format: text

text:
# Contact values of the radial distribution functions of additive hard-sphere mixtures in 𝑑 dimensions: A new proposal

## I Introduction

It is well known that there exists a close connection between the thermodynamic and structural properties of classical fluids. In fact, for pair-wise additive intermolecular potentials, all the thermodynamic functions may be expressed in terms of the radial distribution functions (rdf). The expressions are particularly simple for hard-core fluids, since in that case the internal energy reduces to that of the ideal gas and in the pressure equation it is only the contact values rather than the full rdf which appear explicitly. Therefore, knowledge of the contact values of the rdf in hard-core fluids, which we will denote by $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ (where in general $`i`$ and $`j`$ label species and $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the distance of separation at contact between the centers of two interacting fluid particles, one of species $`i`$ and the other of species $`j`$), suffices to obtain the equation of state (EOS) of these systems. In the case of a single component hard-core fluid, if the EOS were known then it would be straightforward to infer the contact value of the radial distribution function. In contrast, if one were given the EOS of a multicomponent hard-core mixture such contact values could not be determined in a unique way. Up to this day, no exact expressions neither for the contact values of the rdf nor for the EOS (except for the case of one-dimensional systems, i.e., hard rods) are known, although various approximate theories, empirical efforts, and computer simulations have been carried out in connection with this problem. One-component systems are of course easier to handle and this has meant that studies for mixtures are much scarcer. Perhaps the most successful theoretical (analytical) approach to this issue in the case of additive hard-sphere mixtures ($`d=3`$) is the exact solution of the Percus–Yevick (PY) equation carried out by Lebowitz in 1964. Lebowitz (1964) This analytical solution, which among other things yields explicit expressions for the contact values of the rdf, as well as for the virial and the compressibility routes to the EOS, is at the basis of the celebrated (and empirically derived) Boublík–Mansoori–Carnahan–Starling–Leland (BMCSL) EOS, Boublík (1970); Mansoori et al. (1971) considered to be a rather accurate EOS for hard-sphere mixtures. In his paper, Boublík (1970) Boublík also introduced an approximation for the contact values of the rdf (in fact an interpolation between the PY results and the ones of the Scaled Particle Theory (SPT) Lebowitz et al. (1965); Rosenfeld (1988)) that later was independently proposed by Grundke and Henderson Grundke and Henderson (1972) and Lee and Levesque. Lee and Levesque (1973) This approximation, which we will refer to as BGHLL, leads precisely to the BMCSL EOS when substituted into the statistical mechanical formula for the pressure equation. Refinements of the BGHLL approximation have been recently proposed by Henderson and Chan, Henderson et al. (1996); Yau et al. (1996, 1997); Henderson and Chan (1998); MHC99  Matyushov and Ladanyi, ML97  and Barrio and Solana Barrio and Solana (2000) to cope with some deficiencies of the BMCSL EOS in the so-called colloidal limit of binary hard-sphere mixtures.

As far as we are aware, there are no reported approximations for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ with $`d3`$, except that of Jenkins and Mancini Jenkins and Mancini (1987) in the case of hard-disk mixtures and our own Santos et al. (1999) for $`d`$-dimensional mixtures. The latter approximation, however, was introduced only as a means to derive a proposal for the EOS of mixtures. In fact, while this EOS presents an excellent agreement with simulations for $`d=2`$, Santos et al. (1999); López de Haro et al. (2002) $`d=3`$, Santos et al. (1999); Malijevský and Veverka (1999); Cao et al. (2000) $`d=4`$, González-Melchor et al. (2001) and $`d=5`$, González-Melchor et al. (2001) the expressions for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ are less accurate. Cao et al. (2000); González-Melchor et al. (2001) It is the major aim of this paper to propose new (improved) approximate expressions for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$, for arbitrary mixtures and arbitrary dimensionality, that, apart from satisfying known consistency conditions, are sufficiently general and flexible to accommodate any given EOS for the single fluid. A key aspect of the present approach, also included in our previous work, Santos et al. (1999) is that we will assume from the very beginning a kind of universal behavior of the contact values which at least holds also for the solution of the PY equation,Lebowitz (1964) for the SPT approximation, Lebowitz et al. (1965); Rosenfeld (1988) and for the BGHLL interpolation Boublík (1970); Grundke and Henderson (1972); Lee and Levesque (1973) in the case of mixtures of hard spheres $`(d=3)`$. This means that, once the dimensionality and the packing fraction are fixed, the expression for the contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ for all pairs $`ij`$ is the same, irrespective of the composition and the number of components in the mixture. This expression must comply with three consistency conditions related to the point particle, equal size, and the colloidal limits, respectively. Two functional forms (a quadratic one and a rational one) which are sufficiently representative will be examined. Their merits will be assessed from a comparison with available simulation data as well as with respect to the performance of the EOS obtained from them. In this latter issue, we will show that a paradoxical result is obtained. What we find is that, contrary to what one could possibly expect, better contact values do not necessarily mean more accurate EOS and that even two different expressions for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ may lead to exactly the same EOS.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we recall the known consistency conditions and introduce the new proposals for the contact values of the rdf. Section III deals with the comparison between our contact values and ensuing EOS and simulation results. We close the paper in Sec. IV with further discussion and some concluding remarks.

## II The proposal

Let us consider a mixture of hard spheres in $`d`$ dimensions with an arbitrary number of components. The hard core of the interaction between a sphere of species $`i`$ and a sphere of species $`j`$ is $`\sigma _{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _i+\sigma _j)`$, where the diameter of a sphere of species $`i`$ is $`\sigma _{ii}=\sigma _i`$. The number density of the mixture is $`\rho `$ and the mole fraction of species $`i`$ is $`x_i=\rho _i/\rho `$. From these quantities one can define the packing fraction $`\eta =v_d\rho \sigma ^d`$, where $`v_d=(\pi /4)^{d/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+d/2)`$ is the volume of a $`d`$-dimensional sphere of unit diameter and $`\sigma ^n_ix_i\sigma _i^n`$ denotes the moments of the diameter distribution.

In a hard-sphere mixture, the knowledge of the contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ is important for a number of reasons. For example and as stated above, the availability of $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ is sufficient to get the equation of state (EOS) of the mixture via the virial expression

$$Z_\text{m}(\eta )=1+2^{d1}\eta \underset{i,j}{}x_ix_j\frac{\sigma _{ij}^d}{\sigma ^d}g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij}),$$
(1)
where $`Z_\text{m}=p/\rho k_BT`$ is the compressibility factor of the mixture, $`p`$ being the pressure, $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ the absolute temperature. The contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ are also needed to generate the entire rdf $`g_{ij}(r)`$ in the Generalized Mean Spherical Approximation Giunta et al. (1985) and in the Rational Function Approximation. Yuste et al. (1998) In a different context, they are important as well to implement the Enskog kinetic theory both for elastic and inelastic hard spheres. Jenkins and Mancini (1987); Garzó and Dufty (1999)

