format: text

text:
# Abelian projection in 𝑆𝑈(𝑁) gauge theories

## 1 Introduction

There exists evidence from lattice simulations  that color confinement is produced by condensation of magnetic monopoles in the vacuum, i.e. dual superconductivity. Vacuum behaves as a dual superconductor in the confining phase, and goes to normal at the deconfining phase transition.

The evidence refers to $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ pure gauge theories. Preliminary data indicate that the same mechanism is at work in QCD with dynamical quarks , a fact which is in line with the ideas of $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ . As $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ with $`\lambda =g^2N_c`$ fixed the theory should preserve its structure: corrections $`𝒪(1/N_c)`$ are expected to be small and under control. If this is true the mechanism of confinement should be the same at all values of $`N_c`$ and also in full QCD, quark loops being non-leading in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion.

A direct check of these ideas can be done by exploring, by the same techniques used in Ref. , the symmetry of the confining vacuum in $`SU(N)`$ theories. The technique used there was to measure the vacuum expectation value $`\mu `$ of an operator $`\mu `$, which creates a monopole as a function of the temperature, across the deconfining phase transition. A non zero $`\mu `$ implies dual superconductivity. This is exactly what is found below the deconfining temperature $`T_c`$. Above $`T_c`$, $`\mu `$ vanishes, and sectors with different magnetic charge are superselected.

Monopoles are defined by a procedure called abelian projection , which we summarize in the case of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory.

Let $`\varphi =\stackrel{}{\varphi }\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2`$ be any field in the adjoint representation, and $`\widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{}{\varphi }/|\stackrel{}{\varphi }|`$ its direction in color space, which is defined everywhere in a configuration except at zeros of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$.

A gauge invariant, color singlet field strength tensor can be defined:

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{}{G}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{g}\widehat{\varphi }(D_\mu \widehat{\varphi }D_\nu \widehat{\varphi })$$
(1)
where

$$\stackrel{}{G}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{A}_\mu +g\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu $$

is the color field strength tensor, and

$$D_\mu \widehat{\varphi }=(_\mu g\stackrel{}{A}_\mu )\widehat{\varphi }$$

is the covariant derivative of $`\widehat{\varphi }`$. The two terms in Eq. (1) are separately color singlets and gauge invariant. The combination is chosen in such a way that bilinear terms in $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu \stackrel{}{A}_\nu `$, and $`\stackrel{}{A}_\mu _\nu \widehat{\varphi }`$ cancel. Indeed, by explicit computation:

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu (\widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{}{A}_\nu )_\nu (\widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{}{A}_\mu )\frac{1}{g}\widehat{\varphi }(_\mu \widehat{\varphi }_\nu \widehat{\varphi })$$
(2)
If we gauge transform to make $`\widehat{\varphi }=\mathrm{const}`$, e.g. $`\widehat{\varphi }=(0,0,1)`$ then the second term in Eq. (2) vanishes and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes abelian

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu ^3_\nu A_\mu ^3$$
(3)
This gauge transformation is known as abelian projection on $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, and is defined up to a residual $`U(1)`$, corresponding to rotations around $`\widehat{\varphi }`$.

Monopoles can be present in a noncompact formulation of the theory when $`^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ can be different from zero . A non zero magnetic current exists

$$j_\nu =^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^{}$$
(4)
which is identically conserved

$$^\nu j_\nu =0$$
(5)
The corresponding $`U(1)`$ symmetry can be either realized à la Wigner or Higgs broken. In the first case the Hilbert space is made of superselected sectors with definite magnetic charges. In the second case, under very general assumptions, the vacuum behaves as a dual superconductor.

The detection of dual superconductivity has been successfully performed for $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ gauge theories . In this paper we want to analyze the abelian projection and the construction of the disorder parameter $`\mu `$ for generic $`SU(N)`$.

## 2 Abelian projection in $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory

In analogy to the construction for $`SU(2)`$, for an arbitrary operator $`\varphi `$ in the adjoint representation

$$\varphi =\varphi ^aT^a$$

we can define a field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. Here $`T^a`$ $`(a=1\mathrm{}N^21)`$ are the generators of $`SU(N)`$ in the fundamental representation, with normalization

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left[T^aT^b\right]=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}$$

We write

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi G_{\mu \nu }\right\}\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi [D_\mu \varphi ,D_\nu \varphi ]\right\}$$
(6)
The normalization of $`\varphi `$ has been left indeterminate. A change in the normalization reflects in a change of the relative coefficients of the two terms in Eq. (6). The notation is the usual one

$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^aT^a`$
$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$
$`D_\mu \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \varphi ig[A_\mu ,\varphi ]`$
We want to investigate for what choice of $`\varphi `$, if any, bilinear terms in $`A_\mu A_\nu `$, $`A_\mu _\nu \varphi `$ cancel in Eq. (6). If this happens

$$F_{\mu \nu }=c\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi (_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\right\}\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\varphi [_\mu \varphi ,_\nu \varphi ]\right\}\right\}$$
(7)
and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes abelian in the gauge where $`\varphi `$ is diagonal,

$$F_{\mu \nu }=c\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\varphi A_\nu )_\nu (\varphi A_\mu )\right\}$$
(8)
The condition for the cancellation of bilinear terms $`A_\mu A_\nu `$ in Eq. (6), for any $`A_\mu A_\nu `$, reads

$$X_2(A_\mu ,\varphi )\mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi [A_\mu ,A_\nu ]\right)+\mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi [[A_\mu ,\varphi ],[A_\nu ,\varphi ]]\right)=0$$
(9)
If $`\varphi _0`$ is a solution of Eq. (9), then

$$\varphi =U(x)\varphi _0U^{}(x)$$
(10)
with arbitrary unitary matrix $`U(x)`$ is also a solution. Indeed

$$X_2(A_\mu (x),\varphi )=X_2(U^{}(x)A_\mu (x)U(x),\varphi _0)=0$$

since Eq. (9) holds for any choice of $`A_\mu `$. In particular one can choose $`\varphi _0`$ diagonal. The generic $`\varphi _0`$, diagonal and constant, obeying Eq. (9) is (see appendix A)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q=\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{q}{\stackrel{}{\frac{p}{N},\frac{p}{N},\mathrm{},\frac{p}{N}}},\stackrel{p}{\stackrel{}{\frac{q}{N},\frac{q}{N},\mathrm{},\frac{q}{N}}})$$
(11)
where $`p+q=N`$, and $`q=1\mathrm{}N1`$. If the solution is continuous, it must be constant, since it cannot jump from one of the solutions in Eq. (11) to another. So the generic solution to our initial problem, which we call $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is given by Eq. (10), where $`\varphi _0`$ can be any of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ of Eq. (11).

Let us now show that, if $`X_2=0`$, then the terms $`A_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ also vanish. Let us call $`X_1(A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ such terms, we have

$`X_1(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )\}+\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }[[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }]\}`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },[A_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]\}\mathrm{Tr}\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu )\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }[[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }]\}+\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },[A_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]\}`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\{_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }A_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu \}`$
Now

$$_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=_\mu (U\mathrm{\Phi }_0U^{})=[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu =(_\mu U)U^{}$$

and hence from Eq. (12)

$`X_1(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }[[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],[\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]+\mathrm{\Phi }[[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }],[A_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]]`$ (13)
$`[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]A_\nu [\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]A_\mu \}`$
which can also be written

$$X_1(A,\mathrm{\Phi })=X_2(A+\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })X_2(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Phi })X_2(A,\mathrm{\Phi })$$

Since Eq. (9) is valid for arbitrary $`A_\mu `$, one has:

$$X_1(A,\mathrm{\Phi })=0\mathrm{if}X_2(A,\mathrm{\Phi })=0$$

Then

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu )\right\}\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }]\right\}$$
(14)
In the abelian projected gauge, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$,

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu )\right\}$$
(15)
On the other hand, the ’t Hooft tensor for a pure gauge field $`\omega _\mu =i\left(_\mu U\right)U^{}`$ is zero

$$0=F_{\mu \nu }(\omega )=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }\omega _\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }\omega _\mu )\right\}\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi },_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }]\right\}$$
(16)
and finally, by use of Eq. (16), Eq. (14) can be rewritten

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }A_\mu )\right\}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }\omega _\nu )_\nu (\mathrm{\Phi }\omega _\mu )\right\}$$
(17)
showing that $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ obeys Bianchi identities.

In conclusion an “abelian” field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^q`$ can be defined for each of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^q`$ of Eq. (11), or any other field related to them by a gauge transformation. The normalization of the solution is fixed. The invariance group of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ is

$$SU(q)\times SU(Nq)\times U(1)$$
(18)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^q(x)`$ belongs to the coset of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^q(x)=U(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^qU^{}(x)$$
(19)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ defines a symmetric subspace , in the sense that the full algebra of $`SU(N)`$ is the sum of the subalgebra $`L_0`$ of the little group of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ plus the complement $`L^{}`$ to the full algebra, and

$$[L_0,L_0]L_0[L^{},L_0]L^{}[L^{},L^{}]L_0$$
(20)
The main property of symmetric spaces is that any element of the group $`U`$ can be uniquely split in the form

$$U=e^{iL^{}}e^{iL_0}$$
(21)
a property which will be used below.

