text:
# Atomic correlations in itinerant ferromagnets: quasi-particle bands of nickel

## Introduction.

Studies of the electronic structure of ferromagnetic Ni, in particular by angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ARPES), have since long revealed large discrepancies between experiments and results from spin-density-functional theory (SDFT) Cal80 ; Mor78 ; LB23 ; Do94 . The width of the occupied part of the 3$`d`$ bands is approximately $`W_{3d}=3.3\mathrm{eV}`$ EHK78 ; EP80 , whereas all SDFT calculations yield values of $`W_{\mathrm{SDFT}}=4.5\mathrm{eV}`$ Mor78 . In SDFT the exchange splitting of majority ($``$) and minority ($``$) spin bands is large and rather isotropic whereas the ARPES results report small and highly anisotropic splittings. Typical is the problem of the $`X_2`$ state which is positioned at $`0.04\mathrm{eV}`$ below the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$ by the ARPES data. In contrast, all SDFT calculations predict the $`X_2`$ state to lie above $`E_\mathrm{F}`$; so does a study using the GW approximation Ary92 . As a consequence, a Fermi surface is predicted with two hole ellipsoids around the $`X`$ point whereas only one has been found in de Haas-van Alphen experiments Tsui67 , as later confirmed by ARPES Do94 ; EHK78 ; EP80 .

Here, we present precise ARPES data on the electronic structure of Ni, in which full control over the three-dimensional wave vector $`𝐤`$ was achieved using very low-energy electron diffraction (VLEED) and ARPES Stro98 . For comparison we use the quasi-particle bands from Gutzwiller theory Bue98 ; Thul02  which is based on a multi-band Hubbard model whose electron-transfer amplitudes are derived from non-magnetic DFT calculations. We obtain good agreement with our ARPES data whereby we resolve for the first time all of the qualitative discrepancies between experiment and SDFT for the band structure of Ni. We argue that the DFT calculations underestimate the ratio between the partial charge densities in the 4$`sp`$ and the 3$`d`$ bands. This appears to be a general problem for DFT treatments of transition metals, see Ref. note, .

## Experiment.

ARPES is a well-established tool for the measurement of quasi-particle dispersions $`E(𝐤)`$ in crystalline solids. However, a principal problem concerns the determination of the surface-perpendicular wave vector component $`k_{}`$ of the photoelectron which is changed when the photoelectron exits into the vacuum. Full control of the three-dimensional wave vector $`𝐤`$ within the solid can be regained, if the dispersion of the photoelectron final states is known. The free-electron approximation which is usually employed for this purpose EHK78 ; EP80 ; Kaki98  frequently fails because the final-state bands are generally far more complicated Stro98 .

A precise determination of both quasi-particle energies and wave vectors is essential for a detailed comparison between experiment and theory. To this end, we have controlled $`𝐤`$ using the following route. First, angle-dependent VLEED is applied to determine the unoccupied states above the vacuum level whose momentum $`𝐤`$ lies on surface-parallel high-symmetry lines of the Brillouin zone (BZ), relying on the fact that the photoelectron final states can be viewed as time-reversed LEED states. Photoemission via these states, employing the Constant-Final-State (CFS) mode, is then used to map out the dispersion of the occupied quasi-particle bands along these lines. The usefulness and accuracy of this method has previously been demonstrated for Cu Stro98 .

In this work we report on measurements of the Ni(110) surface. The VLEED experiment was performed with a conventional LEED unit operated in the retarding field mode. ARPES in the CFS mode was carried out at beamline 18-A of the Photon Factory (Tsukuba, Japan); see Ref. Stro98,  for further details. Both VLEED and ARPES measurements were performed along the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$$`\overline{\mathrm{X}}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$$`\overline{\mathrm{Y}}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$$`\overline{\mathrm{S}}`$ azimuths of the (110) surface, giving access to the band dispersions along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`K`$$`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$$`X`$, and $`X`$$`L`$ lines of the bulk Brillouin zone. The ARPES data on the quasi-particle dispersions are presented in Fig. 1 as a gray-scale map of the negative second derivative of the photocurrent Stro98 . Critical point energies are given in Table 1.

