text:
# Mermin-Ho vortex in ferromagnetic spinor Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

The Mermin-Ho and Anderson-Toulouse coreless non-singular vortices are demonstrated to be thermodynamically stable in ferromagnetic spinor Bose-Einstein condensates with the hyperfine state $`F=1`$. The phase diagram is established in a plane of the rotation drive vs the total magnetization by comparing the energies for other competing non-axis-symmetric or singular vortices. Their stability is also checked by evaluating collective modes.

Topological structure plays an important and decisive role in various research fields, ranging from condensed matter physics to high energy physics. They provide a common framework to connect diverse fields, enhancing mutual understandingjayaraman .

Recent advance of experimental techniques on Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) prompts us to closely and seriously look into theoretical possibilities which were mere imagination for theoreticians in this field. This is particularly true for spinor BEC where all hyperfine states of an atom Bose-condensed simultaneously, keeping these “spin” states degenerate and active. Recently, Barrett at al barrett  have succeeded in cooling 87Rb with the hyperfine state $`F=1`$ by all optical methods without resorting to a usual magnetic trap in which the internal degrees of freedom is frozen. Since the spin interaction of the 87Rb atomic system is ferromagnetic, based on the refined calculation of the atomic interaction parameters by Klausen at alklausen , we now obtain concrete examples of the three component spinor BEC ($`F=1`$, $`m_F=1,0,1`$) for both antiferromagnetic (23Na)stenger  and ferromagnetic interaction cases. In the present spinor BEC the degenerate internal degrees of freedom play an essential role to determine the fundamental physical properties. There is a rich variety of topological defect structures, which are already predicted in the earlier studiesohmi ; ho  on the spinor BEC. These are followed by othersyip ; leonhardt ; stoof ; marzlin ; anglin ; kurihara ; martikainen ; isoshima1 ; isoshima2  who examine these topological structures more closely, such as skyrmion, monopole, meron or axis-symmetric or non axis-symmetric vortices both for antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic cases.

Superfluid 3He is analogous to the spinor BEC where the neutral Cooper pair possesses the orbital and spin degrees of freedom, thus the order parameter is a multi-componentsalomaa . Among various topological structures, the Mermin-Ho (MH)mermin  and Anderson-Toulouse (AT)anderson  vortices of a coreless and non-singular $`l`$-vector texture are proposed in 3He-A phase. These are an extremely interesting object to study if they exist. The MH vortex is expected to spontaneously appear in a cylindrical vessel without any external rotation as an equilibrium state because the rigid wall boundary imposes the $`l`$-vector perpendicular to the vessel wall. The MH vortex is stable also under slow rotation because of their non-singular coreless structureshe3 .

A similar topological structure, called skyrmion in general is proposed in the spinor BEC. Khawaja and Stoofstoof  study a skyrmion in the ferromagnetic BEC with $`F=1`$ and conclude that the skyrmion is not a thermodynamically stable object without rotation. Once created, its radius shrinks to vanish in spite of ingenious proposalsmarzlin ; anglin ; kurihara ; martikainen  as to how to created it and to detect it.

Here we demonstrate that in the ferromagnetic spinor BEC with $`F=1`$ trapped in a harmonic potential the Mermin-Ho vortex and Anderson-Toulouse vortex are thermodynamically stable for a certain region of the external rotation frequency and the magnetization of the system. These vortices are stabler than the singular vortices and other possible non-axis symmetric vortices. This comes about because as a general tendency the ferromagnetic interaction leads to spatial phase separation of the three components $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _0,\varphi _1)`$. Then by assigning different winding numbers $`0,1,2`$ to these components in this order, they can be arranged so as to be effectively phase-separated in the radial direction, resulting in a concentric layered structure under a given magnetization. The central region is occupied by $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _0`$ is in the intermediate region, and $`\varphi _1`$ is in the outer layer. This ingenious non-singular coreless vortex acquires the angular momentum to effectively lower the total energy under rotation.

We start with the standard Hamiltonian by Ohmi and Machidaohmi , and Hoho : $`H_{rot}=H𝑑𝐫𝛀_j\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(𝐫\times 𝐩)\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$,

$`H={\displaystyle }d𝐫[{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\{h(𝐫)\mu _i\}\mathrm{\Psi }_j\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\mathrm{n}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\mathrm{s}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(F_\alpha )_{ik}(F_\alpha )_{jl}\mathrm{\Psi }_k\mathrm{\Psi }_l]`$
where $`h(𝐫)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)`$, $`g_\mathrm{n}=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{a_0+2a_2}{3}`$, $`g_\mathrm{s}=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{a_2a_0}{3}`$. The subscripts are $`\alpha =(x,y,z)`$ and $`i,j,k,l=(0,\pm 1)`$ corresponding to the above three species. The chemical potentials for the three components; $`\mu _i`$ $`(i=0,\pm 1)`$ satisfy $`\mu _1+\mu _1=2\mu _0`$. The scalar field $`V(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}m(2\pi \nu _r)^2(x^2+y^2)`$ is the external confinement potential such as an optical potential. The scattering lengths $`a_0`$ and $`a_2`$ characterize collisions between atoms with the total spin 0 and 2 respectively. As mentioned, the recent refined estimateklausen  for 87Rb concludes it ferromagnetic ($`a_0>a_2`$) and $`g_s/g_n=0.010.005`$. The external rotation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is normalized by the harmonic confining frequency. It readily leads to the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation extended to the three component order parameters: $`[\left\{h(𝐫)\mu _i+g_\mathrm{n}_k|\varphi _k|^2\right\}\delta _{ij}+g_\mathrm{s}_\alpha _{kl}\{(F_\alpha )_{ij}(F_\alpha )_{kl}\varphi _k^{}\varphi _l\}]\varphi _j=0.`$ These coupled equations for the $`j`$-th condensate wave function $`\varphi _j=\mathrm{\Psi }_j`$ $`(j=0,\pm 1)`$ are used to calculate various properties of a vortex in the following.

It is important to realize that in a real experimental situation the total number $`N=𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Sigma }_j|\varphi _j|^2`$ and the total magnetization $`M=𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Sigma }_jj|\varphi _j|^2`$ are fixed. In our case these quantities are fixed by adjusting the chemical potential ($`\mu _0`$) and the fictitious magnetic field ($`\mu ^{}=\mu _1\mu _0`$). The extended GP equation is solved numerically with two different methods for a two-dimensional disk: One is not to assume axis-symmetry. This calculation is backed up by the computation where the axis-symmetry is assumed. The actual calculations are done by discretizing two-dimensional space into 51$`\times `$51 mesh. The vortex configuration is characterized by the combination of the winding number of each component. We denote it as $`w_1,w_0,w_1`$ where integers $`w_1,w_0,w_1`$ are the winding numbers of $`\varphi _1,\varphi _0,\varphi _1`$ respectively where $`w`$ means the phase change by $`2\pi w`$ when the wave function goes around the phase singularity.

We have performed extensive search to find a stable vortex, starting with possible vortex configurations, covering a wide range of the ferromagnetic interaction strength $`g_s/g_n=00.02`$ and examining various axis-symmetric and non-axis-symmetric vortices (see the classification of possible vortices in the axis-symmetric caseisoshima1 ; isoshima2 ). We use the following parameters: the mass of a 87Rb atom m=1.44$`\times 10^{25}`$kg, the trapping frequency $`\nu _r`$=200Hz, and the area density $`n_z`$=2.0$`\times 10^3/\mu `$m. The results displayed here are $`g_s/g_n=0.02`$.