Let us now discuss the abelian projection in the light of the above results. Following Ref. , let us consider a generic operator $`X`$, that transforms covariantly under gauge transformations. $`X`$ can be diagonalized by a gauge transformation:

$$X_D(x)=U_X(x)X(x)U_X^{}(x)$$
(22)
For each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ in Eq. (11), a field transforming in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ can be defined:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^q(x)=U_X^{}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^qU_X(x)$$
(23)
These fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^q`$ can now be used to define $`N1`$ gauge-invariant field strength tensors:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^q=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }^qG_{\mu \nu }\right\}\frac{i}{g}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }^q[_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^q,_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^q]\right\}$$
(24)
In the gauge where $`X`$ is diagonal, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^q(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ and, according to the above results, these tensors reduce to the abelian form:

$$F_{\mu \nu }^q=_\mu \mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^qA_\nu \right\}_\nu \mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^qA_\mu \right\}$$
(25)
The diagonal matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q`$ form a complete set of diagonal matrices, and hence

$$X_D(x)=\underset{q=1}{\overset{N1}{}}c_q(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^q$$
(26)
We denote by $`\alpha ^a`$ the diagonal matrices associated to the simple roots via:

$$\alpha ^a=\alpha _i^aH_i,$$

If the generators of the Cartan subalgebra $`H_i`$ are written in the standard basis:

$$(H_m)_{ij}=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\delta _{ik}\delta _{jk}m\delta _{i,m+1}\delta _{j,m+1}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(m+1)}}$$

or

$$H_m=\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{1,1,1\mathrm{}1}},m,0\mathrm{}0)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(m+1)}}$$

the matrices associated to the simple roots $`\alpha ^a`$ are:

$`\alpha ^1=\alpha _i^1H_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ (27)
$`\alpha ^2=\alpha _i^2H_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{diag}(0,1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\alpha ^a=\alpha _i^aH_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{diag}(0,0,\mathrm{},0,\stackrel{a,a+1}{\stackrel{}{1,1}},0,\mathrm{},0)`$
It is then trivial to check that

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^a\alpha ^b\right\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}$$
(28)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{X_D(x)\alpha ^a\right\}=\frac{1}{2}c_a(x)=X_D^aX_D^{a+1}$$

For each point $`x`$ such that $`c_a(x)=0`$, two eigenvalues of $`X`$ become degenerate:

$$X_D^a(x)X_D^{a+1}=0,$$

and the gauge transformation $`U_X`$, Eq. (22), becomes singular. Such a singularity behaves as a magnetic charge with respect to the $`U(1)`$ group of eq.(18) for $`q=a`$.

Let $`A_\mu ^D`$ be the diagonal part of the gauge field in the abelian projected gauge

$$A_\mu ^D=\mathrm{diag}(a_\mu ^1,\mathrm{},a_\mu ^N)$$
(29)
The diagonal matrix $`A_\mu ^D`$ can be expanded in the form:

$$A_\mu ^D=2\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu ^i\alpha ^i$$
(30)
The $`N1`$ abelian photons $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu ^i`$ coincide with the abelian fields defined via the abelian projection:

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^qA_\mu ^D\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu ^q`$ (31)
$`F_{\mu \nu }^q`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu \stackrel{~}{a}_\mu ^q_\mu \stackrel{~}{a}_\nu ^q`$
The singularities of the gauge transformation $`U_X`$ at $`c_a(x)=0`$ are magnetic charges with respect to the abelian field $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu ^a`$, a result that will be used to construct magnetically charged operators in the next Section.

## 3 Construction of the disorder parameter.

In the abelian projected representation, in which the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is diagonal, the generic link $`U_\mu (x)`$ can be cast in the form

$$U_\mu (x)=V_\mu ^{(i)}(x)D_\mu ^{(i)}(x)i=1\mathrm{}N1$$
(32)
where $`D^i=\mathrm{exp}(ic_\mu ^i\alpha ^i)`$, $`\alpha ^i`$ being the diagonal matrix corresponding to the simple root $`\alpha ^i`$.

Indeed since the algebra of the little group of $`\varphi ^a`$, $`L_0`$, defines a symmetric space, $`U_\mu `$ can be uniquely split as $`U_\mu =e^{iL^{}}e^{iL_0}`$, as in Eq. (21). $`\alpha ^i`$ is an element of $`L_0`$ and commutes with all the others, since $`\alpha ^i`$ is invariant under $`e^{iL_0}`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }^a\alpha ^b\right\}=\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ab}=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{e^{iL_0}\mathrm{\Phi }^ae^{iL_0}\alpha ^b\right\}=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }^ae^{iL_0}\alpha ^be^{iL_0}\right\}$$
(33)
$`\alpha ^i`$ is the generator of the subgroup $`U(1)`$ of Eq. (18). Therefore

$$U_\mu =e^{iL^{}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{L}_0}e^{ic_\mu ^i\alpha ^i}$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{~}{L}_0`$ is $`L_0`$ minus $`\alpha ^i`$. The plaquette $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(x)U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })U_\nu ^{}(x)`$ can then be rewritten as the product of matrices of the form in Eq. (32)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`V_\mu (x)D_\mu (x)V_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })D_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })D_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })V_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })D_\nu ^{}(x)V_\nu ^{}(x)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`V_\mu (x)\stackrel{~}{V}_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })\stackrel{~}{V}_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })\stackrel{~}{V}_\nu ^{}(x)D_\mu (x)D_\nu (x+\widehat{\mu })D_\mu ^{}(x+\widehat{\nu })D_\nu ^{}(x)`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\mu \nu }(x)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^0(x)`$
An abelian $`U(1)`$ plaquette is thus defined. However an alternative way of defining the abelian plaquette would be to operate the separation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ directly as done for the single links. It is easy to see that the two definitions differ by terms $`𝒪(a^2)`$. Indeed the second definition can be obtained by factorizing $`e^{iL_0}`$ from the product $`V^i\stackrel{~}{V}`$ in Eq. (35). The resulting $`L_0`$ would come from higher terms in the Baker Haussdorf formula, which are $`𝒪(a^2)`$ and higher.

The lattice abelian projection is therefore intrinsically undefined by terms of order $`𝒪(a^2)`$. A similar ambiguity comes out if the abelian field is defined by $`2\times 2`$ or $`2\times 1`$ Wilson loops, instead of the plaquette.

$`U(1)`$ monopoles are defined as in Ref. . The angle $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by the equation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^0=e^{i\theta _{\mu \nu }}$$
(36)
The magnetic current defined as

$`j_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu \theta _{\mu \nu }^{}`$
$`\theta _{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \sigma \tau }\theta _{\rho \tau }`$ (37)
$`j_\mu `$ identically vanishes by the Bianchi identity. However, if the angle $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is defined modulo $`2\pi `$:

$`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\mu \nu }+2\pi n_{\mu \nu },\pi \theta _{\mu \nu }\pi `$ (38)
then the magnetic current

$`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu \stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ (39)
can be different from zero and is conserved, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \stackrel{~}{j}_\mu =0`$. The term proportional to $`n_{\mu \nu }`$ counts the Dirac strings going through the plaquette, which are invisible.

A monopole at a fixed time exists in an elementary spatial cube such that one of the faces has $`n_{ij}=1`$, the others $`n_{ij}=0`$. The visible $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ has then a flux of $`2\pi `$, which is balanced by the outgoing invisible string.

The operator $`\mu `$ which adds a monopole at the site $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and time $`y^0`$ to a generic configuration, can be constructed as follows

$$\mu =\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta (\stackrel{~}{S}_{0i}(y_0)S_{0i}(y_0))\right\}$$
(40)
$`S_{0i}`$ are the terms of the action involving space-time $`(0,i)`$ loops, with a space link at $`y_0`$ and the others at $`ty_0`$. For example for the Wilson action

$$S_{0i}=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})$$

We will recall the construction for Wilson action: the generalization to actions containing loops other than the plaquette, e.g. improved actions, is straightforward.

In the favored abelian projection, according to Eq. (34)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{0i}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^0(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})$$
(41)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is obtained from $`S`$ by the following substitution in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})`$:

$$U_i(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})U_i(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})e^{i\alpha ^ab_i(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y})}=U_i^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})$$
(42)
where $`b_i^{}`$ is the transverse component of the vector potential generating at $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ a monopole sitting at $`\stackrel{}{y}`$, $`_ib_i^{}=0`$. Classical gauge ambiguities in $`b_i`$ are contained in the longitudinal part, and do not affect the definition Eq. (42).