The exact form of $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ as functions of the packing fraction, the set of diameters $`\{\sigma _k\}`$, and the set of mole fractions $`\{x_k\}`$ is only known in the one-dimensional case, where one simply has $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=(1\eta )^1`$. Consequently, for $`d2`$ one has to resort to approximate theories or empirical expressions. From that point of view, it is useful to make use of exact limit results that can help one in the construction of approximate expressions for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$. Let us consider first the limit in which one of the species, say $`i`$, is made of point particles that do not occupy volume, i.e., $`\sigma _i0`$. In that case, $`g_{ii}(\sigma _i)`$ takes the ideal gas value, except that the available volume fraction is $`1\eta `$:

$$\underset{\sigma _i0}{lim}g_{ii}(\sigma _i)=\frac{1}{1\eta }.$$
(2)
An even simpler situation occurs when all the species have the same size, $`\{\sigma _k\}\sigma `$, so that the system becomes equivalent to a one-component system. Therefore,

$$\underset{\{\sigma _k\}\sigma }{lim}g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=g(\sigma ),$$
(3)
where $`g(\sigma )`$ is the contact value of the radial distribution function in the one-component case. Equations (2) and (3) represent the simplest and most basic conditions that $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ must satisfy. There is a number of other less trivial consistency conditions. Rosenfeld (1988); Henderson et al. (1996); Henderson and Chan (1998); ML97 ; Barrio and Solana (2000); Hamad (1994); Henderson et al. (1998); Vega (1998); Tukur et al. (1999) Here we consider the condition stemming from a binary mixture in which one of the species, say $`i=1`$, is much larger than the other one, i.e., $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2\mathrm{}`$, but occupies a negligible volume, i.e., $`x_1(\sigma _1/\sigma _2)^d0`$. In that case, a sphere of species 1 is seen as a wall by particles of species 2, so that Henderson et al. (1996, 1998); Regnaut et al. (2001)

$$\underset{\stackrel{\sigma _1/\sigma _2\mathrm{}}{x_1(\sigma _1/\sigma _2)^d0}}{lim}\left[g_{12}(\sigma _{12})2^{d1}\eta g_{22}(\sigma _2)\right]=1.$$
(4)
Also in that limit, Henderson et al. (1996, 1998); Regnaut et al. (2001) $`\mathrm{ln}g_{11}(\sigma _1)\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$, but we will not make use of this condition here.

Our purpose now is to propose approximate expressions for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ of hard-core mixtures with an arbitrary number of components and arbitrary dimensionality $`d`$, that satisfy the consistency conditions (2)–(4). First, we assume that the dependence of $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ on the parameters $`\{\sigma _k\}`$ and $`\{x_k\}`$ takes place only through the scaled quantity $`z_{ij}(\sigma _i\sigma _j/\sigma _{ij})\sigma ^{d1}/\sigma ^d`$. More specifically,

$$g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})=G(\eta ,z_{ij}),$$
(5)
where the function $`G(\eta ,z)`$ is universal in the sense that it is a common function for all the pairs $`ij`$, regardless of the composition and number of components of the mixture. Of course, the function $`G(\eta ,z)`$ is different for each dimensionality $`d`$.

The ratio $`\xi \sigma ^{d1}/\sigma ^d`$ can be understood as a ‘typical’ inverse diameter or curvature of the particles of the mixture. The parameter $`z_{ij}^1=(\sigma _i^1+\sigma _j^1)/2\xi `$ represents then the average curvature, in units of $`\xi `$, of a particle of species $`i`$ and a particle of species $`j`$. According to Eq. (5), if two different pairs $`ij`$ in two different mixtures (with the same packing fraction) have the same dimensionless average curvature $`z_{ij}^1`$, then they have the same contact value of the rdf.

The ansatz (5) includes the one used by us, Santos et al. (1999) where $`G(\eta ,z)`$ was approximated by a linear function of $`z`$. A particular case of this linear form is the proposal made by Jenkins and Mancini for hard-disk mixtures: Jenkins and Mancini (1987)

$$G(\eta ,z)=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\frac{9}{16}\frac{\eta }{(1\eta )^2}z,(d=2).$$
(6)
In the three-dimensional case, Eq. (5) is also compatible with the solution of the PY equation, Lebowitz (1964) the SPT approximation, Lebowitz et al. (1965); Rosenfeld (1988) and, consequently, the BGHLL proposal. Boublík (1970); Grundke and Henderson (1972); Lee and Levesque (1973) More specifically, $`G(\eta ,z)`$ is a linear function of $`z`$ in the PY approximation and a quadratic function in the SPT and BGHLL approximations:

$$G(\eta ,z)=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\eta }{(1\eta )^2}z+\lambda \frac{\eta ^2}{(1\eta )^3}z^2,(d=3),$$
(7)
where $`\lambda _{\text{PY}}=0`$, $`\lambda _{\text{SPT}}=\frac{3}{4}`$, and $`\lambda _{\text{BGHLL}}=\frac{1}{2}`$. These three approximations are consistent with (2) and (3), but only the SPT is also consistent with condition (4). The approximation referred to as the SPT-virial route by Rosenfeld Rosenfeld (1988) adopts also the scaling form (5), namely $`G(\eta ,z)=(1\eta )^1\mathrm{exp}\left[3z\eta /2(1\eta )\right]`$, but it does not comply with condition (4).

Once we adopt the ansatz (5), the limits in (2)–(4) provide very useful constraints on the $`z`$-dependence of $`G`$. First, $`z_{ii}0`$ in the limit $`\sigma _i0`$, so that insertion of Eq. (2) into (5) yields

$$G(\eta ,0)=\frac{1}{1\eta }.$$
(8)
Next, if all the diameters are equal, $`z_{ij}1`$, so that Eq. (3) implies that

$$G(\eta ,1)=g(\sigma ).$$
(9)
Finally, in the limit considered in Eq. (4), we have $`z_{22}1`$, $`z_{12}2`$. Consequently,

$$G(\eta ,2)=1+2^{d1}\eta G(\eta ,1).$$
(10)
Thus Eqs. (8)–(10) provide complete information on the function $`G`$ at $`z=0`$, $`z=1`$, and $`z=2`$, in terms of the contact value $`g(\sigma )`$ of the one-component rdf.

The proposal made in Ref. Santos et al., 1999 consists of assuming a linear dependence of $`G`$ on $`z`$ that satisfies the requirements (8) and (9):

$$G(\eta ,z)=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\left[g(\sigma )\frac{1}{1\eta }\right]z.$$
(11)
If in the two-dimensional case we take Henderson’s value Henderson (1975) $`g(\sigma )=(17\eta /16)/(1\eta )^2`$, Eq. (11) reduces to Jenkins and Mancini’s approximation,Jenkins and Mancini (1987) Eq. (6). In general, Eq. (11) does not satisfy Eq. (10). However, the ansatz (11) was used in Ref. Santos et al., 1999 only as a means to obtain the EOS from Eq. (1). The resulting EOS exhibits an excellent agreement with simulations in 2, 3, 4, and 5 dimensions, provided that an accurate $`g(\sigma )`$ is used as input. Santos et al. (1999); Malijevský and Veverka (1999); Santos et al. (2001); González-Melchor et al. (2001); López de Haro et al. (2002) On the other hand, if one is directly interested in obtaining reliable contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$, then Eq. (11) is too crude. The simplest functional form of $`G`$ that complies with (8)–(10) is a quadratic function of $`z`$:

$$G(\eta ,z)=G_0(\eta )+G_1(\eta )z+G_2(\eta )z^2,$$
(12)
where the coefficients are explicitly given by