The Mermin-Ho (MH) vortex is described by $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _0,\varphi _1)=\sqrt{n(r)}(\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\beta }{2},\sqrt{2}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\beta }{2},e^{2i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\beta }{2})`$ where the bending angle $`\beta (r)`$ is $`0\beta (r)\pi `$, $`\varphi `$ is the polar angle in polar coordinates. The spin direction is denoted by the so-called $`l`$-vectorohmi  given by $`𝒍(r)=\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}\beta +\mathrm{sin}\beta (\mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{x}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{y})`$ where $`\beta `$ varies from $`\beta (0)=0`$ to $`\beta (R)=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ for MH and to $`\beta (R)=\pi `$ for AT ($`R`$ is the outer boundary of the cloud). Thus the spin moment is flared out to the radial direction and at the circumference it points outward for MH and downwards for AT (see for schematic $`l`$-vector structure Fig.18 in Ref.salomaa  ). These vortices have the winding number combination $`0,1,2`$ in our notation.

We show the calculated MH vortex in Fig.1 where the axis-symmetric density profiles for each component and the density map of $`l_z`$ are displayed. It is seen that the central region of the harmonic trap is occupied by $`\varphi _1`$ with zero winding number $`w_1=0`$. The $`\varphi _0`$ component which has a singularity with $`w_0=1`$ at $`r=0`$ is pushed outward while the $`\varphi _1`$ component occupies the circumference region because of $`w_2=2`$. Note that in the small $`r`$ region the singular vortex with $`w`$ behaves like $`r^w`$. The resulting total density is coreless and non-singular. It has a smooth density variation described by a Gaussisn form except for the outermost region.

In Fig.2 we show the spatial dependence of the $`l_z`$-component along the radial direction, namely, the spatial dependence of the bending angle $`\beta (r)`$ for the MH vortex. As the magnetization $`M`$ decreases, the local magnetization changes from positive to negative values through zero. It means that the $`l`$-vector in the vortex flares out radially to orient almost horizontally $`\beta (r=R)=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ for $`M/N0.5`$ and to point down for $`\beta (r=R)=\pi `$ for $`M/N0`$. The former (latter) corresponds literally to the Mermin-Ho (Anderson-Toulouse) vortex. This is simply because as $`M`$ decreases, the spin-down component $`\varphi _1`$ with $`w=2`$ increases in the outer region. Thus we can control these MH and AT vortices by merely changing the total magnetization. We notice that in superfluid 3He-A phase the stability of the MH and AT vortices is guaranteed by the boundary condition at the wall of a vessel where the $`l`$-vector is constraint to be parallel to the wall surfacesalomaa . Here the situation is completely different; we impose no constraint on the $`l`$-vector direction. These vortex configurations are created naturally under the condition of a given total number and magnetization, both of which are well controlled in a harmonic trap experiment.

This difference in the two systems is rather remarkable and interesting. In our case MH or AT vortex comes about purely due to the spin interaction, which is written as $`|g_s||2\varphi _1(r)\varphi _1(r)\varphi _0(r)|^2`$. This term favors the mutual phase segregationisoshima1 ; isoshima2 . If $`\varphi _1(r)0`$ and $`\varphi _1(r)0`$, $`\varphi _0(r)`$ comes in, explaining the concentric layered structure. In fact, in the antiferromagnetic case the similar calculation shows that the MH and AT vortices are never stabilized under a similar conditionisoshima2 ; mizushima .

We have done extensive search for determining the region for the $`0,1,2`$ vortex of the MH and AT in the plane of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vs $`M/N`$. We check our computation by starting with a certain initial vortex configuration, allowing non-axis-symmetric vortex. We end up with the axis-symmetric MH and AT vortices where these are stable. The stability for these vortices is also examined from the two aspects: one is the global stability and the other is local stability in the energy landscape. The global stability means comparing the relative energy of various vortices and vortex free state to select out the lowest energy state. The local stability is discussed shortly.

The resulting phase diagram is displayed in Fig.3 where a large area is occupied by the $`0,1,2`$ vortex, including MH and AT. Near $`M0`$ the non-axis-symmetric $`1,1,1`$ vortex and near $`M/N1`$, $`1,0,1`$ vortex are stabilized. We find a large empty region in the intermediate $`M/N`$ region where no vortex and vortex-free state are stabilized at all because the phase separation in the ferromagnetic case prevents forming a uniform mixture of the three components even when the circulation is absent for the vortex-free state. This is in contrast with the antiferromagnetic case in which everywhere is occupied by a stable phase.

It is noted that the focused frequency region $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.38`$ corresponds to the single vortex region in the scalar BEC caseisoshima3  beyond which multiple vortex state must be seriously considered, thus the present single vortex consideration is justified in the lower frequencies.

We examine various competing vortices, including a singular vs non-singular and axis-symmetric vs non-axis-symmetric vortices. In particular, since for axis-symmetric vortices the winding number combination of the three components $`w_1,w_0,w_1`$ is restricted to $`2w_0=w_1+w_1`$, we exhaust all the possible vortices with $`w_1,w_0,w_1`$ smaller than unityisoshima2 . Note that MH and AT belong to this axis-symmetry category.

The $`1,1,1`$ vortex shown in Fig. 4 is non-singular and non-axis-symmetric which is stable in low $`M/N`$. This $`1,1,1`$ vortex is advantageous because (A) it does not contain the higher winding number. It generally leads to collapse fewer winding number vortex, such as $`21+1`$ vortices. (B) The overall condensation energy is gained by placing their singularities off the trap center where the potential energy is minimum. (C) As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ increases, the two separate singularities of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ adjust their mutual distance from the center so as to maximize the angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ in order to save the energy $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{}{L}`$. In this sense this configuration is flexible against varying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These reasons explain why this vortex survives along the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-axis near $`M/N0`$ in Fig.3.

In contrast, the $`0,1,2`$ vortex contains the higher winding number 2 for $`\varphi _1`$, which makes it less advantageous against the $`1,1,1`$ vortex. However, upon varying $`M`$, this vortex is quite flexible by adjusting the particle numbers for the three components; As $`M`$ increases, the number of $`\varphi _1`$ grows smoothly relative to the rests. The non-winding $`\varphi _1`$ component works as a “pinning” center for the remaining $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _1`$. In particular, $`\varphi _1`$ with $`w_1=2`$ is stabilized by the presence of $`\varphi _1`$. Therefore as $`M`$ increases or $`\varphi _1`$ grows, the MH and AT vortices become more and more stable. This explains that the critical frequency, or the lower phase boundary of MH in Fig.3 becomes less as $`M`$ increases. As for the $`1,1,1`$ vortex, in comparison, is not flexible enough for varying $`M`$ because the symmetric arrangement of the two singularities in $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ around the center (see Fig.4) becomes unbalanced as $`\varphi _1`$ component grows while $`\varphi _1`$ shrinks. Thus it is confined in a narrow thin region near $`M/N0`$ (see Fig.3).

The $`1,0,1`$ vortex, (not shown here, see Fig.3 in Ref. isoshima1 ) is stabilized in larger $`M/N`$ and higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ region because in this vortex the dominant component $`\varphi _1`$ has the winding number 1, which can effectively lower the rotation energy.