The plaquette $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})`$ gets transformed to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})=U_i(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})e^{i\alpha ^ab_i^{}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y})}U_0(y_0,\stackrel{}{n}+\widehat{i})U_i^{}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})U_0^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n})$$
(43)
this can be viewed as a change of $`U_i^{}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})`$:

$$U_i^{}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})U_0^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n}+\widehat{i})e^{i\alpha ^ab_i^{}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y})}U_0(y_0,\stackrel{}{n}+\widehat{i})U_i^{}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})$$

or

$$U_i(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})U_i(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})U_0^{}(y_0,\stackrel{}{n}+\widehat{i})e^{i\alpha ^ab_i^{}(\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y})}U_0(y_0,\stackrel{}{n}+\widehat{i})$$
(44)
which is a multiplication of the link variable by an $`SU(N)`$ matrix and it can be reabsorbed in a change of variables. However $`U_i(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})`$ also appears in the plaquettes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})`$. Up to terms $`𝒪(a^2)`$, the net effect will be that in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}(y_0+1,\stackrel{}{n})`$,

$$\theta _{ij}^0\theta _{ij}^0+\mathrm{\Delta }_ib_j\mathrm{\Delta }_jb_i$$

i.e. that a monopole has been added at $`y_0+1`$, and that a change like the one in Eq. (43) is produced at time $`y_0+1`$.

By successive iteration of this procedure one eventually come at a time $`y_0^{}`$ where an anti-monopole of type $`a`$ is situated, and then the procedure stops.

At $`T=0`$ the correlator $`\overline{\mu }(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mu (\stackrel{}{x},0)`$ can be measured, and by cluster property

$$\overline{\mu }(\stackrel{}{x},t)\mu (\stackrel{}{x},0)\underset{t\mathrm{}}{}|\mu |^2+ce^{Mt}$$

whence $`|\mu |`$ can be extracted.

At $`T0`$ $`\mu `$ is measured directly, and $`C^{}`$ boundary conditions in time are needed .

By the appropriate choice of $`b_i^{}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$ in Eq. (35) a generic number of monopoles and anti-monopoles can be created at time $`y_0`$.

In numerical simulations it is convenient to measure

$$\rho =\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{log}\mu $$

which is much less noisy, and in terms of which

$$\mu =\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^\beta \rho (x)𝑑x\right)$$

The statement that $`\mu 0`$ for $`T<T_c`$ in the infinite volume limit corresponds to have $`\rho `$ volume independent and finite at large volumes. $`\mu =0`$, for $`T>T_c`$, is obtained if

$$\rho kL+k^{}(k>0)$$
(45)
as the spatial size of the lattice, $`L`$, diverges. A behavior like Eq. (45) is numerically easy to test, and means that $`\mu `$ is strictly zero in the thermodynamical limit. A direct measurement of $`\mu `$ would only produce a value which is zero within (large) errors.

## 4 Conclusions

We have analyzed how to investigate dual superconductivity of the vacuum in the confined phase of $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories for arbitrary $`N`$, by deriving in detail the abelian projection, its symmetry properties, and the construction of a disorder parameter. Numerical simulations are in progress. We plan to measure $`\mu `$, or better $`\rho `$, as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\beta /N^2`$ for different values of $`N`$. If the ideas about $`1/N`$ apply $`\rho N^2`$ should be a universal function of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, at sufficiently large $`N`$. Also the comparison of the different choices of $`\mu `$ and of different abelian projections is of interest, on the way to understand the nature of dual excitations of QCD.

This work is partially supported by MIUR, project “Teoria e Fenomenologia delle particelle elementari”, and by INTAS, Project 00-0110. B.L. is supported by the Marie Curie Fellowship No. HPMF-CT-2001-01131. LDD thanks the Physics Department in Oxford for hospitality during the final stage of this work.

## 5 Appendix

We want to show that the general diagonal, $`x`$ independent solution of Eq. (1) has the form of Eq. (9). Let us call $`H_i`$ $`(i=1\mathrm{}N1)`$ the independent generators belonging to the Cartan algebra of the group, $`E_\alpha `$ the generators belonging to the root $`\alpha `$.

The Lie algebra reads then

$`[H_i,H_j]=0`$ $`[H_i,E_\alpha ]=\alpha _iE_\alpha `$ (46)
$`[E_\alpha ,E_\beta ]=N_{\alpha ,\beta }E_{\alpha +\beta }`$ $`[E_\alpha ,E_\alpha ]=\alpha _iH_i`$
In the fundamental representation

$`\mathrm{Tr}\{H_iH_j\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ij}`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{E_\alpha ^{}E_\alpha \}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$
$`E_\alpha ^{}=E_\alpha `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{H_iE_\alpha \}=0`$
In general for a diagonal $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=c_iH_i$$
(47)
$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^iH_i+A_\mu ^\alpha E_\alpha $$
(48)
We want to to solve Eq. (9)

$$X_2(A_\mu ,\varphi )\mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi [A_\mu ,A_\nu ]\right)+\mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi [[A_\mu ,\varphi ],[A_\nu ,\varphi ]]\right)=0$$
(49)
Using the multiplication law of the algebra, Eq. (46), and Eq. (48)

$$[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]=A_\mu ^\alpha A_\nu ^\beta [E_\alpha ,E_\beta ]+A_\mu ^iA_\nu ^\beta \alpha _iE_\alpha A_\mu ^\alpha A_\nu ^i\alpha _iE_\alpha $$
(50)
The only contribution to $`X_2`$ comes from the first term of Eq. (49) and gives

$$\frac{1}{2}c_i\alpha _iA_\mu ^\alpha A_\nu ^\alpha $$

As for the second term of Eq. (42), since

$$[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},A_\mu ]=c_iA_\mu ^\alpha [H_i,E_\alpha ]=c_i\alpha _iA_\mu ^\alpha E_\alpha $$

one has:

$$[[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},A_\mu ],[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},A_\nu ]]=A_\mu ^\alpha A_\nu ^\beta c_i\alpha _ic_j\beta _j[E_\alpha ,E_\beta ]$$

and the second contribution to $`X_2`$ is

$$\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^\alpha A_\nu ^\alpha (c_i\alpha _i)^3$$

In summary $`X_2=0`$ is equivalent to

$$c_i\alpha _i=(c_i\alpha _i)^3\alpha $$
(51)
By gauge transformations we can order the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in decreasing order

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{diag}(\phi _1\mathrm{}\phi _n)\phi _1\phi _2\mathrm{}\phi _n$$
(52)
It is easy to find $`N1`$ independent solutions of Eq. (51), $`\mathrm{\Phi }^q=2\mu ^q`$ where $`\mu ^q`$ are the fundamental weights

$$\mu ^q=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{q}{\stackrel{}{\frac{p}{N},\frac{p}{N},\mathrm{},\frac{p}{N}}},\stackrel{p}{\stackrel{}{\frac{q}{N},\frac{q}{N},\mathrm{},\frac{q}{N}}})$$
(53)
with $`q=1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$.

Indeed for the simple roots

$$2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left\{\mu ^a\alpha ^b\right\}=\delta ^{ab}$$

A generic positive root $`\alpha `$ is the sum of simple roots, so that

$`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left\{\mu ^a\alpha \right\}=1`$ if $`\alpha `$ contains $`\alpha ^a`$
$`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left\{\mu ^a\alpha \right\}=0`$ if $`\alpha `$ does not contains $`\alpha ^a`$
The sign changes for negative roots. The $`\mu `$’s form a complete set for diagonal operators. The general solution will be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=2\underset{A}{}c^A\mu ^A$$

$$2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\alpha ^A)=c^A=0,\pm 1$$

it is easy to see from Eq. (53) that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{N}}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Since the eigenvalues are ordered all the coefficients $`c^A`$ must be non negative. if two $`c`$’s were different from zero, $`c^i`$, $`c^j`$, then for the root $`\alpha =\alpha ^i+\alpha ^{i+1}+\mathrm{}\alpha ^j`$ we would have for the scalar product

$$2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }\alpha \right\}=2$$

which is impossible. Therefore only one $`c`$ can be different from zero and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ provides the generic solution of Eq. (9).


text:
# Evolution of the Correlation Function for a Class of Processes Involving Non Local Self - Replication

## 1 Introduction

Observations show that the two point correlation function of the galaxies is an approximate power law over a range of scales. This result, known for decades now, defies a simple “first-principle” explanation because of the complexity of the physical processes involved. In the conventional big-bang cosmology the dominant contribution to the energy density of the universe is in the form of nonbaryonic dark matter and the visible galaxies (made of baryons) form due to complex processes of cooling and fragmentation within the dark matter halos. It is possible to model non linear gravitational clustering of dark matter halos by a scaling ansatz (see eg. Padmanabhan (1996)) and show that a power law correlation is expected (in a spatial and temporal interval) for scale invariant initial conditions. This result arises from the fact that Newtonian gravitational dynamics in a $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ universe does not have any preferred scale which is of interest to cosmology. But to translate this result to baryonic structures is not easy and at present the only explanation for the power law correlation of galaxies arises from numerical simulations.

There are, however, alternate (and less popular) models for galaxy formation in quasi-steady state cosmology (QSSC) in which the process is addressed without invoking gravitational instability explicitly (Nayeri et. al., 1999). It has been claimed, based on numerical simulations, that these models also lead to power law correlation function for galaxy distribution. This result is of intrinsic interest even to conventional cosmologists — who may not accept the alternate model — because it provides a scenario to probe the relationship between (i) the conventional scenario of galaxy formation via gravitational instability (accepted by most of the working cosmologists) and (ii) the power law correlation function for the galaxies. If a completely different model can lead to power law correlation function, then it is clear that observations of galaxy correlation function, by itself, cannot be used as a discriminator between the theories.