$$G_0(\eta )=\frac{1}{1\eta },$$
(13a)
$$G_1(\eta )=(22^{d2}\eta )g(\sigma )\frac{2\eta /2}{1\eta },$$
(13b)
$$G_2(\eta )=\frac{1\eta /2}{1\eta }(12^{d2}\eta )g(\sigma ).$$
(13c)
In the one-dimensional case, Eqs. (13b) and (13c) lead to $`G_1=G_2=0`$ and we recover the exact result. For three-dimensional systems, if the SPT value is used for the one-component contact value, $`g_{\text{SPT}}(\sigma )=(1\eta /2+\eta ^2/4)/(1\eta )^3`$, we reobtain the SPT expressions for the mixture, cf. Eq. (7). On the other hand, if the much more accurate Carnahan-Starling Carnahan and Starling (1969) (CS) expression $`g_{\text{CS}}(\sigma )=(1\eta /2)/(1\eta )^3`$ is used as input, we arrive at the following expression:

$$G(\eta ,z)=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\eta (1\eta /3)}{(1\eta )^2}z+\frac{\eta ^2(1\eta /2)}{(1\eta )^3}z^2,(d=3),$$
(14)
which is different from the BGHLL one and improves the latter for $`z>1`$, as comparison with computer simulations will show. It should be noted that if one considers a binary mixture in the infinite solute dilution limit, namely $`x_10`$, so that $`z_{12}2/(1+\sigma _2/\sigma _1)`$, Eq. (14) yields the same result for $`g_{12}(\sigma _{12})`$ as the one proposed by Matyushov and Ladanyi ML97  for this quantity on the basis of exact geometrical relations. However, the extension that the same authors propose when there is a nonvanishing solute concentration, i.e. for $`x_10`$ \[cf. Eq. (19) in Ref. ML97, \], is different from Eq. (14). We will come back to this point later when we assess the merits of both proposals.

Of course, the quadratic form (12) is not the only choice compatible with conditions (8)–(10). Another simple possibility is to assume a rational function of the form

$$G(\eta ,z)=\frac{1+\left[A_1(\eta )1\right]z}{B_0(\eta )+B_1(\eta )z}.$$
(15)
Imposing Eqs. (8)–(10), we get

$$B_0(\eta )=1\eta ,$$
(16a)
$$A_1(\eta )=\frac{g(\sigma )\eta }{2}\frac{12^{d1}(1\eta )g(\sigma )}{1\left(12^{d1}\eta \right)g(\sigma )},$$
(16b)
$$B_1(\eta )=\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\eta (1\eta )\left(22^{d1}\eta \right)g(\sigma )}{1\left(12^{d1}\eta \right)g(\sigma )}.$$
(16c)
Other functional forms for $`G(\eta ,z)`$ complying with Eqs. (8)–(10) are possible, but the choices (12) and (15) are sufficiently representative, so we will restrict ourselves to them in this paper.

## III Comparison with simulation data

### III.1 Contact values of the radial distribution functions

In order to assess the utility of the new proposals for the contact values of the rdf, in Figs. 19 we present results for hard-core mixtures in $`d=2`$, 3, 4, and $`5`$, and the available computer simulation data. Figure 1 shows $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ as a function of $`z_{ij}`$ for $`d=2`$ and $`\eta =0.6`$, according to the linear approximation (11), the quadratic approximation (12), and the rational approximation (15). In the three cases we have used for $`g(\sigma )`$ the value obtained from the Levin approximant of Erpenbeck and Luban. Erpenbeck and Luban (1985) The only tabulated simulation data for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ in the case of hard disks that we are aware of are those of Ref. BS01, . Hence, we have included in Fig. 1 the simulation results for the most asymmetric mixtures considered in Ref. BS01, , namely $`\sigma _2/\sigma _1=\frac{1}{3}`$ with $`x_1=0.25`$, $`0.5`$, and $`0.75`$, and also simulation data extracted from Fig. 2 of Ref. Luding and Strauß, 2001. We observe that the quadratic and rational approximations, both consistent with condition (10), are hardly distinguishable. The three theoretical curves practically coincide in the range of values of $`z_{ij}`$ spanned by the simulations. It would be interesting to carry out simulations extending to the region $`z_{ij}>2`$ to assess the reliability of Eqs. (12) and (15).

A comparison between theoretical predictions and simulation values for three-dimensional mixtures is shown in Figs. 25. To carry out the computations in Eqs. (11), (12), and (15), we have used the CS contact value $`g_{\text{CS}}(\sigma )`$. Figures 2 and 3 show that the universality assumption (5) is well supported by simulation data. Since the dependence of $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ on $`z_{ij}`$ is nonlinear (note that the curvature is different from that of the two-dimensional case), Eq. (11) only captures some kind of ‘average’ behavior. Among the three quadratic functions, namely the SPT, the BGHLL, and Eq. (12), the best global agreement is presented by Eq. (12). The SPT prescription, Eq. (7) with $`\lambda =\frac{3}{4}`$, is consistent with condition (10), but its performance is not very good because it is pinned at a too high value at $`z=1`$ (one-component case). The BGHLL prescription, Eq. (7) with $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$, is excellent at $`z=1`$ (CS value), does a very good job for $`0<z<1`$, but clearly underestimates the simulation data for $`z>1`$, as expected from the fact that the BGHLL is inconsistent with (10) at $`z=2`$. Our recipe (12) is only slightly worse than the BGHLL for $`z<1`$ but improves it significantly for $`z>1`$. Finally, the rational function (15) is practically indistinguishable from the BGHLL for $`z<1`$, is reasonably good for $`1<z<2`$, and is the best one in the case of the large–large rdf for disparate mixtures, as shown by Fig. 3 in the region $`z4`$. Of course, none of these approximations is expected to be good enough in the limit of extremely large values of $`z`$, where $`\mathrm{ln}Gz`$.Henderson et al. (1996, 1998); Regnaut et al. (2001) The latter behavior could be incorporated by choosing an adequate functional form for $`G(\eta ,z)`$ consistent with conditions (8)–(10), but this does not seem to be necessary in the range $`0z4`$. Since the best global agreement in the range $`0z2`$ is provided by the polynomial function (12), which has a structure similar to the well-known BGHLL prescription in the case of $`d=3`$ \[cf. Eq. (14)\], we favor its use, except perhaps for very disparate mixtures, where the rational approximation (15) is preferable.

The refinements of the BGHLL expressions recently proposed by Henderson and Chan Henderson et al. (1996); Yau et al. (1996, 1997); Henderson and Chan (1998) and by Barrio and Solana Barrio and Solana (2000) are not shown in Figs. 2 and 3 because they do not belong to the class of approximations satisfying the universality assumption (5). In addition, they are restricted to the case of binary mixtures. Both approximations differ in practice from the BGHLL only in $`g_{11}(\sigma _1)`$, where species 1 refer to the big spheres ($`\sigma _1>\sigma _2`$). Figure 4 shows $`g_{11}(\sigma _1)`$ versus $`\eta `$ for the three-dimensional binary mixture $`x_1=0.005`$, $`\sigma _2/\sigma _1=\frac{1}{5}`$ (which corresponds to $`z_{11}=3.457`$). The figure confirms that the best agreement is obtained with the rational approximation (15). Henderson and Chan’s approximation, which incorporates the exact asymptotic behavior $`\mathrm{ln}g_{11}(\sigma _1)\sigma _1`$, gives too high values. Barrio and Solana’s expression improves the BGHLL value, but is slightly worse than the quadratic approximation (12).

