text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Extended objects such as membranes or branes of any dimension are nowadays subject of extensive studies. A deeper geometric principle behind such theories remains to be fully explored. It has been found that various string theories are different faces of a conjectured single theory, called $`M`$-theory which has not yet been rigorously formulated. In a number of recent works branes have been considered from the point of view of the geometric calculus based on Clifford algebra . The latter is a very useful tool for description of geometry and physics . A space (or spacetime) consists of points (or events). But besides points there are also lines, surfaces, volumes, etc. . Description of such geometric objects turns out to be very elegant if one employs multivectors which are the outer products of vectors. All those objects are elements of Clifford algebra. Since in physics we do not consider point particles only, but also extended objects, it appears natural to consider Clifford algebra as an arena in which physics takes place. Clifford algebra as an arena arena for physics has been called pandimensional continuum  or $`C`$-space .

In this paper we report about a possibly far reaching observation that Clifford algebra of 4-dimensional spacetime contains conformal group SO(4,2) as a special case. It was proposed long time ago  that conformal space can serve as the arena for physic which involves active dilatations and dilatational motions, and that a curved conformal space is a possible realization for Kaluza-Klein theory. A remarkable property of such an approach to Kaluza-Klein theories is that the notorious problem of Planck mass does not occur, since the 4-dimensional mass is given by the expression $`m=\sqrt{m_{00}+\pi _5\pi _6}`$ in which $`m_{00}`$ is the invariant mass in 6-dimensions, $`\pi _6`$ the electric charge and $`\pi _5`$ the dilatational momentum (taken to be zero for the ordinary electron). However in that old work it was not yet realized that the variables $`\kappa `$ and $`\lambda `$ entering the description of SO(4,2) —which obviously were not just the ordinary extra dimensions— are natural ingredients of the Clifford algebra of 4-dimensional spacetime: they are coordinates of $`C`$-space.

The idea to allow objects to change in size when they move in spacetime is in fact very old and dates back to Herman Weyl . However, our proposal, initiated in refs. , differs from that of Weyl both conceptually and technically, and is free from the well-known Einstein’s criticism. In Weyl’s geometry one is gauging the local scale transformations by introducing a gauge field, identified with the electromagnetic field potential, such that sizes of objects (and the rate at which clocks tick) are path dependent. Einstein pointed out that this would effect spectral lines emitted by the atoms which had followed different paths in spacetime and then brought together. A result would be blurred spectra with no distinctive spectral lines, contrary to what we observe. In our approach we are not gauging the local scale transformations and scale changes of objects are not due to the different paths they traverse. Scale is postulated as an extra degree of freedom, analogous to position. If the observer chooses to be in the same scale-frame of reference as the particular object he observes (for more detailed description see refs. ), no scale changes for that object are observed (with respect to the observer) in its ordinary spacetime motion. However, in general, our theory predicts that in a given scale-frame of reference chosen by the observer, different objects can have different scales (i.e., different sizes) and consequently emit spectral lines whose wavelengths are shifted by the corresponding scale factors. When considering the quantized theory, not only position but also scale has to be quantized  which affects not only relative positions but also relatives scales of bound objects, e.g., the atoms within a crystal. A crystal as a free object can have arbitrary position and scale, whilst the atoms bound within the crystal have the relative positions and scales as determined by the solutions of the Schrödinger equation (generalized to C-space). Possible astrophysical implications of scale as a degree of freedom were discussed refs. .

## 2 On geometry, Clifford algebra and physics

Since the appearance of the seminal books by D. Hestenes  we have a very useful language and tool for geometry and physics, which is being recognized by an increasing number of researchers . Although Clifford algebra is widely used and explored both in mathematics and physics, its full power for formulation of new physical theories has been recognized only relatively recently . For the reasons of self consistency we will provide a brief introduction into the geometric calculus based on Clifford algebra and point out how Minkowski spacetime can be generalized to Clifford space.

The starting observation is that the basis vectors $`e_\mu `$ in an $`n`$-dimensional space $`V_n`$ satisfy the Clifford algebra relations

$$e_\mu e_\nu \frac{1}{2}(e_\mu e_\nu +e_\nu e_\mu )=g_{\mu \nu }$$
(1)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric of $`V_n`$. The dot denotes the inner product of two vectors. It is the symmetric part of the non commutative Clifford or geometric product

$$e_\mu e_\nu =e_\mu e_\nu +e_\mu e_\nu $$
(2)
whose antisymmetric part is the wedge or outer product

$$e_\mu e_\nu \frac{1}{2}(e_\mu e_\nu e_\nu e_\mu )\frac{1}{2!}[e_\mu ,e_\mu ]$$
(3)
Whilst the inner product is a scalar, the outer product is a bivector. It denotes an oriented area of a 2-surface enclosed by a 1-loop. The precise shape of the loop is not determined. In a similar manner we can form higher multivectors or $`r`$-vectors

$$e_{\mu _1}e_{\mu _2}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _r}\frac{1}{r!}[e_{\mu _1},e_{\mu _2},\mathrm{},e_{\mu _r}]$$
(4)
by antisymmetrizing the Clifford product of $`r`$ vectors. Such an object is interpreted geometrically to denote an oriented $`r`$-area of an $`r`$-surface enclosed by an $`(r1)`$-loop. Multivectors are elements of the Clifford algebra $`𝒞_n`$ of $`V_n`$. An element of $`𝒞_n`$ is called a Clifford number.

In the geometric (Clifford) product (2) a scalar and a bivector occur in the sum. In general, a Clifford number is a superposition, called a Clifford aggregate or polyvector:

$$A=a+\frac{1}{2!}a^\mu e_\mu +\frac{1}{3!}a^{\mu \nu }e_\mu e_\nu +\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{n!}a^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}e_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _n}$$
(5)
In an $`n`$-dimensional space an $`n`$-vector is a multivector of the highest possible degree; an $`(n+1)`$-vector is identically zero.

Considering now a flat 4-dimensional spacetime with basis vectors $`\gamma _\mu `$ satisfying

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu =\eta _{\mu \nu }$$
(6)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the diagonal metric with signature $`(+)`$ eq.(5) reads

$$D=d+d^\mu \gamma _\mu +\frac{1}{2!}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\frac{1}{3!}d^{\mu \nu \rho }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho +\frac{1}{4!}d^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma $$
(7)
where $`d`$, $`d^\mu `$, $`d^{\mu \nu }`$,…, are scalar coefficients. The Clifford algebra in Minkowski space $`V_4`$ is called the Dirac algebra.

Let us introduce the symbol $`I`$ for the unit element of 4-volume (pseudoscalar)

$$I\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3=\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3,I^2=1$$
(8)
Using the relations

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho \gamma _\sigma =Iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }$$
(9)
$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho =Iϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma ^\sigma $$
(10)
where $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor, and introducing the new coefficients

$$Sd,V^\mu d^\mu ,T^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}d^{\mu \nu }$$

$$C_\sigma \frac{1}{3!}d^{\mu \nu \rho }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },P\frac{1}{4!}d^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }$$
(11)
we can rewrite $`D`$ of eq.(7) as the sum of a scalar, vector, bivector, pseudovector and pseudoscalar:

$$D=S+V^\mu \gamma _\mu +T^{\mu \nu }\gamma \gamma _\nu +C^\mu I\gamma _\mu +PI$$
(12)
So far physics in spacetime has been predominantly using only the vector part of $`D`$. The full Clifford algebra or Dirac algebra have been used in relativistic quantum theory, but not in the classical special or general relativity, neither in the theory of strings and branes.

Assuming that fundamental physical object are not point particles but extended objects such as strings and branes of arbitrary dimension, it has been proposed  that physical quantities such as positions and velocities of those objects are polyvectors. It was proposed to rewrite the known fundamental string and brane actions by employing polyvector coordinates

$$X=\frac{1}{r!}\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}X^AE_A$$
(13)
Here we use a compact notation in which $`X^AX^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}`$ are real coordinates, and $`E_A\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}`$ basis vectors of the $`2^n`$-dimensional Clifford algebra of spacetime. The latter algebra of spacetime positions and corresponding higher grade objects, namely oriented $`r`$-areas, is a manifold which is more general than spacetime. In the literature such a manifold has been named pandimensional continuum  or Clifford space or $`C`$-space .

The infinitesimal element of position polyvector (13) is

$$\text{d}X=\frac{1}{r!}\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}\text{d}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}\text{d}X^AE_A$$
(14)
We will now calculate its norm squared. Using the definition for the scalar product of two polyvectors $`A`$ and $`B`$

$$AB=AB_0$$
(15)
where $`_0`$ means the scalar part of the geometric product $`AB`$, we obtain

$$|\text{d}X|^2\text{d}X^{}\text{d}X=\text{d}X^A\text{d}X^BG_{AB}=\text{d}X^A\text{d}X_A$$
(16)
Here

$$G_{AB}=E_A^{}E_B$$
(17)
is the $`C`$-space metric and $`A^{}`$ the reverse111Reversion or, alternatively, hermitian conjugation, is the operation which reverses the order of all products of vectors in a decomposition of a polyvector $`A`$. of a polyvector $`A`$.

For example, if the indices assume the values $`A=\mu ,B=\nu `$, we have

$$G_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu e_\mu _0=e_\mu e_\nu =g_{\mu \nu }$$
(18)
If $`A=[\mu \nu ]`$, $`B=[\alpha \beta ]`$

$`G_{[\mu \nu ][\alpha \beta ]}`$ $`=`$ $`(e_\mu e_\nu )^{}(e_\alpha e_\beta _0=(e_\mu e_\nu )^{}(e_\alpha e_\beta _0`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`(e_\mu e_\alpha )(e_\nu e_\beta )(e_\nu e_\alpha )(e_\mu e_\beta )=g_{\mu \alpha }g_{\nu \beta }g_{\nu \alpha }g_{\mu \beta }`$
If $`A=\mu `$, $`B=[\alpha \beta ]`$

$$G_{\mu [\alpha \beta ]}=e_\mu (e_\alpha e_\beta )_0=0$$
(20)
Explicitly we have

$`|\text{d}X|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r!}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\text{d}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}\text{d}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\text{d}s^2+\text{d}X^\mu \text{d}X_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\text{d}X^{\mu _1\mu _2}\text{d}X_{\mu _1\mu _2}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\text{d}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}\text{d}X_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$
If $`\gamma _\mu `$ are taken to be dimensionless so that $`X^\mu ,X^{\mu \nu }`$, etc., have respectively dimensions of $`length`$, $`length^2`$, etc., then a suitable power of a length parameter has to be included in every term of eq. (21). One natural choice is to take the length parameter equal to the Planck scale $`L_P`$. For simplicity reasons we may then use the system of units in which $`L_P=1`$.