## Gutzwiller theory.

The Gutzwiller theory employs a tight-binding Hamiltonian for a basis of 4$`s`$, 4$`p`$ and 3$`d`$ orbitals

$$\widehat{H}_1=\underset{ij=1;\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{\overset{L}{}}t_{i,\sigma ;j,\sigma ^{}}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{j;\sigma ^{}}^{}+\underset{i;\sigma }{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\sigma \widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma }^{}.$$
(1)
The energy-transfer integrals $`t_{i,\sigma ;j,\sigma ^{}}`$ between the spin-orbitals $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ at site $`j`$ range up to third nearest neighbors. They result from a fit to DFT energy bands of non-magnetic Ni, calculated with the LAPW-WIEN code WIENXX  and using the local-density approximation; for details of the fit procedure, see Ref. WM82, . A value of $`15\mathrm{meV}`$ for the root-mean-square deviation was obtained for all bands up to $`2\mathrm{eV}`$ above the Fermi energy. We note that the DFT energy of the 4$`p`$-type $`L_2^{}`$ state is $`0.120\mathrm{eV}`$ below $`E_\mathrm{F}`$, and the bare 3$`d`$ band width in our tight-binding model is $`W_{\mathrm{bare}}W_{\mathrm{DFT}}=4.5\mathrm{eV}`$.

The single-particle term is supplemented by the atomic Coulomb interactions among the 3$`d`$ electrons,

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_1+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{H}_{i;\mathrm{at}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3,\sigma _4}{}}𝒰^{\sigma _1,\sigma _2;\sigma _3,\sigma _4}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _1}^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _2}^+\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _3}^{}\widehat{c}_{i;\sigma _4}^{}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}.`$
Here, $`\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the projector onto the atomic eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ with energy $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the spherical approximation, the Coulomb parameters $`𝒰^{\sigma _1,\sigma _2;\sigma _3,\sigma _4}`$ can be obtained from three Racah parameters. In this work we choose $`B=0.09\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`C=0.40\mathrm{eV}`$, guided by spectroscopic data for isolated Ni2+ and Ni3+ ions; see Table 5.1 of Sugano et al. Su70 . This choice fulfills the ‘canonical’ ratio $`C/B4.5`$, found for transition metal ions both in atomic and impurity spectroscopy Su70 . The Racah parameter $`A=𝒪(10\mathrm{eV})`$ is adjusted; see below.

The sizable atomic Coulomb interactions suppress local charge fluctuations vV53  which occur in the limit of independent particles. Therefore, Gutzwiller Gu63  proposed to address the states

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}=\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}|\mathrm{\Phi },\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}=_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\widehat{m}_{i;\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(4)
as a variational approximation for the true ground state of $`\widehat{H}`$. The real numbers $`\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ parameterize the Gutzwiller correlator $`\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}`$ which reduces energetically unfavorable atomic configurations in the normalized one-particle product state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For an open $`d`$-shell system, there are $`2^{10}`$, i.e., of the order of $`10^3`$ variational parameters.

The variational ground state is determined by a minimization of the expectation value $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}}`$ with respect to the ‘internal’ parameters $`\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In infinite dimensions Bue98 ; Thul02  this leads to the condition that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the ground state of the effective Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma }^+\widehat{c}_{𝐤,\sigma ^{}},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{q_\sigma }\sqrt{q_\sigma ^{}}ϵ_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)+\delta _{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_\sigma +\lambda _\sigma ),`$ (6)
where $`ϵ_{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}(𝐤)`$ is the Fourier transform of the bare electron-transfer integrals $`t_{i,\sigma ;j,\sigma ^{}}`$. The spin-orbital energy shifts $`\lambda _\sigma `$ act as ‘external’ variational parameters since they determine $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ via the eigenvalue equation $`(\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}E)|\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

The quasi-particle excitations from energy bands given by the eigenvalues $`E(𝐤,\gamma )`$ of $`\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ Thul02 . Note, that the effective single-particle Hamiltonian differs from $`\widehat{H}_1`$ by the renormalization factors $`0q_\sigma 1`$ and the energy shifts $`\lambda _\sigma `$. Therefore, the bare bands of $`\widehat{H}_1`$ become narrowed and mixed in the quasi-particle excitations of the correlated system. The above results are strictly valid only for $`D=\mathrm{}`$. However, $`1/D`$ corrections were found to be small for $`D=3`$ single-band Fermi-liquid systems Thul02 .

The Gutzwiller method overestimates the optimum magnetic moment by about 10% to 15%; for a remedy of this problem, see Ref. Ohm02, . Therefore, we work with a fixed magnetic moment $`\mu =0.55\mu _\mathrm{B}`$, the experimental spin-only moment. Spin-orbit coupling has not yet been incorporated into our Gutzwiller codes as this requires a major reprogramming effort. We keep the partial densities $`n_s`$, $`n_p`$, and $`n_d`$ fixed to the values obtained from the DFT one-particle Hamiltonian. We have studied other variants of applying the Gutzwiller-DFT which allow charge flow between 4$`sp`$ and 3$`d`$ channels, yet the effects on the quasi-particle bands are found to be small Ohm02 .