Figure 5 presents a plot of $`g_{12}(\sigma _{12})`$ as a function of $`\eta `$ for the three-dimensional binary mixture characterized by $`x_1=0.00415`$ and $`\sigma _2/\sigma _1=\frac{1}{5}`$ (which corresponds to a value of $`z_{12}=1.210`$) as given by different approximations. The rational approximation given by Eq. (15) has not been included in the figure to avoid overcrowding of the curves, but it is practically indistinguishable from the BGHLL approximation in this case. Clearly the best agreement between theory and simulation is provided by the approximations of Barrio and Solana, Barrio and Solana (2000) of Henderson and Chan, Henderson and Chan (1998) and by our Eq. (12), which are all of comparable accuracy and certainly superior to the approximation proposed in Eq. (19) of the paper by Matyushov and Ladanyi. ML97

Of course, the most physically relevant situations correspond to hard spheres ($`d=3`$) and, to a lesser extent, disks ($`d=2`$). On the other hand, it seems desirable that a proposal for $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ be valid for any dimensionality $`d`$. Moreover, a number of recent papers deal with systems of hard hyperspheres. Sear and Mulder (1998); Frisch and Percus (1999); Bishop et al. (1999); Parisi and Slanina (2000); Yuste et al. (2000); González-Melchor et al. (2001); FSL02 ; Enciso et al. (2002) Figures 69 show $`g_{12}(\sigma _{12})`$ versus $`\eta `$ for binary mixtures in $`d=4`$ and $`d=5`$. The contact values of the one-component system that we have used in the computations have been obtained from the EOS derived for these systems by Luban and Michels.Luban and Michels (1990) The values of the parameter $`z_{12}`$ are in the range $`0.4<z_{12}<1`$ for the cases considered in Figs. 69. It is observed that in this range the quadratic approximation (12) exhibits an excellent agreement with the simulation data.

### III.2 Equation of state

Having examined the accuracy of the proposed contact values, we will now consider their performance in terms of the compressibility factor they lead to. In this regard, Eq. (12) has the advantage over Eq. (15) that, when inserted into Eq. (1), one gets a closed expression for the compressibility factor, in terms of the packing fraction $`\eta `$ and the first few moments $`\sigma ^n`$, $`nd`$. This expression is meaningful even for polydisperse mixtures. The result is

$`Z_\text{m}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`1+2^{d2}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1\eta }}\left[2(S_02S_1+S_2)+(S_1S_2)\eta \right]`$ (17)
$`+\left[Z_\text{s}(\eta )1\right]\left[2S_1S_2+2^{d2}(S_2S_1)\eta \right],`$
where $`Z_\text{s}(\eta )=1+2^{d1}\eta g(\sigma )`$ is the compressibility factor of the one-component system and the coefficients $`S_m`$ are given by

$$S_m=2^{(dm)}\frac{\sigma ^{d1}^m}{\sigma ^d^{m+1}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{dm}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dm}{n}\right)\sigma ^{n+m}\sigma ^{dn}.$$
(18)
In the two-dimensional case, Eq. (17) becomes

$$Z_\text{m}(\eta )=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\frac{\sigma ^2}{\sigma ^2}\left[Z_\text{s}(\eta )\frac{1}{1\eta }\right],(d=2).$$
(19)
It is worth noticing that this EOS coincides with the one obtained from Eq. (11) for $`d=2`$. This illustrates the fact that two different proposals for the contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ can yield the same EOS when inserted into Eq. (1). Let us analyze this point with more detail. Subtracting Eqs. (11) and (12), one has

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G(\eta ,z)=\left[\frac{1\eta /2}{1\eta }(12^{d2}\eta )g(\sigma )\right]z(1z),$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(\eta ,z)`$ denotes the difference between the linear and the quadratic approximations. Thus, the compressibility factors obtained from the linear and quadratic forms for $`G(\eta ,z)`$ only differ by a term proportional to $`_{i,j}x_ix_j\sigma _{ij}^dz_{ij}(1z_{ij})`$. It turns out that this term vanishes in the two-dimensional case, so the linear and quadratic approximations yield the same EOS (19). This fact also shows that a rather crude approximation such as Eq. (11) may lead to an extremely good EOS. Santos et al. (1999, 2001); González-Melchor et al. (2001); López de Haro et al. (2002)

For three-dimensional mixtures, Eq. (17) becomes

$`Z_\text{m}(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \sigma ^2}{\sigma ^3}}\left(1\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2^2}{\sigma \sigma ^3}}\eta \right)`$ (21)
$`\times [Z_\text{s}(\eta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\eta }}],(d=3).`$
In particular, when the CS EOS $`Z_\text{s}(\eta )=(1+\eta +\eta ^2\eta ^3)/(1\eta )^3`$ is used as input, we get the following extended CS EOS:

$$Z_{\text{eCS-II}}(\eta )=Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )\frac{\eta ^3\sigma ^2}{(1\eta )^2\sigma ^3^2}\left(\sigma \sigma ^3\sigma ^2^2\right),$$
(22)
where the compressibility factor associated with the BMCSL EOSBoublík (1970); Mansoori et al. (1971) is given in the present notation by

$$Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )=\frac{1}{1\eta }+\frac{3\eta \sigma \sigma ^2}{(1\eta )^2\sigma ^3}+\frac{\eta ^2(3\eta )\sigma ^2^3}{(1\eta )^3\sigma ^3^2}.$$
(23)
Note that Eq. (22) is different from the extended CS EOS obtained from Eq. (11), namely Santos et al. (1999)

$$Z_{\text{eCS-I}}(\eta )=Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )+\frac{\eta ^3\sigma ^2}{(1\eta )^3\sigma ^3^2}\left(\sigma \sigma ^3\sigma ^2^2\right).$$
(24)
Since simulation data indicate that the BMCSL EOS tends to underestimate the compressibility factor, it is obvious that the performance of $`Z_{\text{eCS-I}}`$ is, paradoxically, better than that of $`Z_{\text{eCS-II}}`$. This is explicitly shown in Fig. 10 where, for comparison, we have also included the theoretical results that follow from the recent (very accurate) proposal by Barrio and Solana Barrio and Solana (2000) for the EOS. So once again we find that better contact values do not necessarily lead to better compressibility factors, as already seen in the two-dimensional case. One plausible explanation for the better performance of $`Z_{\text{eCS-I}}`$ with respect to $`Z_{\text{eCS-II}}`$ might reside on the use of the CS EOS $`Z_\text{s}(\eta )`$, but we have checked that if the Padé  of Sanchez Sanchez (1994) or the very accurate EOS of Malijevský and Veverka Malijevský and Veverka (1999) are used instead, the results do not change. Thus the source of this effect is a fortunate compensation of errors in the linear approximation (11) related to the fact that the compressibility factor involves a weighted average of the individual contact values $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ \[cf. Eq. (1)\]. This argument is suggested by the following observation. In Fig. 11 we present a plot of the ratio $`G(\eta ,z)/G_{\text{BGHLL}}(\eta ,z)`$ as a function of $`z`$ for $`\eta =0.49`$ with $`G(\eta ,z)`$ given by Eqs. (11) and (12). For completeness, also the ratios corresponding to the SPT (7) and the rational approximation (15) are plotted. Properly reduced simulation results have also been included. From this plot it is fair to conclude that the approximation given by Eq. (12) is globally more accurate than those obtained with either Eq. (11) or with $`G_{\text{BGHLL}}(\eta ,z)`$ and that the BGHLL contact values are better than the linear approximation. However, the quadratic approximation always underestimates the simulation results (and therefore it is only natural that it will always produce an underestimation of the compressibility factor), while both the linear approximation and the BGHLL approximation overestimate the simulation results if $`z_{ij}1`$ but underestimate them if $`z_{ij}1`$. The net result is that $`Z_{\text{eCS-II}}(\eta )`$ is in poorer agreement with the simulation results for the compressibility factor than either $`Z_{\text{eCS-I}}(\eta )`$ or $`Z_{\text{BMCSL}}(\eta )`$, the extended CS EOS obtained from Eq. (11) providing the best overall agreement. Nevertheless, an important asset of $`Z_{\text{eCS-II}}`$, not shared by either $`Z_{\text{eCS-I}}`$ or $`Z_{\text{BMCSL}}`$, is that it predicts demixing. This result provides further support to the analysis performed by Regnaut, Dyan, and Amokrane Regnaut et al. (2001) in which the verification of condition (4) is of key importance for the existence of demixing. We will address this issue in more detail elsewhere.