In 4-dimensional spacetime the vector (14) and its square (21) can be written as

$$\text{d}X=\text{d}s+\text{d}x^\mu \gamma _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\text{d}x^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\text{d}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu I\gamma _\mu +\text{d}\stackrel{~}{s}I$$
(22)
$$|\text{d}X|^2=\text{d}s^2+\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\text{d}x^{\mu \nu }\text{d}x_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \text{d}\stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \text{d}\stackrel{~}{s}^2$$
(23)
where we now use the lower case symbols for coordinates. The minus sign in the last two terms of the above quadratic form occurs because in 4-dimensional spacetime with signature $`(+)`$ we have $`I^2=(\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3)(\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3)=1`$, and $`I^{}I=(\gamma _3\gamma _2\gamma _1\gamma _0)(\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3)=1`$.

In eq.(23) the line element $`\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu `$ of the ordinary special or general relativity is replaced by the line element in Clifford space. A “square root” of such a generalized line element is $`\text{d}X`$ of eq.(22). The latter object is a polyvector, a differential of the coordinate polyvector field

$$X=s+x^\mu \gamma _\mu +\frac{1}{2}x^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu I\gamma _\mu +\stackrel{~}{s}I$$
(24)
whose square is

$$|X|^2=s^2+x^\mu x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}x^{\mu \nu }x_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \stackrel{~}{x}_\mu \stackrel{~}{s}^2$$
(25)
The polyvector $`X`$ contains not only the vector part $`x^\mu \gamma _\mu `$, but also a scalar part $`s`$, tensor part $`x^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu `$, pseudovector part $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu I\gamma _\mu `$ and pseudoscalar part $`\stackrel{~}{s}I`$. Similarly for the differential $`\text{d}X`$.

When calculating the quadratic forms $`|X|^2`$ and $`|\text{d}X|^2`$ one obtains in 4-dimensional spacetime with pseudo euclidean signature $`(+)`$ the minus sign in front of the squares of the pseudovector and pseudoscalar terms. This is so, because in such a case the pseudoscalar unit square in flat spacetime is $`I^2=I^{}I=1`$. In 4-dimensions $`I^{}=I`$ regardless of the signature.

Instead of Lorentz transformations—pseudo rotations in spacetime—which preserve $`x^\mu x_\mu `$ and $`\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu `$ we have now more general rotations—rotations in $`C`$-space—which preserve $`|X|^2`$ and $`|\text{d}X|^2`$.

## 3 $`C`$-space and conformal transformations

From (23) and (25) we see that a subgroup of the Clifford Group, or rotations in $`C`$-space is the group SO(4,2). The transformations of the latter group rotate $`x^\mu `$, $`s`$, $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$, but leave $`x^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$ unchanged. Although according to our assumption physics takes place in full $`C`$-space, it is very instructive first to consider a subspace of $`C`$-space, that we shall call conformal space whose isometry group is SO(4,2).

Coordinates can be given arbitrary symbols. Let us now use the symbol $`\eta ^\mu `$ instead of $`x^\mu `$, and $`\eta ^5`$,$`\eta ^6`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$, $`s`$. In other words, instead of $`(x^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{s},s)`$ we write $`(\eta ^\mu ,\eta ^5,\eta ^6)\eta ^a`$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$, $`a=0,1,2,3,5,6`$. The quadratic form reads

$$\eta ^a\eta _a=g_{ab}\eta ^a\eta ^b$$
(26)
with

$$g_{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1,1)$$
(27)
being the diagonal metric of the flat 6-dimensional space, a subspace of $`C`$-space, parametrized by coordinates $`\eta ^a`$. The transformations which preserve the quadratic form (26) belong to the group SO(4,2). It is well known  that the latter group, when taken on the cone

$$\eta ^a\eta _a=0$$
(28)
is identical to the 15-parameter group of conformal transformations in 4-dimensional spacetime .

Let us consider first the rotations of $`\eta ^5`$ and $`\eta ^6`$ which leave coordinates $`\eta ^\mu `$ unchanged. The transformations that leave $`(\eta ^5)^2+(\eta ^6)^2`$ invariant are

$`\eta ^5=\eta ^5\mathrm{ch}\alpha +\eta ^6\mathrm{sh}\alpha `$
$`\eta ^6=\eta ^5\mathrm{sh}\alpha +\eta ^6\mathrm{ch}\alpha `$ (29)
where $`\alpha `$ is a parameter of such pseudo rotations.

Instead of the coordinates $`\eta ^5`$, $`\eta ^6`$ we can introduce  new coordinates $`\kappa `$, $`\lambda `$ according to

$`\kappa =\eta ^5\eta ^6`$ (30)
$`\lambda =\eta ^5+\eta ^6`$ (31)
In the new coordinates the quadratic form (26) reads

$$\eta ^a\eta _a=\eta ^\mu \eta _\mu (\eta ^5)^2(\eta ^6)^2=\eta ^\mu \eta _\mu \kappa \lambda $$
(32)
The transformation (29) becomes

$$\kappa ^{}=\rho ^1\kappa $$
(33)
$$\lambda ^{}=\rho \lambda $$
(34)
where $`\rho =e^\alpha `$. This is just a dilation of $`\kappa `$ and the inverse dilation of $`\lambda `$.

Let us now introduce new coordinates $`x^\mu `$ according $`x^\mu `$ to222These new coordinates $`x^\mu `$ should not be confused with coordinate $`x^\mu `$ used in Sec.2.

$$\eta ^\mu =\kappa x^\mu $$
(35)
Under the transformation (35) we have

$$\eta ^\mu =\eta ^\mu $$
(36)
but

$$x^\mu =\rho x^\mu $$
(37)
The latter transformation is dilatation of coordinates $`x^\mu `$.

Considering now a line element

$$\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta _a=\text{d}\eta ^\mu \text{d}\eta _\mu \text{d}\kappa \text{d}\lambda $$
(38)
we find that on the cone $`\eta ^a\eta _a=0`$ it is

$$\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta _a=\kappa ^2\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu $$
(39)
even if $`\kappa `$ is not constant. Under the transformation (33) we have

$$\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta _a^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta _a$$
(40)
$$\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu ^{}=\rho ^2\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu $$
(41)
The last relation is a dilatation of the 4-dimensional line element related to coordinates $`x^\mu `$. In a similar way also other transformations of the group SO(4,2) that preserve (28) and (40) we can rewrite in terms of of the coordinates $`x^\mu `$. So we obtain—besides dilations—translations, Lorentz transformations, and special conformal transformations; altogether they are called conformal transformations. This is a well known old observation  and we shall not discuss it further. What we wanted to point out here is that conformal group SO(4,2) is a subgroup of the Clifford group.

## 4 On the physical interpretation of the conformal group SO(4,2)

In order to understand the physical meaning of the transformations (35) from the coordinates $`\eta ^\mu `$ to the coordinates $`x^\mu `$ let us consider the following transformation in 6-dimensional space $`V_6`$:

$`x^\mu =\kappa ^1\eta ^\mu `$
$`\alpha =\kappa ^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda \kappa ^1\eta ^\mu \eta _\mu `$ (42)
This is a transformation from the coordinates $`\eta ^a=(\eta ^\mu ,\kappa ,\lambda )`$ to the new coordinates $`x^a=(x^\mu ,\alpha ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. No extra condition on coordinates, such as (28), is assumed now. If we calculate the line element in the coordinates $`\eta ^a`$ and $`x^a`$, respectively, we find the the following relation

$$\text{d}\eta ^\mu \text{d}\eta ^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\kappa \text{d}\lambda =\alpha ^2(\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\alpha \text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(43)
We can interpret a transformation of coordinates passively or actively. Geometric calculus clarifies significantly the meaning of passive and active transformations. Under a passive transformation a vector remains the same, but its components and basis vector change. For a vector $`\text{d}\eta =\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a`$ we have

$$\text{d}\eta ^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a=\text{d}\eta $$
(44)
with

$$\text{d}\eta ^a=\frac{\eta ^a}{\eta ^b}\text{d}\eta ^b$$
(45)
and

$$\gamma _a^{}=\frac{\eta ^b}{\eta ^a}\gamma _b$$
(46)
Since the vector is invariant, so it is its square:

$$\text{d}\eta ^2=\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a^{}\text{d}\eta ^b\gamma _b^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta ^bg_{ab}^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta ^bg_{ab}$$
(47)
From (46) we read that the well known relation between new and old coordinates:

$$g_{ab}^{}=\frac{\eta ^c}{\eta ^a}\frac{\eta ^d}{\eta ^b}g_{cd}$$
(48)
Under an active transformation a vector changes. This means that in a fixed basis the components of a vector change:

$$\text{d}\eta ^{}=\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a$$
(49)
with

$$\text{d}\eta ^a=\frac{\eta ^a}{\eta ^b}\text{d}\eta ^b$$
(50)
The transformed vector $`\text{d}\eta ^{}`$ is different from the original vector $`\text{d}\eta =\text{d}\eta ^a\gamma _a`$. For the square we find

$$\text{d}\eta ^2=\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta ^bg_{ab}=\frac{\eta ^a}{\eta ^c}\frac{\eta ^b}{\eta ^d}\text{d}\eta ^c\text{d}\eta ^dg_{ab}$$
(51)
i.e., the transformed line element $`\text{d}\eta ^2`$ is different from the original line element.

Returning now to the coordinate transformation (42) with the identification $`\eta ^a=x^a`$, we can interpret eq. (43) passively or actively.

In the passive interpretation the metric tensor and the components $`\text{d}\eta ^a`$ change under a transformation, so that in our particular case the relation (47) becomes

$$\text{d}x^a\text{d}x^bg_{ab}^{}=\alpha ^2(\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\alpha \text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda })=\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta ^bg_{ab}=\text{d}\eta ^\mu \text{d}\eta ^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\kappa \text{d}\lambda $$
(52)
with

$$g_{ab}^{}=\alpha ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g_{\mu \nu }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right),g_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g_{\mu \nu }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(53)
In the above equation the same infinitesimal distance squared is expressed in two different coordinates $`\eta ^a`$ or $`x^a`$.