Since the “rule” used for creating galaxies in QSSC is simple and explicit, it is indeed possible to study this process completely analytically. We provide such an analysis in this paper and show that the model is intrinsically unstable. However, the galaxies produced by this rule will exhibit a power law correlation function for a range of intermediate time scales.

The rest of the paper is arranged as follows. In the next section, we provide an analytic description of the model for galaxy formation in the QSSC, which was used in (Nayeri et. al., 1999). This is done in terms of discrete time steps to parallel the previous work. In section 3 we discuss the continuum limit of this model that lends itself to a completely tractable analysis. In section 4 we describe a very general class of processes which obey the same equations as described here and a broader class of applications. The last section gives the conclusions.

## 2 A model for structure formation - discrete version

A non standard model for galaxy formation in QSSC is built along the following lines: Consider a set of points in the 3-dimensional space which represents the location of galaxies at a given instant of time. We now generate a set of new galaxies near each one of the galaxies (“non-local self-replication”) by a physical process which should quite minimally involve some extra negative energy field. The key ingredient of the nonstandard cosmological models is the existence of some “creation field” so that galaxies could generate new galaxies nearby (see Nayeri et. al. (1999)). Let the probability for any given new galaxy to be located at a distance $`𝐥`$ from an old galaxy be $`W(𝐥)d^3𝐥`$. This process will increase the number of galaxies as the universe evolves. In QSSC, a balance between creation and quasi-steady state structure is maintained by rescaling the size of the universe in each cycle. Mathematically, this is taken into account by rescaling each of the 3 dimensions by a factor $`\overline{\mu }>1`$ thereby increasing the volume of available space. (If we create one new galaxy near an old one with a probability $`W(𝐥)`$, then we will be doubling the number of galaxies during the self replication. The rescaling should be such that the volume doubles giving $`\overline{\mu }^3=2`$. For future convenience, we shall keep $`\overline{\mu }`$ as an arbitrary constant.) We now select a subset of galaxies in the central region such that the total number of galaxies remain the same. This step renormalizes the process back to the original situation so that the process can now be repeated with the new subset of galaxies. In the specific case of number of galaxies doubling per cycle, we should take the central region containing half the volume. It is obvious that such a process of galaxy formation will lead to correlations between the galaxies since new galaxies are created close to the old ones with a probability $`W(𝐥)`$. The key question is how the correlation function scales with the distance scale. We will now provide a mathematical analysis of this problem.

The evolutionary rule described above can be stated mathematically in the form:

$`Q(n+1,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\lambda )\overline{\mu }^3}}[Q(n,𝐱/\overline{\mu })`$ (1)
$`+\lambda {\displaystyle }Q(n,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱}{\overline{\mu }}}𝐥)W(𝐥)d𝐥]`$
where $`\lambda ,\overline{\mu }`$ are constants with $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\overline{\mu }>1`$; $`W(𝐥)`$ is a probability function normalized to unity for integration over all $`𝐥`$. We shall also assume that $`Q`$ is normalized in such a way that its integral over all $`𝐱`$ is unity. This gives us the conditions

$$𝑑𝐱Q=1=𝑑𝐥W(𝐥).$$
(2)
It is obvious that equation (1) preserves these conditions under evolution because of the explicit normalization chosen on the right hand side. In the context of the quasi steady state cosmological model, $`Q`$ will be the ratio between the number density of galaxies and the mean density. The normalization in (2) preserves the quasi steady state condition between different cycles under the simultaneous action of matter creation and expansion.

While equation (1) was motivated from a particular model for galaxy formation, the rest of the analysis only uses this equation and is independent of the assumptions which go into it. In section 4 we will comment on a wider class of phenomena which could be modeled by such an equation.

Let us now consider the solutions to equation (1). Linearity in $`Q`$ suggests switching to the Fourier space variables $`f(n,𝐤)`$ with

$$f(n,𝐤)=𝑑𝐱Q(n,𝐱)e^{i𝐤.𝐱};f(n,0)=1.$$
(3)
Equation (1) now reduces to a simple form

$$f(n+1,𝐤)=\frac{f(n,\overline{\mu }𝐤)}{(1+\lambda )}\left[1+\lambda W(𝐤)\right]$$
(4)
where we have denoted by the same symbol $`W(𝐤)`$ the Fourier transform of the probability function. Given the form of this probability function, this equation iteratively determines the evolution of $`f`$.

While the equation is fairly simple in structure, it is not easy to find its general solution. Note that the conservation condition (2) — which demands $`f(n,0)=1`$ for all $`n`$ — is satisfied in this case because $`W(𝐤=0)=1`$ for a normalized probability distribution. This also shows that solutions of the form $`f(n,𝐤)=A(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha n)`$, with some constant $`\alpha `$, are unacceptable for $`\alpha 0`$ because they will violate the normalization condition. Further, since we have the freedom to choose the initial condition $`f(0,𝐤)=f_{\mathrm{in}}(𝐤)`$, any general solution to equation (4) must contain one arbitrary function; it is difficult to obtain such a general solution.

A special class of solutions to equation (4) will correspond to a steady state such that $`f(n+1,𝐤)=f(n,𝐤)=f_\mathrm{s}(𝐤)`$. This function satisfies the equation

$$f_s(𝐤)=f_s(𝐤\overline{\mu })\left[\frac{1+\lambda W(𝐤)}{1+\lambda }\right].$$
(5)
Two trivial solutions to this equation correspond to $`f_s(𝐤)=(0,\mathrm{})`$ and, in fact, we shall see later that the most generic initial conditions will drive the system to either of these two limits by our process. The only nontrivial solution which exists can be found by the iteration in the form

$`f_s(𝐤\overline{\mu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_s(𝐤)(1+\lambda )}{1+\lambda W(𝐤)}}={\displaystyle \frac{f_s(\frac{𝐤}{\overline{\mu }})(1+\lambda )^2}{\left[1+\lambda W(𝐤)\right]\left[1+\lambda W(\frac{𝐤}{\overline{\mu }})\right]}}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`f_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐤}{\overline{\mu }^N}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda )}{1+\lambda W(𝐤/\overline{\mu }^n)}}.`$
Taking the logarithms, followed by the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, and using $`f_s(0)=1`$ we get the result

$$\mathrm{ln}f_s(𝐤\overline{\mu })=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{(1+\lambda )}{1+\lambda W(𝐤/\overline{\mu }^n)}\right].$$
(7)
To study the properties of the solution we note that $`W(k/\overline{\mu }^n)1`$ for all $`n>\mathrm{log}_{\overline{\mu }}(kL)`$. This is true for a wide class of probability distributions with some characteristic scale $`L`$, and $`W(k)`$ usually decreases for $`kL1`$. We will also assume that $`W(k)`$ depends only on the magnitude of $`𝐤`$ because of the statistical isotropy of the process (though our results are easily generalizable to other cases). It follows that each of the denominators in (7) is close to unity for all $`n>\mathrm{log}_{\overline{\mu }}(kL)`$ making all the terms negligibly small for $`n>\mathrm{log}_{\overline{\mu }}(kL)`$. So we need to sum the series in (7) only up to $`n=n_c[\mathrm{log}_{\overline{\mu }}(kL)]`$ with the integer value, lower than the bound, taken for $`n_c`$. The result of the sum depends on the form of $`W`$ at large $`k`$. The simplest case corresponds to assuming the $`W`$ vanishes for $`kL1`$ which is exact if we take

$$W(𝐤)=\theta (1kL)$$
(8)
where $`\theta (z)=1`$ for $`z>0`$ and zero otherwise. Then the asymptotic solution is given by

$$f_s(\mu k)=(1+\lambda )^{(n_c+1)}=(kL)^\gamma ;\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda )}{\mathrm{ln}\overline{\mu }}$$
(9)
(The equivalence of the two forms follows from simple algebra and definition of $`n_c`$.) This is a power law solution with the index determined essentially by the two parameters of the problem.