For $`d=4`$ and $`d=5`$ (not shown), however, the compressibility factors derived from the linear approximation given by Eq. (11) Santos et al. (1999) turn out to be slightly less accurate than those obtained from the use of either Eq. (12) or Eq. (15). Thus, for these high dimensionalities, the expectation that a better overall behavior of the contact values correlates with a better performance of the associated EOS actually holds true.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, in this paper we have introduced a universality assumption, Eq. (5), for the contact values of the rdf of a hard-sphere mixture with arbitrary number of components and arbitrary dimensionality. Three known consistency conditions, Eqs. (2)–(4), allow us to fix the values of the universal function $`G(\eta ,z)`$ at $`z=0`$ \[cf. Eq. (8)\], $`z=1`$ \[cf. Eq. (9)\], and $`z=2`$ \[cf. Eq. (10)\], the two latter in terms of the contact value of the one-component rdf. This implies that any reasonable three-parameter form of $`G(\eta ,z)`$ as a function of $`z`$ can provide a very good approximate representation of $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ regardless of the number of components, provided a good EOS for the single fluid system is used. We have illustrated this possibility with two specific proposals: a quadratic function, Eq. (12), and a rational function, Eq. (15). In $`d=1`$, they reduce to the exact result, while for $`d=3`$ they represent an improvement over the BGHLL values, as well as over those of their refinements, in the quantitative agreement with the simulation results. For $`d=2`$, 4, and $`5`$, they compare rather well with the (few) available simulation results. Their potential use in connection with the generation of the entire rdf $`g_{ij}(r)`$ for three-dimensional mixtures within the Rational Function Approximation method is currently under investigation.

The relationship between the thermodynamic properties and the contact values of the rdf in hard-core fluids is in principle so straightforward that the importance of explicit and accurate approximations for the latter can be hardly overemphasized. In one-component hard-core systems it is certainly true that a more accurate contact value of the rdf leads directly to a better EOS. On the other hand, our results in this paper indicate that, due to the fact that for mixtures the EOS (or equivalently the compressibility factor) involves a summation over species indices in which the different contact values are included, one does not always obtain a more accurate EOS from seemingly better approximations to $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$. In fact, as exemplified in the case of hard-disk mixtures ($`d=2`$), it is possible to obtain exactly the same EOS with two different approximations for the contact values of the rdf. Further, the poorer agreement of $`Z_{\text{eCS-II}}`$ with simulation data than either $`Z_{\text{eCS-I}}`$ or $`Z_{\text{BMCSL}}`$ mentioned in the previous Section is also a reflection of the above assertion, the reason resting on a ‘fortunate’ compensation of errors. In any event, in some specific applications (e.g. the Enskog kinetic theory) it is only the contact values of the rdf that are required. In this respect, it is fair to conclude that our two new proposals provide in general a reasonably accurate approximation to $`g_{ij}(\sigma _{ij})`$ (as compared to the available simulation data) for a hard-core mixture with an arbitrary number of components and arbitrary dimensionality. Of course the scarcity of simulation results for these systems precludes a more definite conclusion. In any case, we hope that the availability of the new (explicit) expressions for the contact values of the rdf of hard-core mixtures in any dimensionality may serve as a further motivation to carry out yet more simulations of these systems.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to Alexander Malijevský for providing simulations data of ternary hard-sphere mixtures prior to publication. A.S. and S.B.Y. acknowledge partial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) and FEDER through grant No. BFM2001-0718


text:
# LASER POLARIZATION OF POSITRON BEAM.

## 1 Introduction.

As it was pointed out in works , for a number of physical studies which are planned to be made with the next generation colliders, it is necessary to use polarized beams of both electrons and positrons. The problem of producing and acceleration of polarized electrons may be considered to be solved , but the existing approaches to create polarized positron beams \[4–7\] do not ensure the parameters required (see ).

This work proposes a new approach to produce polarized positron beams, which is based on the process of multiple Compton backscattering of unpolarized ultrarelativistic positrons in the field of intense circularly polarized laser wave.

Under sufficiently high intensity of a laser flash a positron undergoes $`N`$1 successive collisions with laser photons and at each collision a positron loses a part of its initial energy. A positron beam acquires (on the average) a partial polarization along the direction coinciding with the photon momentum.

As shown in work  the deflection of a relativistic positron (electron) after a single act of Compton back-scattering (CBS) is characterized by the angle $`\theta _e{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0}{mc^2}}\gamma _0^1`$, if $`\gamma _010^5`$, here $`\omega _0`$ is the laser photon energy ($``$ 1 eV), $`\gamma _0`$ is the Lorentz-factor of an initial particle. Therefore, one can assume as a first approximation that the divergence of positron beam does not change, and, further it is possible to consider the characteristics of a positron beam, as a whole, after its passage through a laser flash.

The quantization axis ($`z`$-axis) is chosen to be parallel to the initial positron momentum (i.e., antiparallel to the laser photon momentum). It is clear that for obtaining a nonzeroth polarization of the final beam, it is necessary that after a multiple process of CBS the ”occupancies” of spin states should differ:

$`N_{}N_{},`$
if for the initial unpolarized beam

$`N_{}=N_{}.`$
In a single act of CBS the spin flip processes are described by $`w_{}`$ and $`w_{}`$ probabilites. In case when $`w_{}=w_{}`$, the process of laser polarization is impossible, while at $`w_{}w_{}`$ in the process of multiple Compton scatering the positron beam can achieve the polarization degree equal to:

$`\xi _{z_{max}}={\displaystyle \frac{w_{}w_{}}{w_{}+w_{}}}.`$
Here $`\xi _{z_{max}}`$ is the mostly achievable value of the $`z`$–component of the final beam polarization.

In my previos work  the wrong estimation of the final polarization degree (close to unit) was obtained. As was shown by G. L. Kotkin, H. Perlt and V. G. Serbo  positrons passing through an intense laser field region change their polarization even without interaction with laser photons. It leads to the decreasing of the attainable polarization value.

In the present work this effect was taken into account. Also the expressions for $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _{}`$, were obtained and it was shown that $`\omega _{}\omega _{}`$; the requirements to the parameters of the laser flash to obtain the significant polarization were analyzed; the process of laser polarization of particles in the storage ring during a short-time period was considered.

## 2 Compton-effect cross-section on longitudinally polarized electron (positron) with spin flip.

The process of Compton backscattering (CBS) will be considered in a system where an electron (positron) is at rest (rest frame - RF), and a circularly polarized laser photon moves against the axis $`z`$. We will be also interested in the component of the recoil electron spin along the axis $`z`$, since, because of the azimuthal symmetry of the process after averaging over the assembly of the initial beam particles, the transverse projections of the spin are set to zero.

