction (6) and the more accurate expression (7).

The latest molecular calculation  accounted for the correlations between valence electrons, but neglected core-valence correlations. We saw above that the latter appears to be very important in atomic calculations. The most important core-valence correlations in molecules with one heavy atom are of the same nature as in atoms and can be accounted for by an atomic calculation for the heavy atom . The valence space in the calculation  included $`5s,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}p,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}d,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}s`$, and $`6p`$ electrons, leaving a rather small core $`[1s^2\mathrm{}4f^{14}]`$. For such a compact and rigid core the dominant correlation correction is from the RPA for the Schiff potential. We account for this correction by the coefficient $`k_2`$.

The final expression, which includes the two corrections discussed above, has the form:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|H_W|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`6k_1k_2X𝐒𝐧.`$ (19)
The dominant contribution to the molecular matrix element (19) comes from atomic matrix elements for Tl of the form

$`ns|H_W|mp_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ns_{1/2}|H_W|mp_{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ns_{1/2}|H_W|mp_{3/2}.`$ (20)
This allows us to approximate the correction coefficients: $`k_i\frac{1}{3}k_i(s_{1/2},p_{1/2})+\frac{2}{3}k_i(s_{1/2},p_{3/2})`$. Within this method we calculated the coefficients $`k_i`$ for the Tl atom and found:

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.89;k_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.10}.`$ (21)
We see that both corrections are relatively small and, therefore, our simple model calculation is justified. Note that the core here is much smaller than in our previous atomic calculations. Because of that the RPA correction here is only 10%. Other core-valence correlations tend to decrease more rapidly with the energy of the core orbitals, and therefore are less important here. Using the result $`X=7635`$ a.u. from  and Eqs. (19) and (21) we get as our final answer:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0|H_W|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`4.47\times 10^4(𝐒𝐧)\text{a.u.}.`$ (22)
## IV Conclusion

The most accurate measurement of the $`P,T`$-odd spin-axis interaction in the TlF molecule  combined with Eq. (22) gives the limit:

$$S(^{205}\mathrm{Tl})=(69\pm 111)\times 10^{12}e\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(23)
In Table VII we present our final results for the atomic EDMs induced by the Schiff moments $`S`$ alongside the values of previous calculations/estimates.

The limit on the Schiff moment of 129Xe (Eq. (3), Table VII) is

$$S(^{129}\mathrm{Xe})=(184\pm 868\pm 26)\times 10^{12}e\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(24)
Our result for Hg places new constraints on the fundamental $`P,T`$-violating parameters. Comparing (1) and (15) we obtain for the limit on the nuclear Schiff moment:

$$S(^{199}\mathrm{Hg})=(3.8\pm 1.8\pm 1.4)\times 10^{12}e\mathrm{fm}^3.$$
(25)
Comparison of the calculated and measured values of the ionization potentials and polarizabilities as well as a comparison of the calculations in two completely different approximations (in $`V^N`$ and $`V^{N2}`$) indicate that the error of the atomic calculations probably doesn’t exceed 20%.

In general, the Schiff moment can be induced from a number of $`P,T`$-violating mechanisms: due to a permanent EDM of an unpaired nucleon or due to the $`P,T`$-violating nucleon-nucleon interaction. Mercury has an unpaired neutron, and so in the shell model its Schiff moment can arise due to the EDM of the neutron. The contribution to the Schiff moment of Hg from a proton EDM can be estimated by comparing the experimental value of the magnetic moment of Hg with that estimated by the nuclear shell model (this allows us to estimate the contribution of proton configurations with unpaired spin); see Ref. . The dominant mechanism for the production of a Schiff moment is the $`P,T`$-odd nucleon-nucleon interaction $`\eta `$ . Due to this mechanism, the $`P,T`$-odd field of the unpaired neutron excites core protons which contribute to the Schiff moment . The magnitude of this interaction is characterized by the dimensionless constant $`\eta _{np}`$. In Table VIII we present the limits on these parameters extracted from Hg. These are compared in the table with the best limits from other experiments. Also presented are limits on $`P,T`$-violating parameters at the more fundamental level, the $`P,T`$-odd pion-nucleon coupling constant $`\overline{g}_{\pi NN}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$, the $`P,T`$-odd QCD phase $`\overline{\theta }`$, and the chromoelectric dipole moments (CEDMs) and EDMs of quarks. We see here that the limits extracted from the Hg measurement are stronger than those extracted from direct neutron EDM experiments.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A.N. Petrov and A.V. Titov for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council. MK is grateful to UNSW for hospitality and acknowledges support from RFBR, grant No 02-02-16387.