Before proceeding further, let us consider the effect of the normalization condition (2) more closely. This is of some interest because one might feel that such a normalization is unnecessarily restrictive and a wider class of phenomena can be modeled by relaxing this condition. It turns out, however, that our qualitative considerations are not affected by this constraint. Relaxing this normalisation can be done most conveniently by replacing the factor $`(1+\lambda )`$ in the denominator of the right hand side of (1) by $`(1+\lambda _1)`$ where $`\lambda _1`$ is a constant different from $`\lambda `$. This will change equation (4) to the form:

$$f(n+1,𝐤)=\frac{f(n,\overline{\mu }𝐤)}{(1+\lambda _1)}\left[1+\lambda W(𝐤)\right].$$
(10)
Setting $`𝐤=0`$ and using $`W(0)=1`$, we get

$$f(n+1,0)=f(n,0)\left(\frac{1+\lambda }{1+\lambda _1}\right)=f(1,0)\left(\frac{1+\lambda }{1+\lambda _1}\right)^n.$$
(11)
Since the integral over all space of $`Q(n,𝐱)`$ is just $`f(n,0)`$ we find that

$$𝑑𝐱Q(n+1,𝐱)=\left(\frac{1+\lambda }{1+\lambda _1}\right)^n𝑑𝐱Q(1,𝐱).$$
(12)
This shows how the total number of galaxies changes with time if $`\lambda \lambda _1`$. For example, a cosmological model in which the mean densities of galaxies decreases with time can be modeled with $`\lambda _1>\lambda `$ and interpreting $`Q`$ as the number density of galaxies. In this case, equation (10) admits solutions of the form $`f(n,𝐤)=A(𝐤)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha n)`$ with

$$A(𝐤)=A(\overline{\mu }𝐤)\left(\frac{1+\lambda W(𝐤)}{1+\lambda _1}\right)e^\alpha .$$
(13)
This equation has the same form as (5) with the factor $`(1+\lambda )`$ replaced by $`(1+\lambda _1)e^\alpha `$ so that the solution is

$$A(𝐤\overline{\mu })=A\left(\frac{𝐤}{\overline{\mu }^N}\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(1+\lambda _1)e^\alpha }{1+\lambda W(𝐤/\overline{\mu }^n)}.$$
(14)
Taking the logarithms, followed by the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, we get the result

$$\mathrm{ln}A(𝐤\overline{\mu })=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{(1+\lambda _1)e^\alpha }{1+\lambda W(𝐤/\overline{\mu }^n)}\right]+\mathrm{ln}A(0).$$
(15)
The convergence of the product in the right hand side (14) is now more tricky. If $`W(𝐤/\overline{\mu }^n)`$ becomes close to unity for sufficiently large $`n`$, then we will pick up a factor $`p=(1+\lambda _1)(1+\lambda )^1e^\alpha `$ in each of the terms. Unless this factor is unity, the product in (14) will either diverge or vanish. Thus we get the condition $`p=1`$ for convergence thereby making equation (14) identical to (5). Thus, when the normalization condition in (2) is relaxed, we again get the same $`k`$dependence as in (9) with an extra time ($`n`$) dependence of the form

$$\mathrm{exp}(\alpha n)=\left(\frac{1+\lambda }{1+\lambda _1}\right)^n$$
(16)
which takes into account the condition (12). This clearly shows that nothing changes qualitatively as far as the spatial dependence is concerned by relaxing (2).

We thus have three possible steady state solutions $`f_s=[0,\mathrm{},(kL)^\gamma ]`$ none of which incorporates arbitrary initial conditions. Obviously if the system is started at any of these solutions, it will stay in it without any evolution. The question arises as to whether any of them acts as a fixed point for the system evolving from a nontrivial initial condition or even random Poisson initial conditions for which $`|f_{in}(k)|^2=1`$. While this question is difficult to analyze in the discrete model, it can be answered using a much more detailed description of the system in the continuum limit.

## 3 A model for structure formation - continuum limit

In the continuum limit we need to study the system at two infinitesimally separated moments in time $`t`$ and $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and obtain a partial differential equation for the evolution of $`Q(t,x)`$ or — equivalently — for $`f(t,k)`$. We will also need to change the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ to $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`(1+\mu \mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ respectively for consistency; this has the effect of making the rate of creation and rate of stretching finite, as it should. Equation (5) now becomes

$$f(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t,𝐤)=\frac{f(t,𝐤(1+\mu \mathrm{\Delta }t))}{1+\lambda }\left[1+\lambda W(k)\right].$$
(17)
We have assumed that $`W`$ depends only on $`|𝐤|`$ making $`f`$ also depend only on $`|𝐤|`$. Expanding the equation retaining up to linear terms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and using the result

$$k^\alpha \frac{f(k)}{k^\alpha }=k\frac{f}{k}$$
(18)
we get the final partial differential equation satisfied by $`f`$ to be

$$\frac{f}{t}\mu k\frac{f}{k}=\lambda f(1W).$$
(19)
The general solution to this equation is straightforward to obtain; we find that

$$\mathrm{ln}f(t,k)=G(ke^{\mu t})+\frac{\lambda }{\mu }_0^k\frac{dq}{q}\left[1W(q)\right]$$
(20)
where $`G`$ is an arbitrary function of its argument with the condition $`G(0)=0`$. \[This condition incorporates our normalization condition (2). This condition can be relaxed in exactly the same manner as in the discrete case; however, as we shall see later, our conclusions do not change.\] This function - in turn - can be expressed in terms of the initial condition for the problem $`f(t=0,k)f_{in}(k)`$, which is assumed to be known. Doing this we can write the solution in the form

$$f(t,k)=f_{\mathrm{in}}(ke^{\mu t})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\lambda }{\mu }_k^{ke^{\mu t}}\frac{dq}{q}\left[1W(q)\right]\right].$$
(21)
We shall now study the properties of the solution.

Let us first consider the simple case in which $`W`$ is given by equation (8). In this case the solution is found to be

$$f(t,k)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_{in}(ke^{\mu t})\hfill & \text{(}kL^1e^{\mu t})\hfill \\ f_{in}(ke^{\mu t})e^{\lambda t}(kL)^{\lambda /\mu }\hfill & \text{(}L^1e^{\mu t}kL^1)\hfill \\ f_{in}(ke^{\mu t})e^{\lambda t}\hfill & \text{(}L^1k)\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
At any finite $`t`$, there is a range of $`k`$ values for which the power spectrum (which is proportional to $`|f|^2`$) is a power law with the index $`(2\lambda /\mu )`$). But note that as $`t\mathrm{}`$ the solution decays exponentially at all scales for a wide class of initial conditions (including Poisson distribution with $`f_{in}=1`$). More generally, if $`f_{in}(k)k^\beta `$, then the solution in the three ranges go as

$$f(t,k)\{\begin{array}{cc}k^\beta \mathrm{exp}(\beta \mu t)\hfill & \\ k^{(\beta \frac{\lambda }{\mu })}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mu (\beta \frac{\lambda }{\mu })t\right]\hfill & \\ k^\beta \mathrm{exp}\left[\mu (\beta \frac{\lambda }{\mu })t\right].\hfill & \end{array}$$
(23)
For generic values of the parameters $`(\beta ,\lambda ,\mu )`$ all the solutions tend to either zero or infinity at late times. The only exception is if we choose the initial spectrum with $`\beta =(\lambda /\mu )`$. Then, for $`kL<1`$, we get a pure power law $`k^{(\lambda /\mu )}`$. This is precisely the solution we found in the discrete case \[see equation (9)\], since in the continuum limit, we can set

$$\gamma \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda )}{\mathrm{ln}\overline{\mu }}|_{\mathrm{discrete}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }t)}{\mathrm{ln}(1+\mu \mathrm{\Delta }t)}=\frac{\lambda }{\mu }.$$
(24)
It must be emphasised that only a very special choice can lead to a nontrivial steady state solution. Even with this special choice we get a solution which has no time dependence at all. It is, however, possible to have a power law solution that is valid for a large range of $`k`$ at any finite $`t`$ but with amplitude decreasing exponentially.

Equation (21) can be explicitly integrated for several cases of $`W`$. A particularly simple case is the one with

$$W(𝐥)\mathrm{exp}(l/L);W(𝐤)=\frac{1}{1+k^2L^2}.$$
(25)
In this case the solution is given by

$$f(t,k)=f_{\mathrm{in}}(ke^{\mu t})\left[\frac{1+k^2L^2}{1+k^2L^2e^{2\mu t}}\right]^{\frac{\lambda }{2\mu }}.$$
(26)
As $`\mu t\mathrm{}`$, the solution goes to

$$f(t\mathrm{},k)f_{in}(\mathrm{})\left(1+k^2L^2\right)^{\lambda /2\mu }(kL)^{\lambda /\mu }e^{\lambda t}$$
(27)
which is again in conformity with the results obtained above, thereby showing that they were not an artifact of the sharp cutoff assumed in equation (8).

Finally, we briefly mention the results in the continuum limit when the normalisation condition (2) is relaxed. In this case, the factor $`(1+\lambda )`$ in the denominator on the right hand side of equation (17) will be replaced by a new constant $`(1+\lambda _1)`$. This changes equation (19) and the solution (21) to

$$\frac{f}{t}\mu k\frac{f}{k}=\lambda f\left(\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda }W\right),$$
(28)
$$f(t,k)=f_{\mathrm{in}}(ke^{\mu t})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\lambda }{\mu }_k^{ke^{\mu t}}\frac{dq}{q}\left[\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda }W(q)\right]\right].$$
(29)
Writing the factor inside the integral as

$$\left(\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda }W\right)=(1W)+\frac{(\lambda _1\lambda )}{\lambda },$$
(30)
it is trivial to see that the solution in this case is the same as the solution with $`\lambda _1=\lambda `$ multiplied by the factor $`\mathrm{exp}[(\lambda _1\lambda )t]`$. That is,

$$f(t,k)|_{\lambda _1\lambda }=f(t,k)|_{\lambda _1=\lambda }\mathrm{exp}[(\lambda _1\lambda )t].$$
(31)
This is exactly what one would expect based on our results in the discrete limit in which we found that the solution gets multiplied by a factor in (16). In the continuum limit, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda `$ gets replaced by $`\lambda _1\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`n`$ becomes $`t/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ the extra factor in (16) becomes

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }t}{1+\lambda _1\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\right)^{\frac{t}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }t}{1+\lambda _1\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\right)\right]`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[(\lambda _1\lambda )t]`$
which is precisely the extra factor in (31). Thus, even in the continuum limit, our qualitative conclusions do not change when the condition (2) is relaxed.