The authors of classical work  calculated the cross-section of Compton effect for an electron at rest, considering the correlations among polarizations of all four particles taking part in the reaction.

After summing up over polarizations of a scattered photon according to , one can get

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=2r_0^2\left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^2\left\{\mathrm{\Phi }_0+P_c\xi _{0z}\mathrm{\Phi }_1+P_c\xi _z\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\xi _{0z}\xi _z\mathrm{\Phi }_3\right\}.$$
(1)
Here $`r_o`$ – a classical radius of an electron; $`k_0`$ and $`k`$ – are the energies of the initial and scattered photons; $`P_c`$ – is the degree of a circular polarization of a laser photon; $`\xi _{oz},\xi _z`$ – are the spin components of initial and scattered electrons; the functions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ will be determined later. A similar cross-section for a positron may be obtained after a simple changing the signs of the terms proportional to $`P_c`$.

It should be pointed out that in (1) the term which is proportional to $`P_c\xi _{0z}\xi _z`$ is absent.

For electrons with the initial energy $`\gamma _010^4`$ and the energy of the laser photon $`\omega _0`$ 1 eV in the laboratory frame (LF) the initial photon energy in the RF system is obtained after the Lorentz transformation (the system $`\mathrm{}=m=c=1`$ is used)

$$k_0=(1+\beta _0)\gamma _0\omega _0=2\gamma _0\omega _0<<1,$$
(2)
and the energy of a scattering photon may be obtained from the conservation laws:

$$k=\frac{k_0}{1+k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )}k_0[1k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )].$$
(3)
Here $`\theta `$ – is the angle of a scattered photon in the RF.

In equation (3) the terms of order of $`k_0^3`$ and higher are neglected. This approximation will be also used further. Let us write down the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(k_0,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\frac{1}{8}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +k_0^2(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\right],$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{cos}\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )[2k_0k_0^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )],$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\frac{1}{8}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )[2k_0\mathrm{cos}\theta k_0^2(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta 2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )],$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_3=\frac{1}{8}\left[1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta k_0^2\left(\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{cos}\theta 2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{cos}^3\theta \right)\right].$$

From (1) and (4) after simple integration one has:

$$\sigma =\pi r_0^2[\frac{4}{3}(12k_0+\frac{26}{5}k_0^2)+P_c\xi _{oz}\frac{1}{3}(2k_010k_0^2)+P_c\xi _z\frac{1}{3}(2k_08k_0^2)+$$

$$+\xi _{0z}\xi _z\frac{4}{3}(12k_0+\frac{22}{5}k_0^2)]=\sigma _0+P_c\xi _{0z}\sigma _1+P_c\xi _z\sigma _2+\xi _{0z}\xi _z\sigma _3.$$
(5)
Section (5) is invariant and may be used both in the RF, and the LF. The probability of the Compton effect with a spin flip is proportional to cross-section (5) when $`\xi _{0z}`$ and $`\xi _z`$ have opposite signs:

$$w_{}=w(\xi _{0z}=+1,\xi _z=1)=\mathrm{const}\{\sigma _0+\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{c}\sigma _1\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{c}\sigma _2\sigma _3\}$$

$$w_{}=w(\xi _{0z}=1,\xi _z=+1)=\mathrm{const}\{\sigma _0\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{c}\sigma _1+\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{c}\sigma _2\sigma _3\}$$

As it follows from (5) $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, therefore, the polarization of scattering electrons in CBS (laser polarization) is, in principle, possible.

Cross-section (5) can be derived from the invariant expressions with taking into account the polarization of all particles . Thus, the authors in  obtained the CBS section depending on the longitudinal polarization of a scattered electron (i.e., on the projection of a scattered electron spin on its momentum) in the invariant form. Following from the above work, let us write down the cross-section where the component of a scattered electron polarization is maintained along the same axis $`z`$ as that of the initial electron:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dy}=\pi r_0^2\frac{1}{x}\left\{F_0+(s_zG_2+c_zG_3)\xi _z\right\}$$
(6)
In (6) averaging over the azimutal angle was performed. The invariants $`x,y`$ are found in a standard way:

$$x=2pk,y=1\frac{pk^{^{}}}{pk}$$
(7)
where $`p,k,k^{^{}}`$ are the four-vectors of the initial electron and photon and the scattered photon, respectively. The functions $`F_0,G_2,G_3`$ are determined as:

$$F_0=\frac{1}{1y}+1ys^2+y\frac{2y}{1y}c\xi _{0z}P_c$$

$$G_2=yscP_c+(1+c^2yc^2)s\xi _{0z},$$
(8)
$$G_3=\left(\frac{y}{1y}+yc^2\right)P_c+\left[\frac{1}{1y}+(1y)c^2\right]c\xi _{0z},$$

where $`s=2\sqrt{r(1r)},c=12r,r={\displaystyle \frac{y}{(1y)x}}`$.

The coefficients $`s_z,c_z`$ are none other than the coefficients of the rotation matrices from the basis used in  to the basis where one of the axes coincides with the axis $`z`$.

Substituting (1) into (6) let us write down the section in the form as in (1):

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dy}=\pi r_0^2\frac{1}{x}\{\frac{1}{1y}+1ys^2+\xi _{0z}P_ccy\frac{2y}{1y}+$$

$$+P_c\xi _z[s_zysc+c_z(\frac{y}{1y}+yc^2)]+\xi _{0z}\xi _z[s_zs(1+c^2yc^2)+$$

$$+c_zc(\frac{1}{1y}+(1y)c^2)]\}=\pi r^2_0\frac{1}{x}\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}P_c\xi _{0z}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}P_c\xi _z+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }_3}\xi _{0z}\xi _z\}$$
(9)
One can easily see that, if $`s_z=s,c_z=c`$,(which corresponds to the longitudinal polarization of a scattered electron), $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$. However, generally speaking, $`s_zs,c_zc`$, which can be easily seen in the RF. Let us calculate section (9) in the RF and compare with the results obtained earlier (Eqs. (4), (5)). Coefficients $`s_z,c_z`$ are defined as

$$s_z=\frac{\stackrel{}{k_0}}{k_0}\stackrel{}{n}_2^{}c_z=\frac{\stackrel{}{k_0}}{k_0}\stackrel{}{n}_3^{},$$
(10)
where the unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}_i^{}`$ determine the basis used in . In the RF by neglecting the terms $`k_0^3`$ and higher, one has from (10)

$$s_z=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta (1+k_0)}{1+k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )}\left[1k_0^2\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2}\right],$$

$$c_z=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )k_0^2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1+k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )},$$
(11)
while in the same system (see )

$$s=\mathrm{sin}\theta ,c=\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(12)
Passing from the invariant variables to those used earlier

$$x=2k_0,y=1\frac{k}{k_0}=\frac{k_0(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{1+k_0(1cos\theta )}$$
(13)
and substituting (11), (12), (13) into cross-section (9), one can show that the section obtained completely coincides with (5), in the same approximation as above.

## 3 Process of Multiple Compton Backscattering. Main characteristics.

The number of hard photons $`N`$ produced in colliding ofone electron with photons of the laser flash is a random value as well as the other characteristics of the process of multiple CBS (total radiation losses, the electron multiple scattering angle, etc.).