Having finished the “global” stability of the MH and AT vortices, we now turn to the “local” stability, that is, the stability against a small perturbation. This is done by solving the extended Bogoliubov equations to the three components under the axis-symmetric situationisoshima1 : $`_j\{A_{ij}u_q(𝐫,j)B_{ij}v_q(𝐫,j)\}=\epsilon _qu_q(𝐫,i)`$, and $`_j\{B_{ij}^{}u_q(𝐫,j)A_{ij}^{}v_q(𝐫,j)\}=\epsilon _qv_q(𝐫,i)`$ where $`A_{ij}=h(𝐫)\delta _{ij}\mu _i\delta _{ij}+g_n\left\{_k|\varphi _k|^2\delta _{ij}+\varphi _i\varphi _j^{}\right\}+g_\mathrm{s}_\alpha _{kl}[(F_\alpha )_{ij}(F_\alpha )_{kl}\varphi _k^{}\varphi _l+(F_\alpha )_{il}(F_\alpha )_{kj}\left(\varphi _k^{}\varphi _l\right)],`$ $`B_{ij}=g_\mathrm{n}\varphi _i\varphi _j+g_\mathrm{s}_\alpha _{kl}\left[(F_\alpha )_{ik}\varphi _k(F_\alpha )_{jl}\varphi _l\right],`$ $`u_q(𝐫,i)`$ and $`v_q(𝐫,i)`$ are the $`q`$-th eigenfunctions with the spin $`i`$ and $`\epsilon _q`$ corresponds to the $`q`$-th eigenvalue. Since this gives the excitation spectrum of the system, the negative energy relative to the condensation energy at zero implies the local intrinsic instability of the putative vortex in the energy landscape. We have performed the extensive computation to check this local stability for MH vortex and other axis-symmetric vortices against a small perturbation. As expected, the lower phase boundary of the MH in Fig.3 coincides almost completely with the local stability region, below which the lowest excitation mode with the angular momentum $`q_\theta =1`$ for the positive external rotation ($`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}>0`$) becomes negative (see the inset in Fig.3). The upper boundary of the $`0,1,2`$ vortex in Fig.3 indicates that the lowest excitation mode with mainly $`q_\theta =+1`$ becomes negative (see the inset in Fig.3). Thus the global stability mentioned roughly corresponds to the present local stability. Therefore, it is concluded that the MH and AT vortices are stable and robust in the ferromagnetic spinor BEC.

It is easy to calculate the total angular momentum $`L`$ in MH vortex which is given by $`L/\mathrm{}=N_0+2N_1`$ ($`N_i`$ is the particle number of the $`i`$-component). Since $`M=N_1N_1`$ and $`N=N_1+N_0+N_1`$, the total angular momentum per particle is found to be $`\frac{L}{\mathrm{}N}=1\frac{M}{N}`$. This simple formula means that at $`M=0`$, $`\varphi _0`$ with $`w_0=1`$ carries all the angular momentum as in the usual scalar vortex, and at $`M=N`$, $`L=0`$ because $`\varphi _1`$ has no winding. At $`\frac{M}{N}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{L}{\mathrm{}N}`$ is half, implying that in the MH vortex the angular momentum per particle is exactly $`\mathrm{}/2`$.

In summary, we have shown that the Mermin-Ho and Anderson-Toulouse vortices are thermodynamically stable under a certain rotation drive and the total magnetization of the system, both of which are experimentally well-controlled parameters. We have examined their stability by two methods, local and global ones in the energy landscape, coinciding with the earlier conclusion that these are unstable under no rotation drivestoof . These intriguing objects might be detected by various ways, such as optically by utilizing the Faraday rotation which images the spatial magnetic pattern of these vortices. A favorable experiment is to use an oblate ellipsoidal shaped system to mimic our disk calculation. An elongated cigar system may not be appropriate, which induces the phase separation along the long axis.

We thank T. Ohmi and T. Isoshima for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Factorization of Symmetric Matrices and Actions on Σ_𝑘

## Abstract

In this note, firstly we give an easy proof of the factorization of symmetric matrices (see \[Mos\]), and then use it to prove the well-known fact that the automorphism group of a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $`Q`$ acts transitively on the locus of isotropic subspaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k(Q)`$.

Let $`V`$ be an $`m`$-dimensional complex vector space.

###### Proposition 1.

Every symmetric matrix $`QEnd(V)`$ is of the form $`P^TP`$, for some $`PEnd(V)`$.

###### Proof.

We will not make any difference between symmetric matrices and symmetric bilinear forms on $`V`$. If $`Q0`$, then there exists some $`u_1V`$ s.t. $`Q(u_1,u_1)0`$. Consider the hyperplane $`H_1=\{uV|Q(u_1,u)=0\}`$. If $`Q`$ is not identically zero on $`H_1`$, then we can chose some $`u_2H_1`$, s.t. $`Q(u_2,u_2)0`$, and then $`Q(u_2,u_1)=0`$. Then we consider $`H_2=\{uH_1|Q(u_2,u)=0\}`$, and we continue this procedure. At the end, we will get some vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_l,v_{l+1},\mathrm{},v_m`$, such that

$$Q(v_i,v_j)=\delta _{ij},for\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}i,jl;Q(v_i,v_j)=0,ifmax\{i,j\}l+1.$$

In this basis, $`Q`$ is of the form $`diag(I_l,0)`$, i.e. there exists some invertible matrix $`A`$ such that $`A^TQA=diag(I_l,0)`$. Now we just take $`P=diag(I_l,0)A^1`$, then $`Q=P^TP`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.

This proposition is the principal result in \[Mos\] (theorem 2), proved by a much lengthier argument. Our proof works also for symmetric matrices over an algebraically closed field.

Now let $`Q`$ be a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on $`V`$. Recall that a $`k`$-plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ is said isotropic if $`Q|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\times \mathrm{\Lambda }}=0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ be the locus of isotropic subspaces of $`Q`$. It is well-known that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is not empty iff $`km/2`$, and irreducible if $`k<m/2`$. Let

$$G=\{AGL(V)|Q(Av,Aw)=Q(v,w)forallv,wV\},$$

which acts naturally on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. The main purpose is to prove the following well-known fact (see \[ACGH\], p102):

###### Proposition 2.

The action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is transitive.

###### Proof.

As easily seen, if $`k=m/2`$, then this proposition is true. In the following, we suppose $`k<m/2`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is irreducible. Since $`Q`$ is non-degenerate, our previous proposition shows that we can suppose $`Q=I_m`$. Now $`G=\{AGL(V)|A^TA=I\}`$. Any $`k`$-plane is represented by an $`m\times k`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can suppose

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{c}I_k\\ M_1\\ M_2\end{array}\right)$$

where $`M_1`$ is a $`k\times k`$ matrix, and $`M_2`$ is an $`(m2k)\times k`$ matrix. The isotropic condition is

$$I_k+M_1^TM_1+M_2^TM_2=0.$$

By this we see that $`rk(M_1^T,M_2^T)=k`$. Using some matrix of the form $`I_m+E_{ij}+E_{ji}E_{ii}E_{jj}G`$, where $`E_{ij}`$ is the matrix with 1 at the position $`(i,j)`$ and 0 elsewhere, we can suppose $`M_1`$ is invertible.
Key claim: For any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$, the orbit $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$.

###### Proof of the key claim.

Take a matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_k& 0& 0\\ 0& A_1& A_2\\ 0& B_1& B_2\end{array}\right)$$

we will find out some conditions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ such that there exists some $`AG`$ of the above form with $`A\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. The last condition gives

$$A_1=N_1A_2M,B_1=N_2B_2M$$

where $`N_1=M_1^{}M_1^1,N_2=M_2^{}M_1^1,M=M_2M_1^1.`$ The isotropic conditions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ imply that

$$N_1^TN_1+N_2^TN_2=I_k+M^TM.$$

The condition $`A^TA=I_m`$ gives three equations. Combining with the above equation, we see that among the three there are only two independent ones, which can be simplified as

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_1^TA_2+N_2^TB_2& =M^T\hfill \\ \hfill A_2^TA_2+B_2^TB_2& =I_{m2k}.\hfill \end{array}$$

From the first equation, we can resolve for $`A_2`$, and the only equation for $`B_2`$ reads

$$B_2^TXB_2Y^TB_2B_2^TY+Z=I_{m2k},$$

where $`X,Z`$ are symmetric, $`X=I_{m2k}+N_2N_1^1(N_1^T)^1N_2^T`$, so the condition $`rk(X)=m2k`$ (maximal possible rank) is an open condition on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. If this condition is satisfied, our previous proposition gives $`X=P^TP`$ for some invertible matrix $`P`$. Now the equation for $`B_2`$ is equivalent to

$$(B_2^TP^TY^TP^1)(PB_2(P^1)^TY)=W$$

where $`W`$ is symmetric, thus of the form $`V^TV`$. Now we just take $`PB_2(P^1)^TY=V`$, i.e. $`B_2=P^1V+X^1Y`$. So if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ satisfies

$$rk(I_{m2k}+M_2^{}M_1^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(M_1^{}{}_{}{}^{T})_{}^{1}M_2^{}{}_{}{}^{T})=m2k,$$

then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is irreducible, we conclude that $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. ∎

To finish the proof of the proposition, we just note that there exists at least one closed orbit, say $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then our key claim implies that $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$, thus the action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ is transitive. ∎

Acknowledgment: This proof is done during the workshop on Algebraic Curves at UNSA, Nice. The author wants to thank J. Kock for reading a first draft of this note.