## 4 A generic class of physical processes with non-local self-replication

While the discussion above was modeled and motivated by galaxy formation in QSSC, the process described here has a much broader range of applicability. The fact that our results were obtained for a model that does not involve gravity explicitly (for example, neither Newtonian gravitational constant nor the fact that gravitational force varies as a power law is used in the “rule” mentioned above), suggests that results of the above kind could be quite general.

In fact, there exists several natural phenomena that are described by power law correlations (see eg. Mandelbrot (1983)). More often than not, such a correlation function seem to arise in a manner that does not depend critically on the details of the underlying dynamical model. It would be interesting to see whether one can provide a mathematical model with a minimal set of assumptions which can reproduce the power law correlation. One such minimal set of assumptions can be extracted from the above analysis and we can show that models based on these assumptions will have a generic behaviour.

Consider a dynamical process in which some physical quantity $`Q(t,𝐱)`$ evolves in time in a manner which depends on its value non locally. Such an evolution can be treated in the discrete version in terms of a rule which allows one to compute $`Q(n+1,𝐱)`$ in terms of $`Q(n,𝐱)`$ where $`n`$ represents the discretised version of time with, say, $`t=n\tau `$ and $`\tau `$ representing a convenient time interval. For example, the amount of bacteria in a culture, trees in an orchard, buildings in a city or the number of galaxies in some region of the universe could be studied by such prescription. To be more specific, we shall consider processes of the following kind: We start with a set of points in the D-dimensional space which represents the location of bacteria or galaxies or trees, say. We now generate a set of new points near each one of the points (“non-local self-replication”). (The bacteria creating new bacteria nearby or trees generating new trees nearby or even cities leading to the formation of new cities nearby seem reasonable.) Let the probability for any given new point to be located at a distance $`𝐥`$ from an old point is $`W(𝐥)d^D𝐥`$. Next, we rescale each of the $`D`$ dimensions by a factor $`\overline{\mu }>1`$ thereby increasing the volume of available space. (This is useful in the case of growing bacterial culture or a jungle of trees or cities in order to avoid boundary effects which will limit the process. In the cosmological model mentioned above, this is a natural consequence of the expansion of the universe.) Finally we select a subset of particles in the central region such that the total number of particles remains the same. This step renormalizes the process back to the original situation so that the process can now be repeated with the new subset of points. This evolutionary rule can be stated mathematically in the form:

$`Q(n+1,𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\lambda )\overline{\mu }^D}}[Q(n,𝐱/\overline{\mu })`$ (33)
$`+\lambda {\displaystyle }Q(n,{\displaystyle \frac{𝐱}{\overline{\mu }}}𝐥)W(𝐥)d𝐥]`$
where $`\lambda ,\overline{\mu }`$ are constants with $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\overline{\mu }>1`$; $`D`$ is the dimension of the space in which the vector $`𝐱`$ lives, and $`W(𝐥)`$ is a probability function normalized to unity for integration over all $`𝐥`$. This is same as equation (1) with $`\overline{\mu }^3`$ replaced by $`\overline{\mu }^D`$. We shall also assume that $`Q`$ is normalized in such a way that its integral over all $`𝐱`$ is unity. As discussed above, this can be easily relaxed if required.

It must be stressed that we can consider equation (33) as the basic postulate of this analysis rather than any physical model described in the last paragraph (involving bacteria, trees, cities, galaxies ….). In particular: (i) we need not restrict to any specific form of $`W(𝐥)`$ or a choice for dimension $`D`$; (ii) it is also not necessary to identify the vector $`𝐱`$ with the position vector in real space. The equation (1) can also describe quite effectively the power transfer in Fourier space when the vector $`𝐱`$ is actually identified with a Fourier space vector. There are phenomena, like fluid turbulence, in which our analysis can be applied by using the power spectrum as the basic variable in $`𝐤`$ space. The essential postulate will then be that power at nearby wave numbers is generated with a given probability. This could provide a tool for attacking a wide class of nonlinear phenomena.

## 5 Conclusions

Two point correlations functions which exhibit power law behaviour are very prevalent in nature. The analysis here suggests that two ingredients – which we have called (i) non local self replication and (ii) rescaling – can lead to such correlation functions fairly generically.

The first of these two ingredients (non local self replication) allows similar entities to be created at nearby locations in some space. This could be as varied as bacterium creating new bacterium nearby by cell division, trees creating trees nearby by seeding or galaxies creating fresh galaxies because of the existence of a creation field. If we take the space to be the Fourier domain, then transfer of power from a given wave number $`k`$ to nearby wave numbers will also constitute such a process. This variety shows that the ingredient (i) is fairly generic and natural.

An immediate consequence of self replication as defined here is the development of correlations. This is because we have tacitly assumed that the members of the second generation are preferentially (in the probabilistic sense) produced near the original parents. This will naturally lead to the second generation to be correlated with the first, spatially. If the process takes place in the Fourier domain, then the correlation will arise in the space of wave numbers and the consequent relationship in real space will be more complicated; but even in this case correlation will definitely be established. (Of course, in principle one can also introduce negative correlation in the model by choosing the probability distribution to be an increasing function of distance near the origin.)

In the context of conventional galaxy formation due to gravitational instability, the development of correlation is more indirect and dynamical while the process described here is direct and kinematical. Ultimately, the kinematics of the model, encoded in the probability distribution function $`W(𝐥)`$, need to be connected to an underlying model (say, the creation field in the case of QSSC) in order to provide the dynamical basis. While this is the basic paradigm in physics, it must be stressed that it suffers from two well known difficulties: (a) If the physical process is sufficiently complicated (fluid turbulence, galaxy formation …), it just may not be possible to provide such a dynamical underpinning. (b) Modeling different processes separately could lead one to miss the existence of a very general description for widely different classes of phenomena. Much of the initial attraction for fractals in the description of natural phenomena originated from its promise to provide such a unifying perspective. The mathematical formalism developed here should be viewed against such a backdrop.

The second ingredient that we have used (rescaling) essentially serves to renormalise the scales and is, in fact, very similar to ideas used in the theory of renormalization group. Once self replication takes place, the system has become denser on the whole and in order to concentrate on the intrinsic correlation, it is necessary to renormalise the system back to the original state. In all the examples which we have it is always possible to link this rescaling with a tangible physical process.

The combination of these two ingredients very nicely and naturally leads to a system with higher level of correlation at each time step. In fact, at least in the case of galaxy formation, the combined effect of these two phenomena is very similar to actual gravitational attraction between the particles.

The key result of the analysis is that processes with these two ingredients are inherently unstable in the sense that the correlation function either grows without bound or decays to zero (with the system becoming more and more dilute) as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Once again such an instability is reminiscent of similar phenomena seen in self gravitating systems though we have not used any gravitational dynamics. There is one special initial condition which leads to a static solution but as we discussed in the text, this is rather too special. The interest in these two systems lies in the intermediate time scale during which it could exhibit a power law correlation function very generically. Once again the situation is similar to galaxy formation due to gravitational instability in which the observed power law correlation function will exist only during a limited temporal and spatial window in the numerical simulations. Even in the case of fractals, it is generally known that one has to introduce cut-off in spatial and temporal scales in order to maintain power law correlation functions.

In conclusion, it is interesting how a fairly simple mathematical model could lead to an approximate description of a wide class of phenomena. Only further investigations for specific contexts will determine whether such a unified treatment is of some value or whether these ideas are destined to remain as mathematical curiosities.

I thank J.V. Narlikar for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. I appreciate the detailed and constructive comments from an anonymous referee which significantly improved the presentation of the ideas.


text:
# Aspects of Coulomb Dissociation and Interference in Peripheral Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions

## 1 Coherent Peripheral Nuclear Collisions

This presentation will discuss some aspects of nucleus-nucleus collisions without physical overlap, i.e. collisions with impact parameters, $`b`$, larger than the sum of the nuclear radii, $`R`$, i.e. $`b>2R`$. Particles can be produced in these collisions through an interaction of the fields of the nuclei. The interactions can involve both the electromagnetic and nuclear fields, but because of the short range of the nuclear force, purely nuclear processes are suppressed for $`b>2R`$. If the momentum transfers from the nuclei are small enough ($`Q<\mathrm{}c/R`$), the fields couple coherently to all nucleons. This enhances the cross sections and gives the events an unique signature, which can be used for identification. The restrictions on the momentum transfer do not prevent the production of heavy systems, however, in high-energy collisions. States with masses up to about $`2\gamma \mathrm{}c/R`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the Lorentz factor of the beams in the laboratory system, can be produced in a heavy-ion collider; this corresponds to masses of a few GeV/c2 at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and about 100 GeV/c2 at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The electromagnetic field of a relativistic nucleus can be treated as an equivalent flux of photons. This was first realized by Fermi $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and the idea was further developed by Weizsäcker and Williams. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The method is now known as the Weizsäcker-Williams method. For relativistic nuclei, the impact parameter is a well-defined variable, and the photon flux should be evaluated in impact parameter space. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The density of photons with energy $`k`$ at a perpendicular distance $`b`$ ($`b>R`$) from the center of a nucleus is (in units where $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$$`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$n(k,b)=\frac{dN_\gamma }{dkd^2b}=\frac{\alpha Z^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{kb^2}\left(\frac{kb}{\gamma }\right)^2K_1^2(\frac{kb}{\gamma }).$$
(1)
Here, $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, Z the charge of the ion, and $`K_1`$ a modified Bessel function. The total number of photons with energy $`k`$, $`n(k)`$, is obtained by integrating the photon density over all impact parameters for which there are no hadronic interactions (roughly $`b>2R`$).