For simplicity, further we will consider only mathematical expectations of these random values, omitting, as a rule the averaging symbol $`N=<N>`$. In addition, we will deal with collisions of single positron bunches with photons. The $`N`$ value (according to work  it is the conversion coefficient) can be found by using the luminosity of the process:

$$N=\frac{L\sigma }{N_{e^+}}.$$

Here $`N_{e^+}`$ is the number of positrons in a bunch; $`\sigma `$ is the cross-section of CBS process; $`L`$ is the luminosity:

$$L=2cN_0N_{e^+}𝑑V𝑑tf_{ph}(x,y,z+ct)f_e(x,y,z\beta ct).$$
(14)
In (14) $`N_0`$ is the number of photons in a laser flash; $`f_{ph},f_e`$ are the normalized distributions of photons and positrons in bunches.

For the analytical estimations we will consider monodirected positron and photon beams with the Gauss distribution in the transverse and longitudinal directions:

$$f_e=\frac{2}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sigma _e^2l_e}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{r^2}{\sigma _e^2}\frac{(z\beta ct)^2}{2l_e^2}\right\},$$
(15)
$$f_{ph}=\frac{2}{(2\pi )^{3/2}\sigma _{ph}^2l_{ph}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{r^2}{\sigma _{ph}^2}\frac{(z+ct)^2}{2l_{ph}^2}\right\},$$

$$r^2=x^2+y^2.$$

In this case (the so-called case of short-length bunches ) the luminosity is calculated analytically

$$L=N_e^+N_0\frac{2}{\pi (\sigma _e^2+\sigma _{ph}^2)}$$
(16)
and it does not depend on the bunch lengths $`2l_e,2l_{ph}`$ (in other words, on the time of interaction). For $`k_01`$ we have:

$$N=2N_0\frac{\sigma }{\pi (\sigma _e^2+\sigma _{ph}^2)}\frac{2A}{\omega _0}\frac{2\sigma _0}{\pi (\sigma _e^2+\sigma _{ph}^2)},$$
(17)
where $`A`$ is the laser flash energy, $`\omega _0`$ is the laser photon energy. The cross-section summed up over the spin of a scaterred positron and averaged over the spin of initial $`(\sigma _1\sigma _0)`$ is substituted into (17). If the beam after the ”damping-ring” is used as an initial one, in this case $`\sigma _e^2\sigma _{ph}^2`$ and, therefore,

$$N=\frac{A}{\omega _0}\frac{16}{3}\left(\frac{r_0}{\sigma _{ph}}\right)^2=4\frac{A}{\omega _0}\frac{\sigma _T}{\lambda Z_R}=2n_L\sigma _Tl_{ph}.$$
(18)
Here $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of the laser photon; $`Z_R`$ is Rayleigh length; $`n_L`$ is the photon concentration in the laser flash; $`\sigma _T={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi r_0^2`$; $`2l_{ph}`$ is the length of the laser pulse.

Let us evaluate the average positron energy after the process of multiple CBS. The average energy after the first collision act is found from the condition

$$<\gamma _1>=\gamma _0<\omega _1>,$$

where $`<\omega _1>`$ is the average energy of an emitted photon in the LF, which depends on the average characteristics of a photon in the RF:

$$<\omega _1>=\gamma _0(<k>\beta _0<k_{}>),$$

$$<k>=k\left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }/\left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=k_0(1k_0),$$
(19)
$$<k_{||}>=k\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }/\left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{6}{5}k_0^2.$$

Thus,

$$<\gamma _1>=\gamma _1\gamma _0(1k_0)=\gamma _0(12\gamma _0\omega _0).$$

Before the second scattering act a laser photon in the RF will have a smaller energy

$$<k_1>=k_1=2\gamma _1\omega _0=k_0(1k_0).$$

In a similar way one can obtain the relation (further, for the sake of simplificaton the averaging symbol is neglected again)

$$\gamma _{i+1}=\gamma _i(12\omega _0\gamma _i).$$
(20)
From (20) we get the equation in the finite differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _i=\gamma _{i+1}\gamma _i=2\omega _0\gamma _i^2.$$

If the number of scattering acts $`k1`$, then, passing from the finite difference equation to the differential one and solving the latter, we have:

$$\gamma _k=\frac{\gamma _0}{1+2\gamma _0\omega _0k}=\frac{\gamma _0}{1+2\mu }.$$
(21)
By making use of (21) one can estimate the total radiation losses by each positron after $`N`$ collisions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =\gamma _0\gamma _N=\gamma _0\frac{2\mu }{1+2\mu }=2\gamma _0^2\omega _0\frac{N}{1+2\gamma _0\omega _0N}.$$
(22)
V. Telnov  proposed to use the process of a multiple CBS for cooling the head-on electron (positron) beam. Let us estimate the laser flash parameters and the number of hard photons to decrease an electron initial energy by one order of magnitude:

$$\gamma _N=\frac{\gamma _0}{1+2\gamma _0\omega _0N}=\frac{\gamma _0}{10}.$$

Hence, we have the following relations for the collision number

$$N_{10}=\frac{9}{2\gamma _0\omega _0},$$

and laser energy:

$$A=\frac{9}{8}\frac{\lambda Z_R}{\gamma _0\sigma _\tau }.$$
(23)
## 4 Single-pass laser polarization of positron beam.

If the initial positron is unpolarized and the laser photons possess a 100 $`\%`$ right-hand circular polarization ($`P_c=+1`$), then, after the first scattering act the recoil positrons, on the whole, become partly polarized. The value of the polarization component along the $`z`$ axis can be found from cross-section (5)

$$\xi _1=\frac{\sigma _2}{\sigma _0}\frac{k_0}{2}(12k_0)=\gamma _0\omega _0(14\gamma _0\omega _0).$$
(24)
Henceforth the index $`z`$ will be neglected. Taking into account that before the second scattering act the photon energy in the RF equal to $`k_1=k_0(1k_0)`$ from (5) one can find the positron polarization after the second scattering act:

$$\xi _2=\frac{\sigma _2+\xi _1\sigma _3}{\sigma _0+\xi _1\sigma _1}\frac{\frac{2}{3}k_1(14k_1)+\xi _1\frac{4}{3}(12k_1)}{\frac{4}{3}(12k_1)+\xi _1\frac{2k_1}{3}(15k_1)}$$

$$k_0(1\frac{7}{2}k_0)=2\gamma _0\omega _0(17\gamma _0\omega _0).$$
(25)
Comparing (25) and (24) one can see that $`|\xi _2|>|\xi _1|`$. By applying the method similar to the one used to derive (21) the polarization value after $`N`$ collisions can be found

$$\xi _N=\frac{\gamma _0\omega _0N}{1+\gamma _0\omega _0N}=\frac{\mu }{1+\mu }.$$
(26)
However, it should be pointed out that the immediate use of the derived formula in order to evaluate the final polarization of the positron beam is illegitimate. The problem is that, as a unpolarized positron beam is passing through a laser flash, the positrons which have not interacted with the laser photons become polarized but in the opposite direction . Thus, the positrons in this part the beam will have a nonzero polarization before the first collision act, and that is why the use of formulas (25,26) in this case gives a wrong results.