Labortoire J.A.Dieudonné, Parc Valrose
06108 Nice cedex 02, FRANCE
baohua.fu@polytechnique.org


text:
# Cosmological Particle Creation and Dynamical Casimir Effect

## 1 Introduction

The Casimir effect is one of the most interesting manifestations of nontrivial properties of the vacuum state in a quantum field theory (for reviews see ) and can be viewed as a polarization of vacuum by boundary conditions. A new phenomenon, a quantum creation of particles (the dynamical Casimir effect) occurs when the geometry of the system varies in time. In two dimensional spacetime and for conformally invariant fields the problem with dynamical boundaries can be mapped to the corresponding static problem and hence allows a complete study (see  and references therein). In higher dimensions the problem is much more complicated and is solved for some simple geometries. The vacuum stress induced by uniform acceleration of a perfectly reflecting plane is considered in . The corresponding problem for a sphere expanding in the four-dimensional spacetime with constant acceleration is investigated by Frolov and Serebriany  in the perfectly reflecting case and by Frolov and Singh  for semi-transparent boundaries. For more general cases of motion by vibrating cavities the problem of particle and energy creation is considered on the base of various perturbation methods (for more complete list of references see ). It have been shown that a gradual accumulation of small changes in the quantum state of the field could result in a significant observable effect. A new application of the dynamical Casimir effect has recently appeared in connection with the suggestion by Schwinger  that the photon production associated with changes in the quantum electrodynamic vacuum state arising from a collapsing dielectric bubble could be relevant for sonoluminescence (the phenomenon of light emission by a sound-driven gas bubble in a fluid ). For the further developments and discussions this quantum-vacuum approach see  and references therein.
The possibility of particle production due to space-time curvature has been discussed by Schrodinger , while other early work is due to DeWitt , and Imamura . The first thorough treatment of particle production by an external gravitational filed was given by Parker . Particle creation from the quantum scalar vacuum by expanding or contracting spherical shell with Dirichlet boundary conditions is considered in . In another paper the case is considered when the sphere radius performs oscillation with a small amplitude and the expression are derived for the number of created particles to the first order of the perturbation theory . Now in the present paper by using the result of  we consider particle creation in closed Robertson-Walker space-time, when the scale factor represent an asymptotically static space-time.

## 2 Gravitational particle creation

In flat space-time, Lorentz invariance is a guide which generally allows to identify a unique vacuum state for the theory. However, in curved space-time, we do not have Lorentz symmetry. In general, there does not exist a unique vacuum state in a curved space-time. As a result, the concept of particles becomes ambiguous, and the problem of the physical interpretation becomes much more difficult . The particle creation by an expanding universe was first hinted at in the work of Schrodinger , this phenomenon first carefully investigated by Parker . We restrict our attention to the case of spatially closed Robertson-Walker universe which metric is as following

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )(d\eta ^2dl^2),$$
(1)
$$dl^2=d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(2)
where $`a(\eta )`$ is the scale factor and $`\eta `$ is conformal time, $`0\chi \pi `$. Let us consider a real massive scalar field which coupled to the closed Robertson-Walker background. With the dependence of the radius of curvature $`a(\eta )`$ on time, the case under consideration is a dynamical Casimir effect with a moving boundaries . The corresponding wave equation is

$`(\mathrm{}+m^2+\xi R)\varphi =0,`$ (3)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature

$$R=\frac{6(a^{\prime \prime }+a)}{a^3},$$
(4)
where prime stands for the conformal time-derivative, $`\xi `$ is a coupling constant, here we consider the conformal coupling $`\xi =1/6`$, in this case the (3) as

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)+\frac{2a^{}}{a}\varphi ^{}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }^{(3)}\varphi (x)+(m^2a^2+\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+1)\varphi (x)=0,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(3)}`$ is the angular part of the Laplacian operator on a 3-sphere. The solutions of (5) are

$$\varphi _{\lambda lM}^{(+)}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}a(\eta )}g_\lambda (\eta )\varphi _{\lambda lM}(\chi ,\theta ,\phi ).$$
(6)
The eigenfunctions of the three-dimensional Laplasian are as

$$\varphi _{\lambda lM}(\chi ,\theta ,\phi )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}\chi }}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda (\lambda +l)!}{(\lambda l+1)!}}P_{\lambda 1/2}^{l1/2}(\mathrm{cos}\chi )Y_{lM}(\theta ,\phi ),$$
(7)
$`\lambda =1,2,\mathrm{},L=0,1,2,\mathrm{},\lambda 1`$ ,$`Y_{l,M}`$ are spherical harmonics, and $`P_\mu ^\nu (z)`$ are the adjoint Legendre functions on the cut. The time-dependent function $`g_\lambda `$ satisfies the oscilatory equation

$$g_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(\eta )+\omega _\lambda ^2(\eta )g_\lambda (\eta )=0,$$
(8)
where

$$\omega _\lambda ^2(\eta )=\lambda ^2+m^2a^2(\eta ).$$
(9)
Let us consider an exactly solvable case when

$$a(\eta )=\sqrt{A+B\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{\eta _0}}A>B,$$
(10)
where $`A,B`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are constants, this is corresponds to the contraction for $`B<0`$ and expansion for $`B>0`$. The corresponding frequencies are

$$\omega _\lambda ^2(\eta )=\lambda ^2+m^2(A+B\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\eta }{\eta _0}).$$
(11)
For asymptotically static situation at past and future the in- and out- vacuum states can be defined, where we use the notations

$$\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}=\sqrt{\lambda ^2+m^2a_{}},\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}=\sqrt{\lambda ^2+m^2a_+},a_\pm =\underset{\eta \pm \mathrm{}}{lim}a(\eta )$$
(12)
for the corresponding eigenfrequencies. Now we need to solve the equation (8) with $`\omega _\lambda (\eta )`$ given by (9). The corresponding solutions are given by hypergeometric function. The normalized in- and out- modes are given by formula