In active interpretation, only $`\text{d}\eta ^a`$ change, whilst the metric remains the same, so that the transformed element is

$$\text{d}x^a\text{d}x^bg_{ab}=\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\alpha \text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\kappa ^2\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta ^bg_{ab}=\kappa ^2(\text{d}\eta ^\mu \text{d}\eta ^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\kappa \text{d}\lambda )$$
(54)
The transformed line lelement $`\text{d}x^a\text{d}x_a`$ is physically different from the original line element $`\text{d}\eta ^a\text{d}\eta _a`$ by a factor $`\alpha ^2=\kappa ^2`$

A rotation (29) in the plane $`(\eta ^5,\eta ^6)`$ (i.e., the transformation (33),(34) of $`(\kappa ,\lambda ))`$ manifests in the new coordinates $`x^a`$ as a dilatation of the line element $`\text{d}x^a\text{d}x_a=\kappa ^2\text{d}\eta ^a\eta _a`$:

$$\text{d}x^a\text{d}x_a^{}=\rho ^2\text{d}x^a\text{d}x_a$$
(55)
All this is true in the full space $`V_6`$. On the cone $`\eta ^a\eta _a=0`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda \kappa \eta ^\mu \eta _\mu =0`$, $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ so that $`\text{d}x^a\text{d}x_a=\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x_\mu `$ and we reproduce the relations (41) which is a dilatation of the 4-dimensional line element. It can be interpreted either passively or actively. In general, the pseudo rotations in $`V_n`$, that is, the transformations of the 15-parameter group SO(4,2) when expressed in terms of coordinates $`x^a`$, assume on the cone $`\eta ^a\eta _a=0`$ the form of the ordinary conformal transformations. They all can be given the active interpretation .

## 5 Conclusion

We started from the new paradigm that physical phenomena actually occur not in spacetime, but in a larger space, the so called Clifford space or $`C`$-space which is a manifold associated with the Clifford algebra generated by the basis vectors $`\gamma _\mu `$ of spacetime. An arbitrary element of Cliffod algebra can be expanded in terms of the objects $`E_A`$ , $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},2^D`$, which include, when $`D=4`$, the scalar unit $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, vectors $`\gamma _\mu `$, bivectors $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu `$, pseudovectors $`I\gamma _\mu `$ and the pseudoscalar unit $`I\gamma _5`$. $`C`$-space contains 6-dimensional subspace $`V_6`$ spanned333 It is an old observation  that the generators $`L_{ab}`$ of SO(4,2) can be realized in terms of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, and $`\gamma _5`$. Lorentz generators are $`M_{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{4}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$, dilatations are generated by $`D=L_{65}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _5`$, translations by $`P_\mu =L_{5\mu }+L_{6\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mu (1i\gamma _5)`$ and the special conformal transformations by $`L_{5\mu }L_{6\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _\mu (1+i\gamma _5)`$. This essentially means that the generators are $`L_{ab}=\frac{i}{4}[e_a,e_b]`$ with $`e_a=(\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _5,\mathrm{𝟏})`$, where care must be taken to replace commutators $`[\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _5]`$ and $`[\mathrm{𝟏},\gamma _\mu ]`$ with $`2\gamma _5`$ and $`2\gamma _\mu `$ by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, and $`\gamma _5`$. The metric of $`V_6`$ has the signature $`(++)`$. It is well known that the rotations in $`V_6`$, when taken on the conformal cone $`\eta ^a\eta _a=0`$, are isomorphic to the non linear transformations of the conformal group in spacetime. Thus we have found out that $`C`$-space contains —as a subspace— the 6-dimensional space $`V_6`$ in which the conformal group acts linearly. From the physical point of view this is an important and, as far as we know, a novel finding, although it might look mathematically trivial. So far it has not been clear what could be a physical interpretation of the 6 dimensional conformal space. Now we see that it is just a subspace of Clifford space.

We take $`C`$-space seriously as an arena in which physics takes place. The theory is a very natural, although not trivial, extension of the special relativity in spacetime. In special relativity the transformations that preserve the quadratic form are given an active interpretation: they relate the objects or the systems of reference in relative translational motion. Analogously also the transformations that preserve the quadratic form (23) or (25) in $`C`$-space should be given an active interpretation. We have found that among such transformations (rotations in $`C`$-space) there exist the transformations of the group SO(4,2). Those transformations also should be given an active interpretation as the transformations that relate different physical objects or reference frames. Since in the ordinary relativity we do not impose any constraint on the coordinates of a freely moving object so we should not impose any constraint in $`C`$-space, or in the subspace $`V_6`$. However, by using the projective coordinate transformation (42), without any constraint such as $`\eta ^a\eta _a=0`$, we arrived at the relation (54) for the line elements. If in the coordinates $`\eta ^a`$ the line element is constant, then in the coordinates $`x^a`$ the line element is changing by a scale factor $`\kappa `$ which, in general, depends on the evolution parameter $`\tau `$. The line element does not necessarily relate the events along a particle’s worldline. We may consider the line element between two infinitesimally separated events within an extended object where both have the same coordinate label $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so that $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Then the 6-dimensional line element $`\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}\alpha \text{d}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes the 4-dimensional line element $`\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu g_{\mu \nu }`$ and, because of (54) it changes with $`\tau `$ when $`\kappa `$ does change. This means that the object changes its size, it is moving dilatationally . We have thus arrived at a very far reaching observation that the relativity in $`C`$-space implies scale changes of physical objects as a result of free motion, without presence of any forces or such fields as assumed in Weyl theory. This was advocated long time ago , but without recurse to $`C`$-space.

An immediate project would be to construct the gauge theory associated with the Clifford algebra of spacetime. This is currently under investigation and has been called the C-space generalization of Maxwell’s Electromagnetism which describes the dynamics and couplings of extended objects to antisymmetric tensor fields of arbitrary rank. .

## 6 Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Prof. David Finkelstein for his insighful comments and reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Perturbative QCD predicts very strong power-law rise of the gluon density $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ in the limit $`x0`$, where, as usual, $`x`$ denotes the momentum fraction carried by the gluon and $`Q^2`$ is the scale at which the distribution is probed. This strong rise can eventually violate unitarity and so it has to be tamed by screening effects. Those screening effects are provided by multiple parton interactions which lead to the non-linear terms in the (BFKL and/or DGLAP) equations  \- . These non-linear terms reduce the growth of gluon distributions and generate instead the parton saturation at sufficiently small values of $`x`$ and/or $`Q^2`$  \- .

Increase of the gluon distribution and emergence of the saturation effects imply similar properties of the measurable quantities which are driven by the gluon, like the deep inelastic structure function $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$. This can be most clearly seen in the dipole picture of deep inelastic scattering in which the virtual photon - proton total cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)`$ ( $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)F_2(x,Q^2)/Q^2)`$) is linked with the cross section $`\sigma _{dp}(x,r)`$ describing the interaction of the $`q\overline{q}`$ colour dipole with the proton, where $`r`$ denotes the transverse size of the dipole . The dipole-proton cross section is determined by the gluon distribution in the proton and in leading order approximation we just have $`\sigma _{dp}(x,r)\alpha _s(1/r^2)r^2xg(x,1/r^2)`$. Increase and/or saturation of the gluon distribution in the small $`x`$ limit implies similar increase and/or saturation of the dipole-proton cross section and of the cross-section $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)`$.

The successful description of all inclusive and diffractive deep inelastic data at HERA by the saturation model  ( see also  and ) suggests that the screening effects might become important in the energy regime probed by the present colliders. Important property of the dipole cross section which holds in this model is its geometric scaling, i.e. dependence upon single variable $`\tau =r^2Q_s^2(x)`$ where $`Q_s(x)`$ is the saturation scale. This leads to the geometric scaling of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)`$ itself, i.e. $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}(x,Q^2)=f(Q^2/Q_s^2(x))`$ which is well supported by the experimental data from HERA . Geometric scaling of the dipole cross-section should imply similar scaling of the quantity $`\alpha _s(Q^2)xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$. This type of scaling is also found to be an intrinsic property of the non-linear evolution equations ,  \- . It turns out that for the equations of type

$$\frac{\varphi (x,k)}{\mathrm{ln}(1/x)}=\overline{\alpha }_sK\varphi \overline{\alpha }_s\varphi ^2(x,k),(\overline{\alpha }_s\frac{N_c\alpha _s}{\pi }),$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is a linear evolution kernel (for example of BFKL type) there exist a region in $`x`$ and $`k`$ space such that

$$\varphi (x,k)=\varphi (Q_s^2(x)/k^2)\mathrm{for}k^2<Q_s^2(x).$$
(2)
For example in the case of the Balitsky-Kovchegov  equation, where $`K`$ is the BFKL kernel, the saturation scale $`Q_s^2(x)`$ has been found to have a general power like dependence on $`x`$ , $`Q_s^2(x)=Q_0^2x^\lambda `$. The coefficient $`\lambda `$ which is approximately equal to $`4\overline{\alpha }_s`$ in this case, is then a universal quantity and does not depend on the initial conditions for the evolution  \- .

The main purpose of this paper is to analyse possible compatibility of this scaling with the DGLAP evolution equations. It is expected that the non-linear shadowing effects should be weak in the region ’to the right’ of the critical line defined by the saturation scale $`Q_s^2(x)`$ , i.e. for $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$, see Fig. 1. In order to study possible impact of the DGLAP evolution we shall therefore assume the geometric scaling parametrisation along the critical line and inspect the structure of the solution of the DGLAP equation with those initial conditions. This way of providing the initial conditions along the critical line $`Q^2=Q_s^2(x)`$ rather than at $`Q^2=Q_0^2`$ with $`x`$ independent reference scale $`Q_0^2`$ is the characteristic feature of the saturation effects .

The content of our paper is as follows. In the next section we give semianalytical insight into the solution of the DGLAP equation with the starting distributions provided along the critical line. We study separately the fixed and running coupling cases. In Section 3 we present numerical analysis of our solutions and finally in Section 4 we give our conclusions.

## 2 Solution of the DGLAP equations from the starting distributions provided along the critical line

We wish to understand possible effects of the DGLAP evolution on the geometric scaling at low $`x`$. This scaling means that certain quantities controlling deep inelastic scattering at low $`x`$, like the dipole-proton cross section $`\sigma _{dp}(x,r=1/Q)`$ or the virtual photon-proton cross section $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$, which are in principle functions of two variables, depend upon the single variable $`Q/Q_s(x)`$. The saturation scale $`Q_s(x)`$, which also specifies the critical line increases with decreasing $`x`$

$$Q_s^2(x)=Q_0^2x^\lambda .$$
(3)
Let us assume that:

1. For $`Q^2<Q_s^2(x)`$ the linear evolution is strongly perturbed by the nonlinear effects which generate geometric scaling for the dipole cross section $`\sigma _{dp}(x,r=1/Q)`$ and for the related quantities.
2. Geometric scaling for the dipole cross-section implies geometric scaling for
$`\alpha _s(Q^2)xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$, where $`g(x,Q^2)`$ denotes the gluon distribution. This follows from the LO relation between the dipole cross section and the gluon distribution, i.e. $`\sigma (x,r^2)r^2\alpha _s(1/r^2)xg(x,1/r^2)`$.
3. Geometric scaling for $`\alpha _s(Q^2)xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ holds at the boundary $`Q^2=Q_s^2(x)`$.
4. For $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$ the non-linear screening effects can be neglected and evolution of parton densities is governed by the DGLAP equations.