The photons from one of the nuclei may interact with the other nucleus either electromagnetically or hadronically. Electromagnetic interactions include collective excitation of the nucleus into a Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) and particle production through two-photon interactions. The hadronic interactions are usually divided the following 3 categories: Vector meson dominance, direct, and anomalous. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The latter two involve interactions with a parton in the nucleus and do not lead to a rapidity gap between the produced particle and the target nucleus. The coherent photonuclear interactions that will be considered here will be treated in the framework of the vector meson dominance model.

According to vector meson dominance, the photon interacts hadronically by first fluctuating into a vector meson, or more generally a $`q\overline{q}`$-pair, carrying the same quantum numbers (JPC=1) as the photon. The scattering amplitude for the photonuclear interaction is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma A)=\underset{V}{}\frac{4\pi \alpha }{f_V^2}\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(VA),$$
(2)
where $`f_V`$ is the photon vector meson coupling, and $`\sqrt{t}`$ is the momentum transfer from the target nucleus. The sum is over all applicable vector meson states.

The photon vector meson couplings are constrained from data on the semi-leptonic decay widths, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ve^+e^{}}`$,

$$\frac{f_V^2}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{3}\frac{M_V\alpha ^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Ve^+e^{}}},$$
(3)
where $`M_V`$ is the vector meson mass. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

The coherent reaction $`\gamma AVA`$ thus corresponds to elastic scattering, $`VAVA`$ if the cross terms are neglected (i.e. cases where the photon fluctuates into a state V and then scatters off the target into a state V’). The nuclear momentum transfer can be treated as exchange of a meson or a Pomeron, and the vector meson is produced through $`\gamma `$-Pomeron (or $`\gamma `$-meson) fusion. The Pomeron is the colorless exchange particle of the strong force and carries the same quantum numbers as the vacuum (JPC=0++).

The nuclear transverse momentum transfer is determined by the nuclear form factor, $`F(t)`$, and the photonuclear cross section is

$$\sigma (\gamma AVA)=\frac{d\sigma }{dt}|_{t=0}_{t_{min}}^{\mathrm{}}\left|F(t)\right|^2𝑑t,$$
(4)
where $`t_{min}=(M_V^2/4\gamma k)^2`$ is the minimum momentum transfer needed to produce a vector meson. The form factor vanishes for $`t(1/R)^2`$ and the cross section will thus go to zero for small photon energies $`k<M_V^2R/4\gamma `$.

Convoluting the photonuclear cross section with the photon spectrum gives the total cross section for vector meson production in nucleus-nucleus collisions:

$$\sigma (A+AA+A+V)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}n(k)\sigma _{\gamma AVA}(k)𝑑k.$$
(5)
The integral goes from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$; in practice it is cut-off at high $`k`$ by the exponential fall-off in the photon spectrum for $`k>\gamma /R`$ and at low $`k`$ by the nuclear form factor of the target. The factor of 2 takes into account that the nuclei can act both as target and photon emitter.

The reaction $`\gamma pVp`$ has been studied at HERA and in fixed target experiments. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The cross sections in nucleus-nucleus collisions have been calculated in, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ using the Weizsäcker–Williams photon spectrum and a Glauber for the photonuclear cross sections. The Glauber model calculations use the experimentally determined photon-proton cross sections as input. The results for gold at RHIC and lead at the LHC are given in Table 1. The cross sections are very large, roughly 10% and 50% of the hadronic cross section for $`\rho ^0`$ production with gold at RHIC and lead at LHC, respectively.

The production is centered around mid-rapidity with a width determined by the mass of the vector meson. The rapidity, $`y`$, is related to the photon energy, $`k`$, through

$$y=\mathrm{ln}(\frac{2k}{M_V}).$$
(6)
The shape of the rapidity distribution is determined by the photon spectrum and the energy variation of the photonuclear cross section and hence by the nuclear form factor. Three examples of vector meson rapidity distributions in Au+Au interactions at RHIC are shown in Fig. 1. Further details about the vector meson production calculations are given elsewhere. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 2 A two-source interferometer

The two nuclei can act both as target and photon emitter in nucleus-nucleus collisions. This is different from $`eA`$ collisions where the electron emits the photon and the vector meson production is localized to the target nucleus. The transverse plane in a nuclear collision at impact parameter b is illustrated in Fig. 2.

The impact parameter is not measured in the interactions. The cross section is obtained by integrating over all possible impact parameters, $`b>2R`$, as was discussed in the previous section. The impact parameter dependence comes from the photon spectrum (Eq. 1). The calculations in the previous section assumed that the total cross section is given by the sum of the cross sections for production from the two sources (Eq. 5). This is a reasonable assumption in most cases. For transverse momenta, $`p_T`$, of the produced meson smaller than $`1/b`$, it is however not possible to distinguish which nucleus the meson came from, as can be understood from Fig. 2. One then has to add the amplitudes. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

The $`p_T`$ of the vector meson is the sum of the photon and Pomeron transverse momenta. The coherent couplings of the fields ensures that the $`p_T`$ will be of the order of $`p_T<1/R`$. The transverse momentum distribution is given by the convolution of the photon, $`f_1`$, and Pomeron, $`f_2`$, distributions,

$$\frac{dn}{dp_T}=f_{1,2}(p_T)=f_1(\stackrel{}{p}_T^{})f_2(\stackrel{}{p}_T\stackrel{}{p}_T^{})d^2\stackrel{}{p}_T^{}.$$
(7)
The transverse momentum distribution of virtual photons of energy $`k`$ is given by $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\frac{dN_\gamma }{dk_{}}\frac{|F((k/\gamma )^2+k_{}^2)|^2}{((k/\gamma )^2+k_{}^2)^2}k_{}^3.$$
(8)
Similarly, the distribution of the nuclear transverse momentum transfer, $`q_{}`$, is determined by the form factor $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\frac{d\sigma (\gamma A)}{dq_{}}|F(t_{min}+q_{}^2)|^2q_{}.$$
(9)
The transverse momentum distribution of the photon is generally narrower than that of the Pomeron, so the vector meson $`p_T`$ distribution is dominated by the nuclear form factor.

The differential cross section, $`d\sigma /dydp_T`$, for a vector meson with rapidity, y, and transverse momentum, $`p_T`$, is the product of the photon density and the photonuclear cross section, i.e.

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=_{b>2R}k_1\frac{dN}{dk_1d^2b}\sigma (\gamma A_2)f_{1,2}(p_T)+k_2\frac{dN}{dk_2d^2b}\sigma (\gamma A_1)f_{2,1}(p_T)d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(10)
This can be written

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=_{b>2R}\left(\left|A_1\right|^2+\left|A_2\right|^2\right)d^2\stackrel{}{b},$$
(11)
where the $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ correspond to the amplitudes for production off each of the two nuclei. This is only valid for $`b1/p_T`$. The appropriate form for all impact parameters is instead

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=_{b>2R}\left|A_1+A_2\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(12)
At mid-rapidity, the amplitudes will be of equal magnitude because of symmetry, and by comparing Eq. 10 with Eq. 11, one sees that

$$\left|A_1\right|^2=\left|A_2\right|^2=k_1\frac{dN}{dk_1d^2b}\sigma (\gamma A_2)f_{1,2}(p_T).$$
(13)
Production at mid-rapidity is the only case that will be considered here; the general case $`y0`$ is discussed elsewhere. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ To properly calculate the differential cross section from Eq. 12, one has to determine the relative phases of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$. The vector meson has negative parity so $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ have opposite signs; exchanging the positions of the two nuclei is equivalent to a reflection of the spatial coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}`$.

To a distant observer at the position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, a vector meson produced at the position of nucleus 1, $`\stackrel{}{x}_1`$, will have a different phase from one produced at the position of nucleus 2, $`\stackrel{}{x}_2`$, because of the different path lengths. It is a reasonable assumption here, and it simplifies the calculations considerably, that the emission is from two point sources. The size of the nuclei is thus neglected. This is justified, since the nuclear dimensions ($``$ 7 fm) are much smaller than the typical impact parameters. It is furthermore assumed that the vector mesons can be treated as plane waves. The amplitude for a single source is then

$$A_i=A_0e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}_i}.$$
(14)
where $`A_0`$ is the magnitude of $`A_i`$. The sum of the amplitudes is then

$$A_1+A_2=2A_0exp(\frac{i}{2}\left[\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{x}_1+\stackrel{}{x}_2)+\pi \right])\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b}}{2})$$
(15)
and the magnitude squared is

$$\left|A_1+A_2\right|^2=2A_0^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b})\right).$$
(16)
The impact parameter is $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{x}_1\stackrel{}{x}_2`$. This is the same interference pattern as from a two-source interferometer with slit separation $`|\stackrel{}{b}|`$, albeit with the opposite sign (destructive interference).