$`g_\lambda ^s(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`(2\omega _\lambda ^s)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[ı\omega _\lambda ^+\eta ı\omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0\mathrm{ln}[2\mathrm{cosh}(\eta /\eta _0)]]\times `$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1+ı\omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0,ı\omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0;1ı\omega _\lambda ^s\eta _0;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\pm \mathrm{tanh}(\eta /\eta _0))),s=\mathrm{in},\mathrm{out},`$
where uper/lower sign corresponds to the in/out- modes, and

$$\omega _\lambda ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}\pm \omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}).$$
(14)
The corresponding eigenfunctions are related by the Bogoliubov transformation

$$g_\lambda ^{(\mathrm{in})}=\alpha _\lambda g_\lambda ^{(\mathrm{out})}+\beta _\lambda g_\lambda ^{(\mathrm{out})},$$
(15)
where $`\alpha _\lambda `$ and $`\beta _\lambda `$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients. Using the linear relation between hypergeometic functions, similar to  for the coefficients in this formula one finds

$$\alpha _\lambda =\left(\frac{\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}}{\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ı\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}\eta _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ı\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}\eta _0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ı\omega ^+\eta _0)\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }(1ı\omega _\lambda ^+\eta _0))},$$
(16)
$$\beta _\lambda =\left(\frac{\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}}{\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ı\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}\eta _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ı\omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}\eta _0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ı\omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ı\omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0)}.$$
(17)
The mean number of particles produced through the modulation of the single scalar mode is

$$<\mathrm{in}|N_\lambda |\mathrm{in}>=|\beta _\lambda |^2=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\pi \omega _\lambda ^{}\eta _0)}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}\eta _0)\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}\eta _0)}.$$
(18)
The total number of particles produced is obtained by taking the sum over all the oscillation modes :

$$<\mathrm{in}|N|\mathrm{in}>=\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2[\pi \eta _0(\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(A+B)m^2}\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(AB)m^2})/2]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \eta _0\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(A+B)m^2})\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \eta _0\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(AB)m^2})}.$$
(19)
Therefore the energy related to the particles production is given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}N_\lambda \omega _\lambda ^{\mathrm{out}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2[\pi \eta _0(\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(A+B)m^2}\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(AB)m^2})/2]}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \eta _0\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(A+B)m^2})\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \eta _0\sqrt{\lambda ^2+(AB)m^2})}}\sqrt{\lambda ^2+m^2(A+B)}.`$
## 3 Conclusion

The creation of particles from the vacuum takes place due to the interaction with dynamical external constraints. For example the motion of a single reflecting boundary (mirror) can create particles , the creation of particles by time-dependent external gravitational field is another example of dynamical external constraints.
It has been shown  that particle creation by black hole in four dimension is as a consequence of the Casimir effect for spherical shell. It has been shown that the only existence of the horizon and of the barrier in the effective potential is sufficient to compel the black hole to emit black-body radiation with temperature that exactly coincides with the standard result for Hawking radiation. In this paper we have considered the particle creation in the spatially closed Robertson-Walker space-time. We considered a real massive scalar field which conformally coupled to the Robertson-Walker background. With the dependence of the scale factor on time, the case under consideration is a dynamical Casimir effect. When scale factor represent an asymptotically static space-time at past and future, the in- and out- vacuum states can be defined. Then we obtained the Bogoliubov coefficients, after that the number of particles produced and the energy related to those can be explicitly found.


text:
# Accounting for coherence in interjet 𝑬_𝒕 flow: a case study

## 1 Introduction

The study of interjet transverse energy ($`E_t`$) flow away from jets was suggested by Marchesini & Webber  as a method of separating QCD Bremsstrahlung contributions from those of the underlying event in hadron-hadron collisions. Recently, in the $`2+2`$-jet case their considerations on mean energy flows into specified detector regions have been extended by Berger, Kúcs and Sterman  to energy-flow *distributions*.

This work apart from its potential phenomenological value at hadron collider experiments also represents theoretical advances in understanding and computing the complex colour topology dictating the flow of soft gluons in $`4`$ jet events, and follows in part from earlier work which discussed perturbative calculations for rapidity gaps in terms of interjet energy flows .

One of the main aims of Refs.  is to resum logarithms $`L`$ in transverse energy at single-logarithmic accuracy, *i.e.* all terms $`(\alpha _\text{s}L)^n`$. The authors consider the structure of multiple independent soft emissions, and their virtual corrections, from an antenna consisting of the four hard partons (the incoming and outgoing jets) and show how it exponentiates. This is a rather delicate procedure because of the interferences that arise in the colour algebra when squaring the amplitudes involving 4-hard partons and an arbitrary number of soft gluons. The above mentioned studies therefore represent a considerable advance in the field in terms of understanding the ‘colour content’ of a multi-parton hard scattering (see e.g the discussion in Ref. ).

In certain contexts, for example for the invariant mass distribution of a dijet pair , this exponentiation of what we shall label as *primary* emissions is sufficient. However when considering energy flows in restricted angular regions precisely as in Refs. , or equivalently definitions of diffraction based on energy cuts  (or multiplicity cuts), there is another class of single-logarithmic (SL) terms which must be accounted for. To be more specific it was shown in Ref.  that for any observable that is sensitive to radiation in only a part of phase space — a *non-global* observable — it is necessary to account for secondary and higher emissions (as defined below) to obtain an answer correct to SL accuracy.111Another context in which non-global terms would be relevant is if one were to attempt to carry out a resummation to single-logarithmic accuracy for certain kinds of isolation criteria for isolated photons. However we are not aware of any such resummation being currently in existence.

To illustrate this point better we turn to figure 1, which for simplicity refers to a $`2`$-jet event, though the logic remains the same for the case with several hard jets. It shows a patch $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in rapidity and azimuth into which the total (transverse) energy flow is restricted to be less than some small amount $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. There are various sources of SL terms. One source comes from vetoing ‘primary’ emissions which fly directly into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, figure 1a, where primary means that their radiation pattern corresponds to that for the antenna associated with the two hard jets. The lowest-order contribution of this kind comes from an incomplete cancellation between real and virtual terms and gives $`\frac{2\alpha _\text{s}C_F}{\pi }𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, where $`Q`$ is the hard scale of the problem and $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ relates to the area of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

A second source of SL terms comes from diagrams such as figure 1b. Here we have a large-angle222Strictly speaking, large-angle means of the same order as the angles involved in the definition $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ — if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has a boundary at a small angle to a hard-parton axis, then large-angle can actually mean ‘of the same order as that small angle.’ primary emission which flies outside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with energy $`Q_1`$, such that $`QQ_1Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ — this gives us one power of $`\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Forbidding it from radiating a secondary emission into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ gives powers of $`\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q_1}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, which after integration over $`Q_1`$ translate into a set of SL terms, $`(\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }})^n`$. This kind of term has been neglected in , as well as in several other contexts . To correctly account for it at all orders it is necessary to consider soft emission into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is *coherently* radiated from arbitrary ensembles of soft (but harder), large-angle energy ordered gluons outside of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, figure 1c, rather than just the hard initiating jets in the picture. For simplicity we call this kind of emission a secondary emission, though this is only a figure of speech, since it is coherently radiated from external ensembles which may consist of primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. gluons. In general we refer to the class of terms generated by such contributions as non-global logarithms.

In earlier work  we calculated such terms for observables sensitive to radiation in a single hemisphere of a two-jet event. This was done exactly to second order in $`\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and numerically in the large-$`N_C`$ limit at all orders. Here we extend this work to the case of interjet energy flow in two-jet events. We view this in part as an intermediate step to a calculation in the $`3`$ and $`4`$-jet cases, however it also has value in its own right. Firstly it will turn out that an analysis of the dependence of the effect on the geometry of the patch $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ casts considerable light on the dynamical mechanisms involved in non-global effects. Secondly it allows us to make a general order of magnitude estimate of the importance of non-global terms relative to those from the resummation of primary emissions. Finally the measurement of energy-flow distributions in 2-jet events in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions or DIS could well be of intrinsic interest since it would be complementary to measurements in hadron-hadron collisions, and in particular, free of the problems associated with the underlying event.

## 2 Primary emission form factor

In this paper we shall be considering as our observable the amount of transverse energy $`E_t`$ flowing into a patch $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in rapidity and azimuth:

$$E_t=\underset{i\mathrm{\Omega }}{}E_{t,i}.$$
(1)
We are interested in the probability $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`E_t`$ to be less than some value $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which is much smaller than the hard scale $`Q`$ of the process in question:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q)=\frac{1}{\sigma }_0^{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑E_t\frac{d\sigma }{dE_t},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma `$ is the Born-order cross section for the process — in our case the production of two jets in $`e^+e^{}`$ or of $`1+1`$ jets in DIS.