We wish to study possible effects of the DGLAP evolution upon the geometric scaling in the region $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$ after solving the linear DGLAP evolution equations starting from the gluon distribution satisfying this scaling and defined along the critical line $`Q_s^2(x)`$ (see point 3 above). We shall discuss the fixed and running coupling cases separately.

### 2.1 The fixed coupling case

Let us consider standard leading order evolution of the gluon distribution $`xg(x,Q^2)`$

$$\frac{xg(x,Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }_x^1\frac{dz}{z}P_{gg}(z)xg(x/z,Q^2),$$
(4)
where, as usual, the $`P_{gg}`$ is the gluon-gluon splitting function. For simplicity we have neglected possible contribution of the quark distributions. In the moment space this equation has the following form

$$\frac{g_\omega (Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )g_\omega (Q^2),$$
(5)
where we have defined the Mellin transform to be

$$g_\omega (Q^2)=_0^1𝑑xx^\omega g(x,Q^2),$$
(6)
and the gluon anomalous dimension is defined as

$$\gamma _{gg}(\omega )=_0^1𝑑zz^\omega P_{gg}(z).$$
(7)
The solution of equation (5) is straightforward and given by

$$g_\omega (Q^2)=g_0(\omega )\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )}.$$
(8)
We will now seek equation for the moment function $`g_0(\omega )`$ using the following initial condition

$$\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }xg(x,Q^2=Q_s^2(x))=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }r^0x^\lambda ,$$
(9)
where $`Q_s^2(x)`$ is given by equation (3). The parameter $`r^0`$ specifies the normalisation of gluon distribution along the critical line. This boundary condition follows from the geometric scaling condition of the dipole proton cross section $`\sigma _{dp}(r=1/Q,x)`$ which is proportional to $`\alpha _sxg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$.

In order to find solution for $`g_0(\omega )`$ we use the inverse Mellin transform

$$xg(x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega x^\omega g_\omega (Q^2),$$
(10)
where the integration contour should be located to the right of the singularities of $`g_\omega (Q^2)`$ in the $`\omega `$ plane. Inserting in equation (10) the DGLAP solution (8) for $`g_\omega (Q^2)`$ we get

$$xg(x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega x^\omega g_0(\omega )\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )}.$$
(11)
We now set $`Q^2=Q_s^2(x)`$ with the saturation scale $`Q_s^2(x)`$ defined by equation (3), and require the geometric scaling initial condition along the critical line $`Q^2=Q_s^2(x)`$ (see eq. (9)). From equations (3),(9) and (11) we get

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega g_0(\omega )x^{\omega \lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )}=r^0x^\lambda .$$
(12)
This equation can be regarded as the equation for the function $`g_0(\omega )`$, i.e. for the moment of the gluon distribution at the ($`x`$ independent) scale $`Q_0^2`$. In order to solve this equation we take the moment of both sides of equation (12), i.e. we integrate both sides of this equation over $`dx`$ for $`0<x<1`$ with the weight $`x^{\omega _11}`$ and get

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega \frac{g_0(\omega )}{[\omega _1\omega \lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )]}=\frac{r^0}{\omega _1\lambda }.$$
(13)
We now change the integration variables

$$z=\omega +\lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega ),$$
(14)
which after inversion specifies the function $`\omega (z)`$. Equation (13) in the new variable $`z`$ takes then the following form

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑z\frac{d\omega (z)}{dz}\frac{g_0(\omega (z))}{(\omega _1z)}=\frac{r^0}{\omega _1\lambda }.$$
(15)
We can easily perform the contour integration in Eq.(15) and get

$$\frac{d\omega (z)}{dz}|_{z=\omega _1}g_0(\omega (z=\omega _1))=\frac{r^0}{\omega _1\lambda }.$$
(16)
We still need to solve this equation for $`g_0(\omega )`$ and in order to do this we write

$$\omega _1=\omega +\lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega ),$$
(17)
and finally from Eq.(16) we obtain

$$g_0(\omega )=[1+\lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\frac{d\gamma _{gg}(\omega )}{d\omega }]\frac{r^0}{[\omega +\lambda \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )\lambda ]},$$
(18)
which defines the solution for $`g_0(\omega )`$.

In what follows it is convenient to use directly redefined function $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)\frac{d\omega (z)}{dz}g_0(\omega (z)),$$
(19)
where from equation (16) we see that

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)=\frac{r^0}{z\lambda }.$$
(20)
The solution of the DGLAP equation with the initial condition specified by equation (9) then reads

$$xg(x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑zx^z\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_s^2(x)}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega (z))}$$
(21)
where the integration contour is located to the right of the singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)`$ and of $`\omega (z)`$. If the leading singularity is a pole of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_0(z)`$ at $`z=\lambda `$ then the leading contribution to $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ at small $`x`$ is given by

$$xg(x,Q^2)r^0x^\lambda \left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_s^2(x)}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega _0)},$$
(22)
where

$$\omega _0=\omega (\lambda ).$$
(23)
It should be noted that $`\omega _0`$ defines position of the pole of $`g_0(\omega )`$. In general we have $`\omega _0\lambda `$. From equation (22) we get the following leading small $`x`$ behaviour for the gluon density $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$

$$\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\frac{xg(x,Q^2)}{Q^2}\frac{r^0}{Q_0^2}\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\left(\frac{Q^2}{Q_s^2(x)}\right)^{\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega _0)1},$$
(24)
which respects the geometric scaling i.e. is a function of only one combined variable $`Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$. Violation of this scaling by the contribution of the (branch point) singularity of $`\omega (z)`$ is a non-leading effect at low $`x`$.

The requirement that the pole of $`\stackrel{~}{g}^0(z)`$ at $`z=\lambda `$ is the leading singularity imposes certain constraints upon $`\lambda `$. In general they are difficult to be found exactly since the inversion of equation (14) cannot be performed analytically when using complete form of $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )`$. Analytic solution of equation (14) is however possible in the double logarithmic approximation in which $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )=\gamma _{gg}^{DL}(\omega )`$, where

$$\gamma _{gg}^{DL}(\omega )=\frac{2N_c}{\omega },$$
(25)
is the most singular in $`\omega 0`$ part of the gluon anomalous dimension $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )`$. In this approximation we get

$$\omega (z)=\frac{z+\sqrt{z^24\overline{\alpha }_s\lambda }}{2},$$
(26)
where

$$\overline{\alpha }_s=\frac{N_c\alpha _s}{\pi }.$$
(27)
We also have

$$\omega _0=\frac{\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^24\overline{\alpha }_s\lambda }}{2}.$$
(28)
The condition that the pole of $`\stackrel{~}{g}^0(z)`$ at $`z=\lambda `$ is the leading singularity, i.e. that it is located to the right of the branch-point singularity of $`\omega (z)`$ at $`z=2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\lambda }`$ gives the following constraint upon the parameter $`\lambda `$

$$\lambda 4\overline{\alpha }_s.$$
(29)
For $`\lambda <4\overline{\alpha }_s`$ the leading singularity is the branch point of $`\omega (z)`$ at $`z=2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s\lambda }`$ and the geometric scaling becomes violated.

It may be interesting to confront our results for the fixed coupling with the properties of the exact solution of the non-linear Balitsky - Kovchegov equation . In this case geometric-scaling holds for $`Q^2Q_s^2(x)`$ and the non-linear effects can be neglected for $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$. The parameter $`\lambda `$ specifying the critical line is however not an independent quantity and depends upon the (fixed) coupling $`\alpha _s`$. In the double logarithmic approximation it is given by $`\lambda =4\overline{\alpha }_s`$. It follows from equation (29) that this is a limiting value of the parameter $`\lambda `$ for the geometric scaling to hold asymptotically in the small $`x`$ limit and so for $`\lambda =4\overline{\alpha }_s`$ we expect violation of this scaling for $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$ down to the very small values of $`x`$ .

### 2.2  Running coupling case

We now pass to the more realistic case with the running coupling. In this case the evolution equation for the moment function takes the form:

$$\frac{g_\omega (Q^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}=\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega )g_\omega (Q^2),$$
(30)
where the running coupling in the leading order is given by

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }=\frac{b}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)},$$
(31)
with

$$b=\frac{2}{112/3N_f},$$
(32)
with $`N_f`$ being number of flavours. In this section we consider only gluonic channel therefore we set $`N_f=0`$. The solution of equation (30) reads

$$g_\omega (Q^2)=g_0(\omega )\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\omega )}.$$
(33)
From the above solution we obtain

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }g_\omega (Q^2)=\frac{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)}{2\pi }g_0(\omega )\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\omega )1},$$
(34)
and so the result for the gluon distribution $`xg(x,Q^2)`$ in $`x`$ space reads in this case

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }xg(x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega x^\omega f_0(\omega )\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\omega )1},$$
(35)
where

$$f_0(\omega )=\frac{\alpha _s(Q_0^2)}{2\pi }g_0(\omega ).$$
(36)
We now impose the geometric scaling condition (9) onto this solution to get

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega x^\omega f_0(\omega )\left(1+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1/x)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\omega )1}=r^0x^\lambda .$$
(37)
which is an equation for $`f_0(\omega )`$. Solution of this equation is complicated, i.e. exact solution generates complicated (branch point) singularity of $`f_0(\omega )`$ at $`\omega =\lambda `$. The only observation which we can make is that it should generate $`x^\lambda `$ behaviour softened by inverse powers of the $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$. In order to make some insight into what is going on we have to make some approximations. To be precise let us make the approximation by setting $`\omega =\lambda `$ in the argument of $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )`$ that gives

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑\omega x^\omega f_0(\omega )\left(1+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1/x)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{(b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )1)}r^0x^\lambda .$$
(38)
Making the same approximation in the inverse Mellin transform (35) we get the solution

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }xg(x,Q^2)x^\lambda r^0\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )1}\left(1+\frac{\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1/x)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}\right)^{(b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )1)}.$$
(39)
Multiplying and dividing $`Q^2`$ by $`Q_0^2x^\lambda `$ we finally obtain

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }xg(x,Q^2)=x^\lambda r^0\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2x^\lambda /Q_0^2)}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1/x)}+1\right)^{b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )1}.$$
(40)
The factor proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)`$ in the denominator of the expression on the r.h.s. of (40) generates violation of the geometric scaling. Thus in the case of running of the coupling $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ the scaling behaviour gets violated, it is possible however to factor out the effect of this violation. We can also rewrite Eq.(40) by using the definition of the saturation scale and the running coupling to get

$$\frac{\alpha _s(Q^2)}{2\pi }\frac{xg(x,Q^2)}{Q^2}=\frac{r^0}{Q_0^2}\frac{Q_s^2(x)}{Q^2}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(Q_s^2(x))}{2\pi b}\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_s^2(x))\right]^{b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )1},$$
(41)
where we see that the violation is proportional to the value of the running coupling evaluated at the saturation scale. Consequently when $`x1`$ that is when $`Q_s(x)1`$ the geometric scaling is restored, provided of course that $`\alpha _s(Q_s^2(x))\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_s^2(x))1`$ as well. This condition is equivalent to $`\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_s^2(x))\mathrm{ln}(Q_s^2(x)/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. The same condition defining the region in which the geometric scaling holds above the saturation scale has recently been found in ref. .