This system is particularly interesting because the vector mesons, except for the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, are short-lived in comparison with the source separation divided by the speed of light; the life-times are $`\rho ^0`$ 1.3 fm/c, $`\omega `$ 23 fm/c, $`\varphi `$ 44 fm/c, and $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ 2300 fm/c. The interference will thus involve the decay products, which are in an entangled state, rather than the vector meson itself. Observing the interference would thus be a proof of entanglement and hence an example of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

Using Eq. 16, the integral in Eq. 12 can be written

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dydp_T}=2_{b>2R}A_0^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b})\right).$$
(17)
For large values of $`p_T`$, the term containing $`\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b})`$ will go through several oscillations in the integration over b, and the net contribution to the integral will go to zero. For small transverse momenta however, $`p_T1/b`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b}0`$ for all relevant impact parameters, and the interference term will lead to a vanishing cross section in this region. Since the median impact parameters for light vector mesons are around 40 fm at RHIC and about 200 fm at the LHC, one expects the interference to be significant for $`p_T<5`$ MeV/c at RHIC and $`p_T<1`$ MeV/c at the LHC.

The transverse momentum distribution calculated with and without interference is shown in Fig. 4, but before the results are discussed further, the consequences of vector meson production in coincidence with nuclear Coulomb break-up will be considered.

## 3 Electromagnetic dissociation

The photon spectrum (Eq. 1) is proportional to $`Z^2`$ and inversely proportional to $`k`$ and $`b^2`$. The density of low-energy photons is thus high for small b. This may lead to violation of unitarity, as can be seen by rewriting the cross section as an interaction probability for a given impact parameter,

$$P^1(b)=\frac{d^2\sigma }{db^2}=\frac{dN_\gamma }{dkd^2b}\sigma _{\gamma AX}(k)𝑑k.$$
(18)
The superscript ’1’ on $`P`$ indicates that it is the first order probability. For photonuclear processes with low thresholds and/or high cross sections $`P^1(b)`$ may exceed one for small impact parameters.

This is the case for a general photonuclear excitation followed by nuclear break-up, $`A+BA+\gamma +BX+B`$, in gold and lead interactions at RHIC and the LHC. Clearly, Eq. 18 cannot be interpreted as a probability under such circumstances. Instead, $`P^1(b)`$ should, in the general case, be interpreted as a first-order amplitude. Unitarity can then be restored by accounting for multiple excitations, where the probability of having exactly $`N`$ excitations is given by a Poisson distribution,

$$P_N(b)=\frac{\left(P^1(b)\right)^Ne^{P^1(b)}}{N!}.$$
(19)
The cross section for a photonuclear excitation of a single nucleus in Au+Au interactions at RHIC is very large, about 95 barns. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The largest contribution to this (65 barns) is excitation of the target nucleus into a Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR). The GDR decays by emitting a single neutron in about 83% of the events. $`^\mathrm{?}`$

The cross section for mutual Coulomb excitation of both ions was calculated in, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ assuming that the two excitations are independent. Two cases were treated: a general excitation into a state which results in the emission of an arbitrary number of neutrons (Xn), and an excitation into a GDR which results in the emission of a single neutron (1n). The total cross section for mutual excitation was found to be 11 barns and of this roughly 7 barns are from hadronic interactions and about 4 barns from Coulomb dissociation. The cross section for mutual GDR excitation followed by the emission of exactly one neutron in both directions was calculated to be 0.4 barn.

This Coulomb cross section is of importance for the trigger in experiments at RHIC and the LHC. All RHIC experiments are equipped with identical Zero-Degree Calorimeters (ZDCs) for triggering and event selection. The calorimeters, situated on both sides of the experiments approximately 18 m from the center of the interaction region, detect free neutrons in the forward direction from the fragmentation of the beam nuclei. Calculations indicate that about 1/3 of the ZDC coincidence triggers are from Coulomb interactions. Results from the first year of data taking at RHIC are in good agreement with the calculations, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which indicates that the assumption of independent excitations is a reasonable one.

These large cross sections, and hence probabilities, suggest that it should be possible to observe vector meson production in coincidence with mutual dissociation. This has indeed been observed by the STAR collaboration. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ If the Coulomb break-up and the vector meson production are independent, the probabilities factorize, and the cross sections can be calculated along the same lines as for mutual Coulomb excitation. The validity of the assumption of factorization is hard to prove rigorously. It is reasonable if one considers the different time scales involved. The lifetime of a GDR in a heavy nucleus is about 50 fm/c in the rest frame of the nucleus, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ whereas the typical hadronic formation time is of the order of 1 fm/c in the center of mass. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ The nucleus, if it is excited into a GDR, will thus remain intact during and long after the production of the vector meson. The fact that the protons and neutrons are in a state of collective oscillations is not expected to affect the coherent vector meson nucleus scattering significantly.

Vector meson production in coincidence with Coulomb excitation leading to a final state with (Xn,Xn) and (1n,1n) neutrons will be considered. The probability for mutual Coulomb excitation and no hadronic interaction at an impact parameter b is

$$P_C(b)=\left(12e^{P_C^1(b)}+e^{2P_C^1(b)}\right)e^{P_H^1(b)}$$
(20)
where $`P_C^1(b)`$ is calculated from Eq. 18 with $`\sigma (\gamma A)`$, the total photonuclear cross section, taken from a parameterization of experimental data. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`P_H^1(b)`$ is the first-order hadronic interaction probability, which is calculated from the Glauber model

$$P_H^1(b)=T_A(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{b})(1\mathrm{exp}(\sigma _{NN}T_B(\stackrel{}{r}))d^2\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(21)
where $`\sigma _{NN}`$ is the total nucleon-nucleon cross section and $`T_{A,B}`$ is the nuclear thickness function. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`P_C(b)`$ has a maximum of about 35% at $`b=15`$ fm in Au+Au interactions at RHIC.

Similarly, the probability for mutual Coulomb excitation leading to the emission of single neutrons is

$$P_{C(1n,1n)}(b)=\left(P_{C(1n)}^1(b)\right)^2e^{2P_C^1(b)P_H(b)}$$
(22)
where $`P_{C(1n)}^1(b)`$ is also calculated from Eq. 18 but with $`\sigma (\gamma A)`$ being the cross section for GDR excitation followed by single neutron emission.

The distribution of impact parameters will thus be altered in interactions where the nuclei dissociate. The integral over b (Eq. 12) has to be weighted with the Coulomb probabilities $`P_C(b)`$ or $`P_{C(1n,1n)}(b)`$:

$$\frac{d\sigma (Xn,Xn,V)}{dydp_T}=P_C(b)\left|A_1+A_2\right|^2d^2\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(23)
The total vector meson cross sections, integrated over $`y`$ and $`p_T`$, at RHIC and the LHC are presented in Table 2. Requiring coincidence with a general photonuclear interaction (Xn,Xn) reduces the cross sections with roughly a factor of 10 at RHIC and up to almost a factor of 30 at the LHC. The cross section with emission of a single neutron in each direction is about 10% of the cross section in coincidence with a general photonuclear interaction.

The modified impact parameter distribution also affects the photon spectrum, as can be understood from Eq. 10. The increased relative abundance of small impact parameters in interactions with breakup hardens the photon spectrum. This modification of the photon spectrum leads to a corresponding change in the rapidity distribution, favouring production at central rapidities. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, where the rapidity distribution of $`\rho ^0`$ mesons is calculated with and without break-up.

The altered impact parameter distribution is, furthermore, of importance for the transverse momentum spectrum and the interference discussed previously. The two nuclei act as a two-source interferometer in the transverse plane. By requiring mutual Coulomb dissociation of the nuclei it is possible to obtain a handle on the source separation. The median impact parameters are approximately a factor of two smaller in interactions with Coulomb breakup compared with exclusive production. The interference is thus expected to be significant at correspondingly higher transverse momenta. The calculated $`p_T`$ spectrum for $`\rho ^0`$ mesons produced in Au+Au interactions at RHIC is shown in Fig. 4 for interference in exclusive production, and interference in reactions with Coulomb dissociation (and, for comparison, without interference). The plot shows $`dN/dp_T`$, as opposed to $`dN/dp_T^2`$, so all curves go to zero at low $`p_T`$ because of vanishing phase space. As expected, the interference is stronger and reaches larger $`p_T`$ in interactions with Coulomb breakup.

## 4 Conclusions

The consequences of vector meson production in coincidence with nuclear Coulomb dissociation in peripheral heavy-ion interactions at RHIC and the LHC have been studied. Production in coincidence with nuclear breakup alters the phase space distribution of the vector mesons compared with exclusive production. The breakup requirement enables one to get an independent handle of the impact parameter of the interactions. This will benefit the understanding of the predicted interference phenomenon.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR).

## References