In order, later on, to quantify the effect of non-global logs it is useful first to calculate the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from primary emissions alone. This is the much simpler $`2`$-jet analogue of what has been calculated in  for 4-jet systems.

At first order in $`\alpha _\text{s}`$, the logarithmically enhanced contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ comes from the incomplete cancellation of real and virtual contributions for a soft primary emission:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q)=4C_F\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }_{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}^{Q/2}\frac{dk_t}{k_t}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\eta \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }=\frac{4C_F\alpha _\text{s}}{2\pi }𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{2Q_\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(3)
where we have introduced the notation $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for *area* of the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\eta \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }.$$
(4)
The upper limit in the $`k_t`$ integral is arbitrary to single-log accuracy, as long as it is of order $`Q`$.

When the logarithm of $`Q/Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ becomes large enough to compensate the smallness of $`\alpha _\text{s}`$, it is necessary to include terms $`(\alpha _\text{s}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }})^n`$ to all orders. If one assumes (incorrectly, as we shall see) that multiple wide-angle soft gluons from a two-jet system are simply radiated independently according to a two-particle antenna pattern, then eq. (3) can be extended to all orders by accounting for the running of the coupling333Strictly speaking the running of the coupling is connected with the collinear branching of the primary gluons. This however is a separate issue from that of large-angle soft gluon emission with which we deal later on in this article. and then exponentiating the answer:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝒫}(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝒫}\left(t(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q)\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[4C_F𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }t\right].$$
(5)
The subscript $`𝒫`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝒫}`$ serves as a reminder that we have only taken into account primary emissions and $`t`$ is defined to be the following integral of $`\alpha _\text{s}`$,

$$t(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}^{Q/2}\frac{dk_t}{k_t}\alpha _s(k)=\frac{1}{4\pi \beta _0}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha _\text{s}(Q/2)}{\alpha _\text{s}(Q_\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(6)
where the second equality holds at the one-loop level and $`\beta _0=(11C_A2n_f)/(12\pi )`$.

## 3 Leading order calculation of non-global effects

As well as dealing with primary emissions, it is necessary to account also for contributions from (secondary) emissions coherently radiated into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from large-angle soft-gluon ensembles outside of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We will denote the contribution from such non-global terms by the function $`𝒮(t)`$, such that to SL accuracy

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }(t(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q))𝒮(t)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝒫}(t).$$
(7)
To start with, we calculate the leading order contribution to $`𝒮`$, *i.e.* $`𝒮_2`$, where we define the following series expansion for $`𝒮`$:

$$𝒮(t)=\underset{n=2}{}𝒮_nt^n.$$
(8)
Since this kind of contribution only starts with secondary emissions, there is no $`𝒮_1`$ term. In the calculation of $`𝒮_2`$, we shall be entitled to equate $`t`$ with $`\frac{\alpha _\text{s}}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{2Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

The exact value of $`𝒮_2`$ depends on the geometry of the patch $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here we calculate it analytically for the case where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a slice in rapidity of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. The kind of diagram to be considered is shown in figure 2, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are quarks (they may be outgoing or incoming depending on whether for example we are dealing with $`e^+e^{}`$ or DIS in the Breit frame) and $`1`$ and $`2`$ are gluons. We introduce the following four-momenta

$`k_a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}(1,0,0,1),`$ (9a)
$`k_b`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}(1,0,0,1),`$ (9b)
$`k_1`$ $`=x_1{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}(1,0,\mathrm{sin}\theta _1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _1),`$ (9c)
$`k_2`$ $`=x_2{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}(1,\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta _2),`$ (9d)
where we have defined energy fractions $`x_{1,2}1`$ for the two gluons. To our accuracy, we can neglect the recoil of the hard particles against the soft gluons.

We write the squared matrix element for energy-ordered two-gluon emission as (see for example )

$`W`$ $`=4C_F{\displaystyle \frac{(ab)}{(a1)(1b)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a1)}{(a2)(21)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(b1)}{(b2)(21)}}+\left(C_F{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(ab)}{(a2)(2b)}}\right),`$ (10a)
$`=C_F^2W_1+C_FC_AW_2,`$ (10b)
where $`(ij)=k_ik_j`$. The result is valid for $`1x_1x_2`$ as well as for the opposite ordering of the gluons, and in addition is completely symmetric under interchange of $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$. (We have however chosen to write it in an asymmetric form so as to emphasise the dipole structure of the emissions, namely radiation of gluon $`k_1`$ from the $`ab`$ dipole, followed by the radiation of gluon $`k_2`$ from the $`a1`$, $`1b`$ and $`ab`$ dipoles).

The $`C_F^2`$ piece of the matrix element, $`W_1`$ corresponds to independent gluon emission and is included in the primary emission form factor. To study specifically the modification relative to the primary emission case, at this order one must consider the $`C_FC_A`$ part of the emission probability, $`W_2`$.

For a general region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`𝒮_2`$ is defined through the following equation:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮_2\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{Q}{2Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}+𝒪\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q}{Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)=C_FC_A_{k_1\mathrm{\Omega }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }_{k_2\mathrm{\Omega }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{Q^4}{16}_0^1x_2𝑑x_2_{x_2}^1x_1𝑑x_1\mathrm{\Theta }\left(x_2\frac{2Q_\mathrm{\Omega }}{Q}\right)W_2,\end{array}$$
(11)
which takes into both virtual and real contributions. In the case of a slice of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$, the angular integrals can be rewritten explicitly

$$\begin{array}{c}_{k_1\mathrm{\Omega }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }_{k_2\mathrm{\Omega }}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }\hfill \\ \hfill \left(_1^cd\mathrm{cos}\theta _1+_c^1d\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\right)_c^cd\mathrm{cos}\theta _2_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi _1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi _2}{2\pi }\end{array}$$
(12)
where we have centred the slice at $`\eta =0`$ (the results are independent of its position) and defined $`\pm c`$ to be the cosines of the polar angles delimiting the slice,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+c}{1c}.$$
(13)
The integrals over the energy fractions in (11) are straightforward. Keeping only the leading-logarithmic piece, exploiting the symmetry in $`\theta _1\pi \theta _1`$ and performing the azimuthal average we have

$$𝒮_2=4C_FC_A_1^cd\mathrm{cos}\theta _1_c^cd\mathrm{cos}\theta _2F_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _2),$$
(14)
where the angular function $`F_2`$ is

$$F_2=\frac{2}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)}.$$
(15)
Integrating over the polar angles we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮_2=4C_FC_A[\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{1+c}{1c}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+c}{1c}\mathrm{ln}(\left(\frac{1+c}{1c}\right)^21)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\left(\frac{1c}{1+c}\right)^2\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Li}_2(1\left(\frac{1+c}{1c}\right)^2)],\end{array}$$
(16)
which can be expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ as follows:

$$𝒮_2=4C_FC_A\left[\frac{\pi ^2}{12}+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \mathrm{ln}\left(e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }1\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Li}_2\left(e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\right)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Li}_2\left(1e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\right)\right],$$
(17)
where the dilogarithm function is defined as

$$\mathrm{Li}_2(z)=_z^0\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1t)}{t}𝑑t.$$
(18)
The functional dependence of $`𝒮_2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ is shown in figure 3. For small $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$, $`𝒮_2`$ goes to zero essentially linearly in $`\eta `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮_2=4C_FC_A[2(1\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )\mathrm{\Delta }\eta +\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^2\hfill \\ \hfill +𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta ^3\right)],\end{array}$$
(19)
with a logarithmic enhancement due to the integrable divergence in eq. (14) when $`\theta _1\theta _2c`$ — thus $`𝒮_2`$ is roughly proportional to the area of the slice. On the other hand as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ increases, $`𝒮_2`$ rapidly saturates at its asymptotic value,

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}𝒮_2=C_FC_A\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}.$$
(20)
There is a simple physical reason for this behaviour: $`𝒮_2`$ is associated with the difference between full coherent emission for a pair of gluons, and simple independent emission. The dominant contribution to $`𝒮_2`$ comes therefore from the region where the two gluons are close together (which by definition means the edges of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ since one gluon is in, while the other is out). On the other hand, when the two gluons are widely separated in rapidity then independent emission becomes a good approximation and there is no contribution to $`𝒮_2`$ — hence for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$, $`𝒮_2`$ receives no contribution from the centre of the slice, only from its edges, and the value of $`𝒮_2`$ saturates.