## 3 Numerical results

In this section we present numerical results for the evolution of ordinary DGLAP equations for the integrated gluon distribution function with special boundary conditions set on the critical line $`Q_s^2(x)`$ as described in Sec.1.

### 3.1 Fixed coupling case

We start with the simplest case which is the fixed strong coupling. We assume also in the first approximation the DLLA limit that is we only keep the most singular part of the $`P_{gg}`$ splitting function in our simulation i.e.

$$P_{gg}(z)=\frac{2N_c}{z},N_c=3,$$
(42)
which results in the following form for the anomalous dimension of Eq.(7)

$$\gamma _{gg}(\omega )=\frac{2N_c}{\omega }.$$
(43)
The initial condition for the evolution of the gluon density is assumed to be of the form (9). We take $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`\alpha _s=0.1`$. In Fig.2 we show the results of the calculation in this case. We illustrate the scaling behaviour of the gluon density by plotting $`xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ versus scaling variable $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$ for different values of rapidity $`Y=\mathrm{ln}1/x`$. From Eq.(24) we see that this function should scale with $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$. The geometric scaling would correspond in this plot (Fig. 2) to the perfect overlap of all curves for different values of $`Y`$, so that they would form one single line. We see that up to a good accuracy this function does not depend dramatically on $`Y`$ and thus on $`x`$. We do however observe that there is some violation of the scaling at large $`x`$. This is due to the fact that the geometric scaling expression defined by equation (24) is only expected to hold asymptotically in the small $`x`$ limit. At finite $`x`$ this leading behaviour is perturbed by the non-leading contribution given by the branch-point singularity of $`\omega (z)`$ at $`z=2\sqrt{\overline{\alpha }_s}`$ , (see eq. (26) ).

To illustrate better the scaling and its violation we have plotted $`xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ versus scaling variable $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$ using double-logarithmic scale, see Fig. 3a. One clearly sees that with increasing rapidity $`Y`$ the curves do not change and reach asymptotic straight line. We have also selected the very low $`x`$ range of Fig. 3a, which is Fig. 3b. One can see that in this case the geometric scaling is nearly preserved (we see nearly single line for different rapidities).

The behaviour of $`xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ versus $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$ is clearly governed by a power law, with a power which we estimated to be approximately $`0.77`$. From equation (24) and (28), and using the values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha _s`$ quoted above we get that the power should be $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\gamma _{gg}(\omega _0)1=0.74`$ which is in a very good agreement with numerical result.

Let us note that in the case of DLLA (43), $`\omega _0`$ is a solution of the quadratic equation and is given by (28). As previously noticed the real solution exists only for $`\lambda \lambda _{min}=4\overline{\alpha _s}`$ with $`\overline{\alpha }_s=\alpha _sN_c/\pi `$. We have numerically checked that for $`\lambda \lambda _{min}`$ our solution no longer exhibits geometric scaling. It is interesting to note, as we have already observed at the end of Sec. 2.1, that exactly the same value of $`\lambda =\lambda _{min}`$ for a power of saturation scale was obtained from the studies of the nonlinear Balitsky-Kovchegov equation  performed in  \- .

We next abandon the DLLA approximation and consider more general case with the full gluon-gluon splitting function $`P_{gg}`$ which gives the following anomalous dimension

$$\gamma _{gg}(\omega )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}N_c\left[\frac{1}{\omega }\frac{1}{\omega +1}+\frac{1}{\omega +2}\frac{1}{\omega +3}\gamma _E+\frac{11}{12}\psi (\omega +2)\right],$$
(44)
where $`\psi `$ is Polygamma function. In this case equation (14) with $`z=\lambda `$ can no longer be solved analytically and has to be analysed numerically. However, one can get insight into the allowed values of $`\lambda `$ by making the expansion of the anomalous dimension around $`\omega =0`$. In this case $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )/(2N_c)\frac{1}{\omega }+A_1(0)+𝒪(\omega )`$ where $`A_1(0)=\frac{11}{12}`$. Using this approximation in (14) one finds that now geometric scaling will hold if the following condition is satisfied

$$\lambda \lambda _{min}=\frac{4\overline{\alpha _s}}{[1\overline{\alpha _s}A_1(0)]^2}.$$
(45)
We have checked numerically that above approximation works very well and gives very close results to the solution of (14) with full $`\omega `$ dependence of anomalous dimension $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )`$.

In Fig.4a we plot $`xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ as a function of scaling variable $`Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$ in the case of calculation with the full anomalous dimension (44). We have taken $`\lambda =0.5`$, and $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.1`$. We see that the function exhibits geometric scaling (although there is some residual violation at larger values of $`x`$). The calculated value of exponent from numerical calculation is $`0.85`$ which is again in nearly perfect agreement with the analytical estimate based on the approximation described above which gives $`0.86`$. We also present in Fig. 4b the calculation in the case of $`\lambda =0.3`$ which is below the critical value (45) equal in this case $`\lambda _{min}=0.33`$ for $`\overline{\alpha }_s=0.1`$. We clearly see that the geometric scaling is never present in that case.

One can study the scaling and its violation in a more quantitative way by examining the following expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,\tau )=\frac{1}{h}\frac{h(Y,\tau )}{Y}|_{\tau =\mathrm{fixed}},$$
(46)
where

$$h(Y,\tau )\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{Q^2}xg(x,Q^2).$$
(47)
Derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,\tau )`$ should vanish in the region where geometric scaling is satisfied. Consequently its deviation from zero will characterise the scaling violation of solution (47).

We present the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,\tau )`$ in Fig.5 for the case of calculation with complete anomalous dimension and two selected values of $`\lambda :`$ $`0.3`$ and $`0.5`$. Derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,\tau )`$ in Fig.5 therefore illustrates the scaling and its violation for the solution shown in Fig.4. From Fig.5 it is clear that in $`\lambda =0.5`$ the scaling is always reached, even for high values of $`\tau `$ , that is very far right to the critical line. On the other hand in the case $`\lambda =0.3`$ the derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }(Y,\tau )`$ never vanishes meaning that for $`\lambda <\lambda _{min}`$ the solution of the DGLAP equation with the fixed coupling case does not exhibit geometric scaling.

### 3.2 Running coupling case

We consider now the case in which $`\alpha _s`$ is running and study the impact of scaling boundary condition (9) onto the evolution. We consider full expression for the anomalous dimension in that case $`\gamma _{gg}(\omega )`$ given by Eq.(44). The running of the coupling requires that the evolution is taken in the region well above the Landau pole. In our case this means that one has to evolve with $`Q^2>Q_s^2(x)`$ and we would like to have $`Q_s^2(x)`$ big enough for all values of $`x`$. For the purpose of illustration we take that $`Q_s^2(x)=Q_0^2(x/x_0)^\lambda `$ where $`Q_0^2=1.0\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ and $`x_0=1.0`$. This means that at $`x=1`$ the saturation scale is equal $`Q_s^2=1.0\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. This assumption might seem artificial considering the present phenomenology of lepton-nucleon scattering which suggests that saturation scale could be of the order of $`1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ at $`x10^4`$ for the most central collisions at HERA collider . However, we use it here for the purpose of illustration of basic effects of the evolution with special scaling boundary conditions. We concentrate ourselves here on presenting general properties of the solution rather than trying to describe the experimental data. We also take $`N_f=0`$, that is we are considering pure gluonic channel. In Fig.6a we present the results of the calculation by plotting $`\alpha _s(Q^2)xg(x,Q^2)/Q^2`$ versus scaling variable $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$ in the case with full gluon anomalous dimension. For comparison we also show the calculation performed in the DLLA approximation Fig. 6b. We see that the geometric scaling is mildly violated in the running coupling case, more strongly in the DLLA approximation due to the faster evolution. This fact can be understood on the basis of Eq.(41) where the numerical value of the exponent of expression on the r.h.s. is much bigger in the DLLA case: $`b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda =0.5)=0.18`$ in the case with full anomalous dimension and $`b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda =0.5)=13/11`$ in DLLA case.

We have tried to estimate whether the violation is consistent with the analytical prediction of formula (40). In Fig. 7a we present the same quantity as in Fig. 6a but multiplied by the scaling variable $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$. The solid black curves in Fig. 7a from the upper to lower are for decreasing values of $`x`$. One can see that the solution exhibits some small violation of the geometric scaling and that the magnitude of this violation is smaller for smaller values of $`x`$ ( the curves are becoming closer and closer as $`x`$ decreases ). This is consistent with general behaviour predicted by equation (40) where the scaling violating factor on the r.h.s. tends to unity when $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)1`$. We stress that the observed scaling violation is very small in this kinematical regime. For example at very high value of $`\tau =10^3`$ the violation of the scaling is about $`5\%`$ in a huge rapidity range from $`Y=6`$ to $`Y=46`$.

It follows from equations (40) and (41) that the violation of the geometric scaling can be approximately factored out. We checked this approximate prediction by considering the quantity

$`\alpha _s(Q^2)xg(x,Q^2)/Q_s^2(x)VF(x)`$
$`\mathrm{with}`$ $`VF(x)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/Q_s^2(x))}{\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+\lambda \mathrm{ln}(1/x)}}+1\right]^{1b\gamma _{gg}(\lambda )}`$ (48)
which according to equation (40) should be constant with respect to $`\tau =Q^2/Q_s^2(x)`$. The results for the above quantity are shown in Fig. 7b (which is Fig. 7a multiplied by $`VF(x)`$ ) where now we see that approximately the geometric scaling is nearly restored (curves form a very narrow band) at high values of rapidity .