To obtain a correct result it is necessary to perform a Monte Carlo simulation of CBS process. But the equilibrium polarization value can be found from the elementary balance equations. In passing polarized positrons through a laser flash having the photon concentration $`n_L`$ hard photons are emitted in the process with a spin flip ($`\xi _z=\xi _{0z}`$), and without one ($`\xi _z=+\xi _{0z}`$). The change of the number of positrons having the spins oriented along the positive $`N^{}(\xi _z=+1)`$ and negative direction of the quantization axis $`N_{}(\xi _z=1)`$ is described by the equation resulting from cross-section (9):

$$\frac{dN^{}}{dz}=2n_L[(\sigma _0+\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)N^{}+(\sigma _0\sigma _1+\sigma _2\sigma _3)N^{}],$$

$$\frac{dN^{}}{dz}=2n_L[(\sigma _0+\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)N^{}+(\sigma _0\sigma _1+\sigma _2\sigma _3)N^{}].$$
(27)
By adding and subtracting Eqs. (27) we obtain standard balance equations :

$$\frac{d(N^{}+N^{})}{dz}=0$$

$$\frac{d(N^{}N^{})}{dz}=2n_L[2(\sigma _0\sigma _3)(N^{}N^{})2(\sigma _1\sigma _2)(N^{}+N^{})].$$
(28)
Balance equations (28) have the following solution:

$$\xi _z(z)=\frac{N^{}N^{}}{N^{}+N^{}}=\frac{\sigma _1\sigma _2}{\sigma _0\sigma _3}\{1\mathrm{exp}[4n_L(\sigma _0\sigma _3)z]\}.$$
(29)
Here $`z`$ is the thickness of the ”laser” target. It follows from (29) that the maximum polarization degree (at $`z+\mathrm{}`$):

$$\xi _{z_{max}}=\frac{\sigma _1\sigma _2}{\sigma _0\sigma _3}=\frac{5}{8}.$$
(30)
The characteristic length of the laser bunch $`Z_{pol}`$, after passing which the positron beam acquires the polarization degree ($`1e^1)\xi _{max}0.63\xi _{max}`$, is found from the following relation:

$$Z_{pol}=\frac{1}{4n_L(\sigma _0\sigma _3)}.$$
(31)
From (18) and (31) we can find another characteristic of the laser polarization process – the average number of $`N_{pol}`$ photons emitted by each positron after passing the length $`Z_{pol}`$:

$$N_{pol}=\frac{8\pi }{3}n_Lr_0^2Z_{pol}=\frac{2\pi r_0^2}{3}\frac{1}{\sigma _0\sigma _3}=\frac{5}{8k_0^2}=\frac{5}{32\gamma _0^2\omega _0^2}.$$
(32)
Formula (32) is valid for $`k_0=2\gamma _0\omega _01`$, since it is in this approximation that the expressions for $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _3`$ (see (9)) were obtained. The value $`N_{pol}`$ does not depend on the specific laser parameters and is a more suitable value, for example, in the case of a multiple passage of positrons through the laser bunch in the storage ring .

As it follows from (32) and (18) the characteristic number of hard photons necessary for cooling and polarization processes depends on the energy of a laser photon in the RF such as $`1/k_0`$ and $`1/k_0^2`$.

But for the above case $`\gamma _0\omega _0=0.05`$ and, consequently,

$$N_{pol}=\frac{5}{32(0.05)^2}=62N_{10}.$$

Having rewritten formula (29) in which one should pass from the laser bunch length to the number of collision acts (i.e., to the number of emitted photons (see (18)):

$$\mathrm{exp}(\frac{z}{Z_{pol}})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{n_L\sigma _Tz}{N_{pol}})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{N}{N_{pol}}),$$

one gets the expression for the highest attainable polarization of the positron beam

$$\xi _z=\xi _{z_{max}}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{N}{N_{pol}}\right)\right].$$
(33)
For the example considered $`\xi _z=0.41`$.

## 5 Laser polarization in storage ring.

It was shown in the previous part that by applying a sufficiently powerful laser one can, in principle, attain a polarized positron beam during a single pass through a laser flash. However, the laser parameters to create the significant beam polarization with the time structure necessary for linear colliders are beyond the present-day technology. An obvious way to increase luminosity of the process is to use a high Q-factor optical resonator matched with the storage ring where a positron beam is circulating.

In work  the authors discussed the possibility of applying a laser with circularly polarized radiation in order to reduce the time of electrons self-polarization in the storage ring, and they showed that the CBS process can be used for this purpose.

In his recent work  J. Clendenin proposed using a resonator and a damping ring for simultaneous laser cooling of a positron beam and its laser polarization. It is clear that the requirements to the laser power are, in this case, considerably decreased (see the estimations the work cited).

J. Clendenin considered a damping ring with a circumference of 297 m for positrons with $`E`$ = 1.98 GeV, which is designed for synchrotron cooling radiation. For laser cooling of 100 MeV electrons the authors of  proposed a small-sized ring which 2 m in diameter. It is of special interest to estimate the feasibility of this ring for laser polarisation.

For a laser with the wavelength $`\lambda `$ 1 mcm ($`\omega _0`$ \- 1.25 eV) the parameter $`k_0=2\gamma _0\omega _010^3`$, therefore, $`N_{pol}=6.110^5`$.

During a single pass through the laser pulse having the energy $``$ 1J and $`z_R`$ = 1 mm each positron experiences, on the average, $`N=\frac{2A}{\omega _0}\frac{\sigma _T}{\lambda z_R}=0.82`$ collisions with laser photons, and the average energy of each emitted photon $`<\omega _1>=2\gamma _0^2\omega _0`$.

Consequently, the energy losses by each positron $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =4\sigma _T\gamma _0^2A/\lambda z_R`$, which coincides with formula (3) of work .

Thus, the necessary number of turns in the ring to attain $`N_{pol}`$ is:

$$n=\frac{N_{pol}}{N}=7.410^5,$$

which corresponds to the time $`\tau _{pol}=\pi d/c=15.510^3`$ sec. It seems that a serious problem for such a ring is to maintain power in the resonator during the time mentioned.

It takes $`10^3`$ laser injections into the resonator during the time $`\tau _{pol}`$ if the cavity Q-factor $`10^3`$.

## 6 Conclusion

All the results were obtained with neglect of the contribution of the nonlinear processes. It is clear that for the laser flash parameters discussed in Parts 3 and 4 a linear approximation will be valid, if the length of the laser pulse is rather high: $`l_{ph}>>Z_R`$. To maintain a transverse size of the laser beam at a suitable level along the full length $`l_{ph}`$, it is necessary to apply a channeled laser beam, e.g., in a plasma channel  or in a capillary dielectric tube .

For a substantially nonlinear process, when during a single collision act $`n>1`$ laser photons are absorbed, the average energy of an emitted photon will considerably exceed the one for a linear process, which will result in decrease in the value $`N_{pol}`$. In other side it should be noted the value of polarization degree $`\xi _{max}=5/8`$ was obtained in work  for moving electron in a long weak helical undulator (see, also, ).

Authors of cited paper considered also the case of strong helical undulator where electron polarization may be much higher ($`\xi _{max}`$= 0.92). It is known the trajectory of electron in a helical undulator is similar to one in a field of the intense circularly-polarized wave. Having in mind the analogy between radiative processes in the helical undulator and circularly-polarized wave one may expect that positron polarization during nonlinear multiple CBS process may exceed the value of (30) and approach to 92$`\%`$, typical value for self-polarization mechanism due to synchrotron radiation.

It is evidently the polarization of positron through nonlinear multiple CBS process demands the detailed investigations.

Author is grateful to V. Telnov for stimulating criticism and to V. Katkov,
V. Strakhovenko, M. Galynskii, E. Bessonov and J. Clendenin for useful discussions.