As well as showing $`𝒮_2`$ for a slice, figure 3 also shows it (determined numerically) for a square patch in rapidity and azimuth. Over the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ shown, the behaviour is quite different, with an approximate linearity in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ — this too can be understood from the above arguments: since it is the edges of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which contribute dominantly to $`𝒮_2`$, the value of $`𝒮_2`$ will be roughly proportional to the perimeter of the patch, and hence linear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$. This holds however only for moderate patch sizes: for very small patches, $`𝒮_2`$ is roughly proportional to the patch area (with a logarithmic enhancement of similar origin to that for the slice), while for large patches the periodicity in $`\varphi `$ means that the patch tends to a slice.

## 4 All-orders treatment

While for the $`2`$-gluon case the analytical calculations are relatively straightforward, in the many-gluon case the situation is vastly more complex: not only does emission into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ come from a ‘Mexican-cactus’-like external multi-gluon ensemble, but the evolution with $`t`$ of the ensemble outside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends itself on the structure developed at smaller $`t`$. Difficulties come from both the geometry and the colour structure of the ensemble. As a result, we have not succeeded in obtaining even approximate analytical results, and we have to resort to the large-$`N_C`$ approximation and numerical methods in order to extend our calculations to the all-orders case.

### 4.1 Possible underlying dynamics

Before going on to the details of the numerical results it is however instructive to consider some very rough arguments concerning the underlying dynamics. One way in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can stay empty is simply to prevent all emitters outside of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from emitting into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For each emitter ‘close’ to the edge of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the price to pay is roughly $`e^t`$ (we ignore the coefficient of $`t`$); since, to a first approximation, the typical number of relevant emitters will be of order $`t`$, we end up with a suppression that goes as $`e^{t^2}`$.

Of course when considering very rare configurations, it is risky to base one’s arguments on average properties of the ensemble, such as the typical number of emitters close to the edge. For example, instead of suppressing radiation into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from gluons in the neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one could just as well envisage a situation where the neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is empty, automatically avoiding secondary emissions into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We shall try to work through this argument with the additional characteristic that we shall discretise the problem. Taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a slice of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ (sufficiently wide that the two edges can be considered completely independent), the probability of it staying empty down to some scale $`t`$ is $`e^{4C_Ft\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }𝒮(t)`$. Let us suppose that the condition for secondary radiation not to be emitted into $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is determined by the probability that bands of width $`\delta \eta `$ (‘buffers’) on either side of the slice stayed empty down to a scale $`t\delta t`$. Then we have a recurrence relation:

$$e^{4C_Ft\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }𝒮(t)=e^{4C_F[t\mathrm{\Delta }\eta +2(t\delta t)\delta \eta ]}𝒮(t\delta t),$$
(21)
where the term proportional to $`\delta \eta `$ in the exponent stems from the suppression of primary emission in the ‘buffer’ bands. Rewriting (21) as a differential equation, we have

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{ln}𝒮}{\delta t}=8C_Ft\frac{\delta \eta }{\delta t}.$$
(22)
The factor $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ can be understood as the average ‘speed of motion’ (probably proportional to $`C_A`$) of the border between regions with and without emissions (*i.e.* of the edge of the buffer). The resulting form for $`𝒮`$ is

$$𝒮(t)e^{4C_Ft^2\frac{\delta \eta }{\delta t}},$$
(23)
where we have (arbitrarily) assumed $`\frac{\delta \eta }{\delta t}`$ to be independent of $`t`$.

One of the features of this mechanism is that resolving only those emissions harder than some intermediate scale $`t`$’, one will see an extended empty buffer region surrounding $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as in figure 4 (shown for one side of a wide slice). The typical size of this buffer region should be of the order of

$$\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}(tt^{})\frac{\delta \eta }{\delta t}.$$
(24)
It is the suppression of intermediate-scale primary radiation in the buffer region which is responsible for the strong suppression of $`𝒮(t)`$ at large $`t`$, eq. (23).

An important consequence of the existence of such a buffer region is that the large-$`t`$ behaviour of $`𝒮(t)`$ would be independent of the shape and size of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is because at large $`t`$ the edges of the buffer region will be far from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and so the details of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can have no influence on the dynamics at the edge of the buffer. This independence on the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, together with the explicit observation of a buffer region, would allow us to distinguish the buffer mechanism from the alternative mechanism proposed at the beginning of this subsection.

### 4.2 Numerical results

We mentioned above that there are two main problems in obtaining all-order results. One is the complexity of the colour algebra in the presence of large numbers of gluons. This can be eliminated by taking the large-$`N_C`$ approximation, in which the squared matrix element radiation can be broken down into a sum of independent terms each associated with a different colour dipole .

The second source of complexity is the geometry of multi-gluon events, which we treat using a Monte Carlo algorithm like that discussed in , which essentially models a tree-like sequence where a colour dipole emits a gluon, thus branching into two dipoles, each of which may themselves go on to emit (there is a similarity to the Ariadne event generator ). However unlike a Monte Carlo event generator such as Ariadne, our method has the property that it gives results which are purely a function of $`t`$ (eq. (6)), and therefore contain just the piece which is guaranteed to be correct, namely the leading logarithmic piece.

The Monte Carlo algorithm returns a function $`𝒮_{\mathrm{MC}}(t)`$ in the large-$`N_C`$ limit. We choose to correct this function so that at least at order $`\alpha _\text{s}^2`$ the result is correct beyond the large-$`N_C`$ approximation. Accordingly, in what follows, we shall consider

$$𝒮(t)=[𝒮_{\mathrm{MC}}(t)]^{\frac{2C_F}{C_A}},$$
(25)
rather than $`𝒮_{\mathrm{MC}}`$ itself.

In figure 5a we show the function $`𝒮(t)`$ for three different geometries for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$: a square patch in rapidity and azimuth ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2`$), a finite slice in rapidity ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =1`$) and an infinite slice in rapidity. We extend the $`t`$ scale beyond the phenomenologically relevant region in order to better illustrate the general features of $`𝒮`$ in the different cases. The right-hand plot, figure 5b shows what would be obtained if there were a simple exponentiation of the $`𝒮_2`$ term, $`𝒮\mathrm{exp}(𝒮_2t^2)`$.

There are various points to be noted: firstly, as $`t`$ increases, $`𝒮`$ decreases with a behaviour roughly consistent with a Gaussian suppression, at least for $`t0.5`$. Secondly, at large $`t`$, though the normalisation of $`𝒮(t)`$ depends on the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, its behaviour in $`t`$ seems to be *universal*. This is to be compared to the geometry dependence that would be present if the all-orders result stemmed from a simple exponentiation of the $`𝒮_2`$ term, fig. 5b. We note that up to $`t0.5`$, there is a strong similarity between the actual $`t`$-dependence and that observed in the exponentiation of $`𝒮_2`$ for an infinite slice. Beyond $`t0.5`$ however the suppression in the full calculation seems to be grow much faster.