Also in the case of running coupling we have studied the features of the geometric scaling using the method of the derivative, see Eq. (46). The results are shown in Fig.8 where it is clear that there is always a region where the geometric scaling is (approximately) preserved in the running coupling case, even at very high values of $`\tau `$. This is consistent with formula (41) provided we have $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q_s^2)\mathrm{ln}\tau 1,x1`$ and also with the conclusions of ref. . We have also illustrated in Fig.8 the sensitivity of the results on the variation of the normalisation for the saturation scale i.e. $`Q_0^2`$. Changing the parameter $`Q_0^2`$ from $`1`$ \- upper plot in Fig.8 to $`0.1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ \- lower plot in Fig.8, influences the size of the violation of the scaling. One can see that the geometric scaling is postponed to the higher values of rapidity.

## 4 Summary and conclusions

In this paper we studied effects of the DGLAP evolution upon the geometric scaling. We solved the DGLAP evolution equation for the gluon distribution with the initial condition respecting the geometric scaling and provided along the critical line $`Q^2=Q_s^2(x)`$. In the case of the fixed QCD coupling we obtained analytic solution of the DGLAP equation with those boundary condition, Eq. (21). We also showed that for sufficiently large values of the parameter $`\lambda `$ defining the critical line this solution of the DGLAP equation preserves the geometric scaling for the leading term at small $`x`$, (see Eq. (22)). In the double logarithmic approximation of the DGLAP equation this happens for $`\lambda 4\overline{\alpha }_s`$, where $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ is defined by equation (27). Geometric scaling is however violated by effects which are subleading at small values of $`x`$. We have also obtained approximate solution of the DGLAP equation with the running coupling starting again from the boundary conditions respecting geometric scaling along the critical line. In the running coupling case geometric scaling is mildly violated for arbitrary values of the parameter $`\lambda `$ yet this violation can be approximately factored out. The size of this small violation is controlled by the quantity $`\overline{\alpha }_s(Q_s^2)\mathrm{ln}Q^2/Q_s^2`$. Thus in the region where $`x1`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2/Q_s^2\mathrm{ln}Q_s^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ the geometric scaling in the running coupling case is preserved. Results of the detailed numerical analysis confirmed all those expectations.
We conclude that the geometric scaling is a very useful regularity following from the saturation model. We believe that it might be interesting to incorporate this ’DGLAP improved’ geometric scaling in the phenomenological analysis of the data.

## Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the EU Fourth Framework Programme ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’, Network ‘Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles’, contract FMRX–CT98–0194 and by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) grants no. 2P03B 05119, 2P03B 12019 and 5P03B 14420.


text:
# From independent particle towards collective motion in two electron square lattices

## 1 Introduction

An important issue in quantum many body theory is to know how one goes from independent particle motion towards collective motion when one decreases the density $`n_s`$ of electrons repelling each other via a $`U/r`$ Coulomb repulsion. One can trap the electrons by a positive background of charges (jellium model) unless one uses periodic boundary conditions ($`2d`$ torus geometry). Many studies Egger ; yannouleas1 ; yannouleas2 ; yannouleas3 ; peeters ; hawrylak ; filinov  assume a parabolic trap, its rotational invariance allowing to decouple the motion of the center of mass from the relative motions. A parabolic confinement has the merit to be realizable using semiconductor heterostructures hawrylak ; dot  for electrons or electromagnetic fields for cold ions. It has however the disadvantage to yield a non uniform charge density, so that the formation of the electron solid when the confinement becomes weak results from a complicated interplay between edge and bulk orderings filinov ; schweigert . This leads us to study a system without edge, having the geometry of a two dimensional torus, where the density is uniform. For a continuous torus, the size of the corresponding Hilbert space is infinite, making the use of a truncated basis unavoidable for a numerical study. A way to avoid such a truncation is to take a lattice model (tight binding approximation). Considering the the simplest limit: the ground state (GS) of two spinless fermions in a square $`L\times L`$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions (BCs), we give an answer to four questions. Is there a simple one parameter scaling theory of the Fermi-Wigner crossover? How important are the finite size corrections to this scaling theory? Does the lattice play an important role? How those answers are modified when a weak random potential is included?

The answers can be summarized as follows. In the strong coupling limit, the Coulomb repulsion pushes the spacing $`|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ between the two particle to take its maximum value $`L/\sqrt{2}`$ and its fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ become of the order of the lattice spacing $`a`$. This gives rise to a strongly correlated lattice regime where analytical expansions in powers of $`t/U`$ are sufficient to describe the system. For weaker couplings, the relative motion becomes more and more delocalized and the lattice effects become irrelevant. This gives rise to a universal regime characterized by a scaling length $`L_0=\sqrt{8}\pi ^2(t/U)`$. This length corresponds to the system size for which the extra energy to add a second particle in the system is the same in the Wigner limit ($`t=0`$) than in the Fermi limit ($`U=0`$). $`L<L_0`$ is the Fermi limit, $`L>L_0`$ is the Wigner limit and the Fermi-Wigner crossover takes place when $`L=L_0`$. In this universal regime, the relative fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }r/r=F(L/L_0)`$ up to finite size corrections of order $`L^2`$. When the site potentials have weak random fluctuations of order $`W`$, there is still a regime where one parameter scaling remains valid, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r/r`$ being characterized by a function $`F_W(L/L_W)`$ which depends on $`W`$. Both $`\mathrm{\Delta }r/r`$ and the scaling length $`L_W`$ become smaller, in agreement with the general idea that a weak disorder favors the correlated motion.

## 2 Lattice model

We consider two electrons with symmetric spin wave functions and antisymmetric orbital wave functions (spinless fermions), free to move in a $`L\times L`$ lattice with periodic BCs, and interacting via a $`U/|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ repulsion. The Hamiltonian reads

$$H=t\underset{<i,j>}{}(c_i^{}c_j+h.c.)+\underset{i}{}v_in_i+\frac{U}{2}\underset{ij}{}\frac{n_in_j}{|\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}|}$$
(1)
where $`i`$, $`j`$ label the lattice sites, $`<i,j>`$ means $`i`$ nearest neighbor to $`j`$, $`c_i^{}`$, $`c_i`$ are the creation, annihilation operators of a spinless fermion at the site $`i`$; $`n_i=c_i^{}c_i`$ is the occupation number at the site labelled by the vector $`\stackrel{}{i}=(i_x,i_y)`$. The vector $`\stackrel{}{r}_{ij}=\stackrel{}{i}\stackrel{}{j}`$ is defined as the shortest vector going from the site $`i`$ to the site $`j`$ in a square lattice with periodic BCs. This means that $`r_xL/2`$ and $`r_yL/2`$ if $`L`$ is even, $`LL1`$ if $`L`$ is odd. Hence, the pairwise interaction $`U/|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ exhibits a singularity on the lines $`r_x=L/2`$ and $`r_y=L/2`$ and another one at their crossing point $`r_x=r_y=L/2`$. $`t=\mathrm{}^2/(2ma^2)`$ is the hopping term, $`a`$ the lattice spacing, $`v_i`$ the site potentials which are randomly distributed in the interval $`[W/2,W/2]`$ and $`U=e^2/(ϵa)`$ the Coulomb interaction between two fermions separated by $`a`$ in a medium of dielectric constant $`ϵ`$. When there is no disorder ($`W=0`$), $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k_x,k_y)`$ being the one particle momentum, it is more convenient to write $`H`$ using the Fourier transforms of the creation and annihilation operators. One has the relations

$$c_\stackrel{}{j}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}a_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{j}},$$
(2)
and

$$a_\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{\stackrel{}{j}}{}c_\stackrel{}{j}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{j}}.$$
(3)
which yield

$$H=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}a_\stackrel{}{k}^{}a_\stackrel{}{k}\epsilon (\stackrel{}{k})+\underset{\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k}_1,\stackrel{}{k}_2}{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_2+\stackrel{}{q}}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_2}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{q}}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_1}V(\stackrel{}{q})$$
(4)
where

$$\epsilon (\stackrel{}{k})=2t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)$$
(5)
and

$$V(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{U}{2L^2}\underset{\stackrel{}{r}(0,0)}{}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}}{\stackrel{}{r}}$$
(6)
Without disorder, the total momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}=\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2`$ is conserved. The two particles states of different momenta are not coupled, $`H`$ becoming block diagonal, each block corresponding to a given total momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}`$.

The dimension of the two particle Hilbert space is given by

$$N_H=\frac{M!}{N!(MN)!}=\frac{M1}{2}M$$
(7)
for $`N=2`$ and $`M=L^2`$. When $`L`$ is odd, this gives $`M`$ blocks of dimension $`(M1)/2`$. When $`L`$ is even, we have two different dimensions of the blocks.

$$N_H=M_{b_1}M_1+M_{b_2}M_2$$
(8)
where $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ are the number of blocks with dimensions $`M_{b_1}`$, $`M_{b_2}`$. Here,

$$M_1=\frac{MM_{b_2}N_H}{M_{b_2}M_{b_1}},M_2=\frac{N_HMM_{b_1}}{M_{b_2}M_{b_1}}$$
(9)
and

$$M_{b_1}=\frac{M}{2}2,M_{b_2}=\frac{M}{2}.$$
(10)
## 3 The Fermi limit

When $`U=W=0`$ and with periodic BCs, the states are $`N_H`$ plane wave Slater determinants

$$a_{\stackrel{}{k}_1}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_2}^{}|0=|\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{k}_2.$$
(11)
$`k_x=(2\pi /L)n_x`$ and $`k_y=(2\pi /L)n_y`$ with

$$n_x,n_y=\{\begin{array}{c}0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm \frac{L1}{2}\text{for }L\text{ odd}\hfill \\ 0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm \left(\frac{L}{2}1\right),\frac{L}{2}\text{for }L\text{ even}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The two particle wave functions

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left|\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{L}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{r}_1}& \frac{1}{L}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2}\\ & \\ \frac{1}{L}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{r}_1}& \frac{1}{L}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{r}_2}\end{array}\right|$$
(13)
become

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=\left(\frac{1}{L}e^{i\stackrel{}{K}\stackrel{}{R}}\right)\left(i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{L}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}\right)$$
(14)
after the change of coordinates:

$`\stackrel{}{K}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_1+\stackrel{}{k}_2,\stackrel{}{k}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{k}_2\stackrel{}{k}_1\right)`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{}{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_2\right),\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{r}_2\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ (16)
Without disorder, the motion of the center of mass and the relative motion are separable:

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=\varphi \left(\stackrel{}{R}\right)\chi \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right).$$
(17)
$`\varphi \left(\stackrel{}{R}\right)`$ is a plane wave of total momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ which describes the propagation of the center of mass on the $`2d`$ torus while $`\chi \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ describes the relative motion. The moments $`|\stackrel{}{r}|^m`$ of the inter-particle spacing $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ are given by:

$$|\stackrel{}{r}|^m=|\stackrel{}{r}|^mp\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$
(18)
where $`p(\stackrel{}{r})=|\chi (\stackrel{}{r})|^2`$ is the inter-particle spacing distribution.