The fact that the $`t`$-dependence of $`𝒮`$ is the same regardless of the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ seems to suggest that the ‘buffer’ mechanism postulated above might well be responsible for the all-orders behaviour of $`𝒮`$. To examine this idea in more detail one can use the Monte Carlo simulation to establish whether there really is a buffer region, and to examine its size, $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}`$, as a function of an intermediate resolution scale $`t^{}<t`$. Figure 6 shows contour plots for the distribution of $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}`$ values as a function of $`t^{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an infinite slice, and $`t`$ is defined as the scale of the hardest secondary emission in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ originating from coherent emission off partons which are to the right of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Correspondingly the buffer region being considered is that to the right of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

For the lower $`t`$ range the buffer region tends to be fairly small — for example at $`t^{}=0.1`$, the most likely buffer size is $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}0.7`$. However, increasing $`t`$ to $`0.55<t<0.65`$, the most likely size of the buffer region at $`t^{}=0.1`$ grows to $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}3.5`$. Such an increase in buffer size for fixed $`t^{}`$ as one increases $`t`$ is precisely what one would expect from the ‘buffer’ mechanism postulated earlier, eq. (24). From that equation one can also evaluate an effective value for $`\delta \eta /\delta t9`$. Using eq. (23), one then finds that the coefficient of $`t^2`$ in the exponent is roughly twice $`𝒮_2`$ for an infinite slice.

This is not quantitatively consistent with what is seen in figure 5, however several points should be borne in mind: (a) the arguments in section 4.1 are based on average properties, whereas in the end we are interested in the properties of rare events. So for example there is a certain spread in the distribution of $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}`$ and this can affect the quantitative predictions by a non-trivial factor, as can the fact that $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ is itself only defined in an average sense (b) one’s estimate for $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ depends somewhat on how exactly one deduces it from the plots, *e.g.* whether as a derivative with respect to $`t^{}`$ or $`t`$; this is connected to point (c), namely that our assumption of a constant $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ (independent of $`t^{}`$) may be an oversimplification. Indeed if $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ is constant then eq. (24) one would expect the centre of the distribution of $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}`$ to be depend linearly on $`t^{}`$. However in fig. 6 there seems to be some non-linear dependence of the typical $`\eta _{\mathrm{buffer}}`$ on $`t^{}`$, though it is not clear whether this is an artifact of $`t`$ not being sufficiently asymptotic, or whether there is extra dynamics which remains to be taken into account, such as a pile-up of emissions close to the edge of the buffer. Furthermore at $`t0.5`$ the behaviour of $`𝒮(t)`$ departs from the initial approximate Gaussian, and starts to fall much faster, also suggesting either that $`t0.5`$ is not yet asymptotic, or that $`\delta \eta /\delta t`$ has some extra $`t^{}`$ dependence.

In conclusion, we believe that while we may have understood some of the gross features of the dynamics involved in the all-orders behaviour of $`𝒮(t)`$, in particular the importance of a buffer mechanism in determining the geometry-independent large-$`t`$ suppression of $`𝒮(t)`$, there are some significant details which remain to be understood.

### 4.3 Phenomenological implications

To understand the phenomenological significance of the non-global logarithms, it is interesting to compare results for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t(Q_\mathrm{\Omega },Q))`$ with only primary emissions and with the full non-global treatment. This is done in figure 7 for two different geometries of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a slice in rapidity and a square patch in rapidity and azimuth.

The upper plots show how $`t`$ is related to $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, for different values of the centre of mass energy $`Q`$. Even at a very energetic next-linear-collider, optimistically trusting the calculation down to $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }=0.5`$ GeV one only just goes beyond $`t=0.25`$. For current energies the largest value of $`t`$ that is accessible is in the range of $`0.15`$ to $`0.2`$. Taking $`t=0.15`$ as our reference value, the inclusion of the non-global effects increases the suppression (on a logarithmic scale) relative to that for just primary emissions by a factor of between $`1.5`$ (patch) and $`1.65`$ (slice). To state it a different way, ignoring non-global effects at $`t=0.15`$ overestimates the cross section by between $`30\%`$ (patch) and $`65\%`$ (slice). At larger $`t`$ values, these figures rapidly become even more dramatic.

So the non-global effects are not only important from the point of view of the formal correctness of the leading-log series, but also numerically significant.

As an aside we comment on the feature of a divergence in the distribution of $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at the Landau pole that has been observed in certain circumstances in . Such a behaviour arises when the suppression from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝒫}(t)`$ is not sufficient to compensate the divergence in $`dt/dQ_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, *i.e.* when $`\frac{C_F𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi \beta _0}<1`$. However the inclusion of the non-global factor $`S(t)`$ ensures that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ always goes to zero much faster than $`dt/dQ_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ diverges. Therefore the distribution of $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should go to zero at the Landau pole regardless of the size of $`\frac{C_F𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi \beta _0}`$.

Finally, we note that for a comparison to data it would also be necessary to take into account non-perturbative effects. One way of doing so might be in terms of power corrections . For the mean $`Q_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in a normalisation in which the power correction to the $`e^+e^{}`$ thrust has a coefficient $`c_\tau =2`$, the coefficient for a region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ would be $`c_\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }Q`$ where $`𝒜_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the area of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. For the corresponding differential distribution one should roughly expect a shift of the distribution by the same amount.

## 5 Conclusions

As has already been pointed out in , in the resummation of any observable sensitive only to emissions in a limited angular region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of phase space, there is a class of single-logs — ‘non-global logs’ — which leads to a breakdown of the picture of independent primary emissions and strict angular ordering. That picture has been quite widely adopted in the literature, in certain instances wrongly , at least to the accuracy that was claimed.444There exist other cases, *e.g.* , whose final results are for global variables, but where intermediate steps of the derivation make reference to non-global hemisphere-variables without the inclusion of non-global logs. It is important not to use those results outside the context of the specific derivation for which they are intended without taking care of non-global effects as required. To deal with this class of terms it is necessary to consider emission from arbitrarily complicated ensembles of energy-ordered large-angle gluons lying outside the region of sensitivity of one’s observable.

In this article we have considered non-global logarithms for observables such as the distribution of energy flow in restricted angular regions between jets. This kind of measurement was originally advocated, in , for $`2+2`$-jet events in hadron-hadron collisions. Here we have studied a simpler case, that of $`2`$-jet events, in order to concentrate on the specific features of these non-global logarithms, without the difficulties that arise from the complex colour structure of four-jet systems. We also point out that experimental studies of interjet energy flows in $`e^+e^{}`$ and DIS, insofar as they are free from contamination by the underlying event, may provide useful complementary information to that which could be extracted in hadron-hadron colliders.

Our studies have led us to various conclusions. Most importantly perhaps, is that non-global effects, as well as being formally of the same order as those from primary emissions, are also numerically almost as large.

More academically, one of the interesting aspects of non-global logs that is specific to interjet energy flows, as opposed to the single-hemisphere observables studied in , is that they depend on the geometry of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the region in which one measures the energy flow. At second order in $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ (the first order at which these effects appear), for moderately sized patches, the magnitude of non-global effects is roughly proportional to the perimeter of the patch. In contrast, effects due to primary emissions scale as the area of the patch.

At all orders, we have only a large-$`N_C`$ numerical treatment for non-global effects. Despite this it is possible to obtain some interesting insights into the mechanisms that are of relevance. One notable result is that, modulo a geometry-dependent normalisation, the asymptotic $`t`$-dependence of the non-global suppression factor $`𝒮`$ seems to be independent of the size and shape of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This fact, together with figure 6, lends support to the hypothesis that at intermediate scales there is an empty ‘buffer region’ around $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and that a significant part of the non-global suppression factor $`𝒮`$ stems from the suppression of intermediate-scale primary radiation in the buffer region. This allows us to postulate that in other processes, such as $`2+2`$-jet production at hadron colliders, one will see similar results, with the asymptotic $`t`$-dependence of $`𝒮`$ being given by that of figure 5a, raised to a power which depends on the number of jets and whether they are quark or gluon jets.

###### Acknowledgments.

We wish to thank Yuri Dokshitzer, George Sterman and Bryan Webber for helpful discussions. One of us (MD) gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the LPTHE where part of this work was carried out.