The one particle energies $`\epsilon (\stackrel{}{k})`$ can be ordered by increasing values. The one particle GS energy $`\epsilon _0`$ is not degenerate, while the three next excitations $`\epsilon _1`$, $`\epsilon _2`$, $`\epsilon _3`$, are four-fold degenerate; the fourth excitation $`\epsilon _4`$ is ten-fold degenerate; etc.

$`\epsilon _0`$ $`=`$ $`4t`$
$`\epsilon _1`$ $`=`$ $`2t\left(1+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}\right)`$
$`\epsilon _2`$ $`=`$ $`4t\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}`$ (19)
$`\epsilon _3`$ $`=`$ $`2t\left(1+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{L}}\right)`$
$`\epsilon _4`$ $`=`$ $`2t\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{L}}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{L}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
The two particle GS consists of one particle of energy $`\epsilon _0`$ and of a second particle of energy $`\epsilon _1`$. Because $`\epsilon _1`$ has a four-fold degeneracy, the two particle GS energy

$$E_0=\epsilon _0+\epsilon _1=4t2t\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)$$
(20)
is also four-fold degenerate.

Hereafter, we study the two particle GS of momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}=(0,2\pi /L)`$. For $`\stackrel{}{k}_1=(0,0)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}_2=(0,\frac{2\pi }{L})`$, the GS wave function is given by

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{r}_1,\stackrel{}{r}_2)=\left(\frac{1}{L}e^{i\frac{2\pi }{L}R_y}\right)\left(i\frac{\sqrt{2}}{L}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi r_y}{L}\right),$$
(21)
which yields

$$p(r_x,r_y)=\frac{2}{L^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi r_y}{L}$$
(22)
$$|\stackrel{}{r}|^m=\frac{2}{L^2}\underset{r_x,r_y0}{}\left(r_x^2+r_y^2\right)^{m/2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\pi r_y}{L}.$$
(23)
The corresponding inter-particle spacing distribution $`p(r_x,r_y)`$ is shown in Fig. 1 for $`L=60`$.

When one turns on the interaction $`U`$, the GS wave function of total momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}=\stackrel{}{k}_i+\stackrel{}{k}_j`$ can be written as

$$|\psi _0(U)=\underset{i<j}{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j}(U)|\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_i+\stackrel{}{k}_j}^\stackrel{}{K}.$$
(24)
The coefficients $`a_{\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j}(U)=\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j|\psi _0(U)`$ can be numerically obtained if $`L`$ is not too large, and the inter-particle spacing distribution $`p(r_x,r_y)`$ given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_{i<j,m<n}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_i\stackrel{}{k}_j}^{}a_{\stackrel{}{k}_m\stackrel{}{k}_n}\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_i+\stackrel{}{k}_j}^{\stackrel{}{k}_m+\stackrel{}{k}_n}\left[e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}_n\stackrel{}{k}_j)r}e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}_n\stackrel{}{k}_i)r}\right]}{L^2}}`$
is shown in Fig. 2 for $`L=60`$, $`U/t=5`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}=(0,2\pi /L)`$. If one particle is located at the site $`(0,0)`$, one can see how the interaction localizes the second one near the site $`\stackrel{}{r}=(L/2,L/2)`$.

## 4 The correlated lattice limit

Before studying in more details the interaction induced localization of the inter-particle spacing $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, let us consider the other limit $`t/U0`$ where the two particle wave functions $`|\psi `$ are more conveniently written using the operators $`c_i^{}`$. In this limit, the kinetic part

$$H_K=t\underset{<ij>}{}c_i^{}c_j+h.c.$$
(25)
of $`H`$ is a small perturbation compared to the Coulomb part and the levels can be expanded in powers of $`t/U`$. When $`t/U0`$, at the order zero of a $`t/U`$ expansion, the Coulomb energies $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ of the GS wave function $`|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})`$ and of the two degenerate first excitations $`|\psi _1^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})`$ and $`|\psi _2^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})`$ are given by

$$E_0=\frac{U}{d_0}=\frac{\sqrt{2}U}{L}$$
(26)
and

$$E_1=\frac{U}{d_1}=\frac{U}{\sqrt{\left(\frac{L}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{L}{2}1\right)^2}}$$
(27)
if $`L`$ is even. When $`L`$ is odd, the lengths $`d_0`$ and $`d_1`$ must be differently defined:

$$d_0=\frac{L1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(28)
and

$$d_1=\sqrt{\left(\frac{L1}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{L1}{2}1\right)^2}.$$
(29)
Hereafter, we assume that $`L`$ is even and we consider the states of total momentum $`\stackrel{}{K}=(0,2\pi /L)`$. $`\stackrel{}{a}=(L/2,L/2)`$. $`\stackrel{}{b}_1=(L/2+1,L/2)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}_2=(L/2,L/2+1)`$ defining the locations of three lattice sites which are as far as possible from the site $`\stackrel{}{0}=(0,0)`$, the zero order GS wave function

$$|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}L}\underset{\stackrel{}{j}}{}\mathrm{exp}^{i\stackrel{}{K}.\stackrel{}{j}}c_\stackrel{}{j}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{j}+\stackrel{}{a}}^{}|0$$
(30)
is directly coupled at the order $`t/U`$ to the two wave functions of energy $`E_1`$

$$|\psi _1^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})=\frac{1}{L}\underset{\stackrel{}{j}}{}\mathrm{exp}^{i\stackrel{}{K}.\stackrel{}{j}}c_\stackrel{}{j}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{j}+\stackrel{}{b}_1}^{}|0$$
(31)
and

$$|\psi _2^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})=\frac{1}{L}\underset{\stackrel{}{j}}{}\mathrm{exp}^{i\stackrel{}{K}.\stackrel{}{j}}c_\stackrel{}{j}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{j}+\stackrel{}{b}_2}^{}|0.$$
(32)
by

$$\psi _1^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})\left|H_K\right|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})=2\sqrt{2}t$$
(33)
and

$$\psi _2^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})\left|H_K\right|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})=\sqrt{2}\left(1+\mathrm{exp}i\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)t$$
(34)
respectively. At the order $`t/U`$, the GS wave function is given by

$$\frac{|\psi _0^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{K})}{C^2}=|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})+|\delta \psi _0^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{K})$$
(35)
where $`C^2`$ is a normalization constant and

$$|\delta \psi _0^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{K})=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{\psi _\alpha ^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})|H_K|\psi _0^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})}{E_0E_1}|\psi _\alpha ^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K}).$$
(36)
One gets

$$|\delta \psi _0^{(1)}(\stackrel{}{K})=A|\psi _1^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})+B|\psi _2^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{K})$$
(37)
where

$$A=2\sqrt{2}\frac{d_0d_1}{d_0d_1}\left(\frac{t}{U}\right)$$
(38)
$$B=\sqrt{2}\frac{d_0d_1}{d_0d_1}\left(1+\mathrm{exp}\frac{i2\pi }{L}\right)\left(\frac{t}{U}\right)$$
(39)
and

$$C^2=1+\frac{4d_0^2d_1^2}{(d_0d_1)^2}\left(3+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)\left(\frac{t}{U}\right)^2.$$
(40)
for $`L`$ even and $`\stackrel{}{K}=(0,2\pi /L)`$. This yields for the fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }r=\sqrt{r^2r^2}`$ of the inter-particle spacing:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r=\frac{t}{U}L\sqrt{[(L1)^2+1]\left(3+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)}$$
(41)
and for its relative fluctuation $`u_r=\mathrm{\Delta }r/r`$

$$u_r=\frac{t}{U}\sqrt{2[(L1)^2+1]\left(3+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)}.$$
(42)
This correlated lattice behavior is shown in Fig. 3 for $`L=20`$ when $`U/t>1000`$.

## 5 The three regimes of coupling

The behavior of the relative fluctuation $`u_r=\mathrm{\Delta }r/<r>`$ is shown in Fig. 3 for $`L=20`$ and $`\stackrel{}{K}=(0,2\pi /L)`$. The crossover from independent particle towards strongly correlated motion in a finite size lattice exhibits three regimes:

* A weak $`U`$ Fermi regime where $`u_r`$ is large and almost independent of $`U`$. The fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is of the order of the expectation value $`r`$, $`r`$ being broadly distributed.
* An intermediate correlated Wigner regime where $`u_r`$ exhibits a weak $`(t/U)^\alpha `$ decay, where $`\alpha 0.31`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ becomes small compared to $`r`$, the distribution of $`r`$ becoming narrower.
* A large $`U`$ strongly correlated lattice regime where $`u_r`$ exhibits the strong $`t/U`$ decay predicted by the perturbative expansion (Eq. (42)), the distribution of $`r`$ being extremely narrow.

The value $`U^{}(L)/t`$ characterizing the crossover between the intermediate Wigner regime and the strongly correlated lattice regime is consistent with the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }r<1`$. When $`UU^{}(L)`$, the lattice strongly reduces the degrees of freedom of the relative motion, and lattice expansions in powers of $`t/U`$ become valid. We study in the next section the Fermi-Wigner crossover which occurs before this strongly correlated lattice regime.

## 6 Scaling theory of the Fermi-Wigner crossover

For $`U<U^{}(L)`$, we define the scale $`L_0`$ associated to the interaction strength $`U/t`$ such that a dimensionless observable as $`u_r`$ becomes a universal function of the dimensionless ratio $`L/L_0`$, up to certain finite size corrections which we will estimate. The argument for defining the scaling length $`L_0`$ can be presented as follows. Let us consider the system at $`U=0`$ where the first particle occupies the state $`\epsilon _0=4t`$. Due to Pauli principle, adding a second particle requires an extra kinetic energy:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(U=0)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _0=2t(1\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /L))$$
(43)
In the other limit $`t0`$, adding a second particle requires an extra Coulomb energy:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(t=0)=\frac{U}{d_0}$$
(44)
The length $`L_0`$ characterizes the scale at which $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(U=0)`$ coming from Pauli exclusion principle is equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t=0)`$ coming from Coulomb repulsion. When $`L`$ is large enough, $`L_0`$ can be approximated by:

$$L_0=\sqrt{8}\pi ^2\left(\frac{t}{U}\right),$$
(45)
but when $`L`$ is small, $`L_0`$ should be more precisely determined by solving the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(U=0)=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t=0)`$, and without neglecting the even-odd effects in the definition of $`d_0`$. For scales $`L<L_0`$, the GS wave function has mainly to minimize the kinetic energy while the minimization of the Coulomb energy becomes more important for the scales $`L>L_0`$. The Fermi-Wigner crossover is expected at $`L/L_0=1`$.

One assumes for the dimensionless ratio $`u_r`$ the usual finite size scaling ansatz scaling :

$$u_r(L,U,t)=F(\frac{L}{L_0})+g(L),$$
(46)
the finite size correction $`g(L)0`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$. $`g(L)`$ can be easily evaluated when $`U/t0`$ ($`L_0\mathrm{}`$), the ansatz becoming

$$u_r(L,U=0,t)=F(0)+g(L)$$
(47)
This is a problem without interaction where one can use Eq. (23), for eventually obtaining $`F(0)=0.2543`$ and

$$g(L)\{\begin{array}{cc}0.9/\left(L+1\right)^2& \text{for }L\text{ even}\hfill \\ 0.4/\left(L1\right)^2& \text{for }L\text{ odd}\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
The finite size correction $`g(L)`$ has a sign which depends on the parity of $`L`$ and disappears as the inverse of the total number of lattice sites.

Fig. 4 gives $`F(L/L_0)=u_rg(L)`$ for even values of $`L`$. One can see the universal scaling behavior with a Fermi Wigner crossover at $`L=L_0`$ up to a value $`U^{}(L)`$ denoted by the filled circles where scaling breaks down and the correlated lattice regime begins. The behavior of $`U^{}(L)`$ is shown in Fig. 5, where one can see that the values $`U^{}(L)`$ extracted from Fig. 4 are precisely given by the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }r2/3`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ being given by Eq. (41). Below $`U^{}(L)`$, $`u_rg(L)`$ is a one parameter function of $`L/L_0LU/t`$, and the lattice effects are irrelevant. The lattice regime occurs only above a large interaction $`U^{}/tL^2`$ when $`L`$ is large.

For $`N`$ spinless fermions in a $`L\times L`$ square lattice, the Coulomb energy to Fermi energy ratio becomes bwp :

$$r_s=\frac{U}{2t}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi \nu }}$$
(49)
for a density $`\nu =N/L^2`$. As it must be, the dimensionless ratios $`L/L_0`$ and $`r_s`$ are proportional, the advantage of using $`L/L_0`$ instead of $`r_s`$ being that the crossover occurs when $`L/L_0=1`$, and not at $`r_s=1`$. In the strongly correlated lattice regime, $`u_r`$ becomes a function of $`Lt/U`$, and not of $`r_sLU/t`$.

The Fermi-Wigner universal crossover is illustrated with more details in Fig. 6 where we have only taken even values of $`L`$. One can see that the finite size correction $`g(L)=0.9/(L+1)^2`$ allows us to plot all the values $`u_rg(L)`$ calculated for $`U<U^{}(L)`$ onto the universal scaling curve $`F(L/L_0)`$ when $`L=6,10,\mathrm{},60`$. Fig. 7 gives the same universal curve $`F(L/L_0)`$ for the odd values of $`L`$, once the finite size correction $`g(L)=0.4/(L+1)^2`$ have been subtracted to $`u_r`$. The universal function $`F(x)`$ is close to its value $`F(0)=0.2543`$ when $`x1`$ and behaves as $`x^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 0.31`$ when $`x1`$.

The value $`\alpha 0.31`$ depends on the exact form of the pairwise repulsion $`U/|\stackrel{}{r}|`$ around $`\stackrel{}{r}=(L/2,L/2)`$. Due to our definition of the inter-particle spacing $`r`$, $`U(r)`$ is non analytic around $`\stackrel{}{r}=(L/2,L/2)`$, making the study a little bit involved. If one modifies the pairwise repulsion such that $`U(r)`$ becomes analytic around $`(L/2,L/2)`$, taking for instance

$$U(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{U}{\frac{L}{\pi }\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{r_x\pi }{L})+\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{r_y\pi }{L})}}$$
(50)
instead of $`U/|\stackrel{}{r}|`$, one can show nemeth  that the equation for the relative motion becomes identical to the single particle motion in a $`2d`$ harmonic potential when $`U`$ is large enough, to eventually obtain a slightly different exponent $`\alpha =1/4`$ in the continuous limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$).

## 7 Effects of a weak random substrate

We now study the effect of random site potentials $`v_i`$ upon the Fermi-Wigner crossover. We restrict our study to the limit of weak disorder, the values of $`W`$ being large enough to yield one particle diffusive dynamics in the non interacting system, but too small to yield one particle Anderson localization. In the presence of disorder, the momenta $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ are not conserved, and we need to diagonalize the total Hamiltonian $`H`$ given by Eq. (1) in the site basis $`c_i^{}c_j^{}|0`$. Moreover, the relative fluctuations $`u_r`$ are now random variables, and the ensemble average values $`u_r`$ will be considered.

Figure 8 shows for $`L=14`$ the difference between the $`u_r`$ obtained for $`W=0`$ and the $`u_r`$ calculated for $`1W4`$. One can see that the disorder reduces the relative fluctuations $`u_r`$, shifts the Fermi-Wigner crossover to weaker interactions, and reduces the exponent $`\alpha `$ characteristic of the $`U^\alpha `$ decay for intermediate interactions.

For a weak value of $`W`$ and small enough values of $`U/t`$ to avoid the correlated lattice regime, we assume the generalized scaling ansatz :

$$u_r(L,U,t,W)=F_W(\frac{L}{L_W(U,t,W)})+g_W(L).$$
(51)
Since

$$u_r(L,U=0,t,W)=F_W(0)+g_W(L),$$
(52)
which implies that

$$G_W=u_r(L,U,t,W)u_r(L,U=0,t,W)$$
(53)
must only depend on the ratio $`L/L_W`$. The scaling length $`L_W`$ is defined in such a way that the Fermi-Wigner crossover remains at $`L/L_W=1`$. As shown in Fig. 9, all the data calculated for $`L=8,10,12,14`$ can be mapped onto the same scaling curve $`G_W(L/L_W)=F_W(L/L_W)F_W(0)`$. We just show the curve $`G_{W=2}(L/L_W)`$, the curves obtained for $`W=1,2,3,4`$ being also consistent with the ansatz (51) when $`U`$ and $`L`$ are varied in the same range. $`G_W(x)0`$ for $`x<1`$ while $`G_W(x)x^{\alpha (W)}`$ for $`x>1`$, the exponent $`\alpha (W)`$ being given in upper Fig. 10. To obtain that the Fermi-Wigner crossover remains at $`L/L_W=1`$, one needs to take the scaling lengths $`L_W`$, the reduction factors $`L_W/L_0`$ being given in the lower Fig. 10.

The reduction of the crossover scale $`L_W`$ by the random potentials can be qualitatively explained if we revisit the argument which has allowed us to define $`L_0`$ without disorder: $`L=L_W`$ when the energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W`$ which are necessary for adding a second particle in the one particle system are the same in the two limits $`U=0`$ and $`t=0`$. On one hand, when $`U=0`$, the first one particle excitation has a fourfold degeneracy which is removed by disorder. This gives a reduction of the energy cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(U=0)`$ necessary in the Fermi limit. On the other hand, the energy cost $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(t=0)`$ necessary in the Coulomb limit remains almost unchanged if $`W`$ is weak. This gives a shift of the Fermi-Wigner crossover to a lower scale $`L_W<L_0`$ in the limit of a weak disorder. In Fig. 11, we have plotted as a function of $`L`$ for $`W=0`$ and $`W=2`$ the disorder averaged energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(U=0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(t=0)`$. One can see indeed that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(U=0)`$ is decreased by the disorder, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_W(t=0)`$ remains essentially unchanged. The curves cross at $`L=L_08.9`$ when $`W=0`$ and $`L=L_W7.1`$ when $`W=2`$. The obtained ratio $`L_{W=2}/L_00.8`$ is indeed smaller than $`1`$, though somewhat below the value $`L_{W=2}/L_00.9`$ given in Fig. 10.

This quantitative disagreement may be due the distributions of the considered random variables. We have considered only the ensemble average behaviors, which may not give the typical scaling behaviors, both for the relative fluctuations and for the energies. When $`U=0`$, it is indeed well known that the level spacing distributions are not normally distributed, but depend on the nature of the one particle dynamics. In the bulk of the spectrum, one has typically a Poisson distribution if the dynamics is ballistic and non chaotic, a Wigner-Dyson distribution if the dynamics is diffusive, a Poisson distribution again when one has Anderson localization. Near the one particle spectrum edges, the distribution can differ from the bulk distribution. This is why an argument based on disorder average quantities can only qualitatively give the disorder induced reduction of the scaling length.

In conclusion, let us underline that an Hamiltonian with three parameters, $`U`$, $`t`$ and $`W`$, has many different limits. This section is restricted to the study of the competition between the interaction $`U`$ and the kinetic energy $`t`$ when the disorder $`W`$ remains a weak perturbation, in the limit $`L<L_1`$, $`L_1`$ denoting the one particle localization length. In this limit, we have shown that $`u_r`$ is still given by a function $`F_W`$ of the dimensionless ratio $`L/L_W`$ and that the scaling length $`L_W`$ decreases as a function of $`W`$. This is in agreement with the general idea that a random substrate favors charge crystallization bwp ; chui , the correlated motion persisting to larger densities (weaker values of $`r_s`$). But for larger $`W`$, the issue is to describe the crossover from a Fermi glass of Anderson localized states towards a Wigner glass. In this strongly disordered limit, the $`u_r`$ will have large sample to sample fluctuations, and one cannot rule out that the average $`u_r`$ will finish to be meaningless or that the one parameter scaling function $`F_W(L/L_W)`$ could become a more complicated two parameter scaling function of $`L/L_0`$ and $`L/L_1`$. The study of those glassy behaviors is left for another study.

###### Acknowledgements.

CONACyT-Mexico and CEA have supported M. Martínez during the time this research was performed in Saclay. We thank Z. Á. Németh for useful discussions.