## Results for nickel.

In cubic iron-group metals and under the limitations of keeping $`n_d`$, $`n_s`$, and $`n_p`$ fixed, symmetry allows for three independent energy shifts $`\lambda _\sigma `$ for the 3$`d`$ electrons. They govern the exchange splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_{2g})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(e_g)`$, and the crystal-field splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }(e_g/t_{2g})`$. For Ni, the exchange splittings of the 4$`s`$ and 4$`p`$ orbitals turn out to be of very minor importance. Therefore, we minimize the variational ground-state energy for a fixed magnetic moment $`\mu `$ with respect to three external and about 400 internal variational parameters.

We find the best agreement with the occupied 3$`d`$ band width $`W_{3d}=3.3\mathrm{eV}`$ at $`X_1`$ for a value $`A=9\mathrm{eV}`$, see table 1, column G-DFT II. Then, the condensation energy, i.e., the energy gain for the ferromagnetic phase as compared to the paramagnetic one, is $`E_{\mathrm{cond}}40\mathrm{meV}=0.8k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{C}`$ ($`T_\mathrm{C}=630\mathrm{K}`$ is the Curie temperature). This value of $`A`$ is much larger than in other multi-band studies Pru97 ; Kot01 . In Pru97 , only 3$`d`$ bands were incorporated. If we eliminate in our calculations the rather large 4$`sp`$-3$`d`$ hybridizations we also find that values of $`A=2\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{}3\mathrm{eV}`$ give ferromagnetic solutions with $`E_{\mathrm{cond}}=40\mathrm{meV}`$ and $`W_{3d}3\mathrm{eV}`$. The results of Kot01 , where the 4$`sp`$ bands have also been included, are at variance with our findings.

For all three G-DFT calculations of table 1, the energy of the state $`X_2`$ is pinned slightly below the Fermi energy, in agreement with experiment. This is an essential improvement over SDFT and even SDFT-GW calculations Ary92  which predict a second hole pocket at the $`X`$ point. Even a drastic change in the Racah parameter $`A`$ from $`A_{\mathrm{II}}=A_{\mathrm{III}}=9\mathrm{eV}`$ to $`A_\mathrm{I}=12\mathrm{eV}`$ does not change much the basic features of the Gutzwiller quasi-particle band structure. The pinning of $`X_2`$ is caused by the small variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(e_g)`$, which in turn leads to a large fraction of $`t_{2g}`$ holes in the minority spin bands, produced by a relatively large $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_{2g})`$. Because of the large nearest-neighbor hopping between $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals, it is energetically favorable to generate as many $`t_{2g}`$ holes in the minority spin bands as possible.

A more detailed inspection of the table 1 indicates several significant discrepancies between experiment and the results from G-DFT II. Most notably, the energy of the state $`L_2^{}`$, $`E_{\mathrm{GII}}(L_2^{})=0.3\mathrm{eV}`$, is much higher than in experiment, $`E(L_2^{})=1.0\mathrm{eV}`$. This discrepancy is caused by the underlying DFT calculation (see also table 1, column SDFT), as the 4$`p`$-type $`L_2^{}`$ state is basically not affected by correlations in the 3$`d`$ shell. When we lower the bare 4$`p`$ level $`ϵ_p`$ in (1) by $`0.75\mathrm{eV}`$, we considerably improve the agreement with experiment especially for all states near the Fermi energy and thus also for the values of the exchange splittings. The photoelectron data reveal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e_g}(X_2)=170\pm 50\mathrm{meV}`$ for the pure $`d(e_g)`$ state $`X_2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e_g}(X_5)=330\pm 40\mathrm{meV}`$ EHK78  for the pure $`d(t_{2g})`$ state $`X_5`$, which agrees well with the data from the G-DFT III. Lowering the 4$`p`$ level leads to a charge flow of about $`0.1`$ electrons from 3$`d`$ to 4$`p`$ whereby the number of holes in the 3$`d`$ bands is significantly enhanced. Thus, there are more 3$`d`$ holes available to generate the magnetic moment, and the exchange splittings are reduced accordingly. Note that the G-DFT exchange splittings increase as a function of the binding energy by about 50%, as can be seen, e.g., from the values of the pure $`t_{2g}`$ states $`X_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{25^{}}`$, and $`X_3`$. In contrast, they decrease in the SDFT because of the bigger orbital basis used there.

## Conclusions.

Hartree–Fock theory was the starting point for the Stoner–Slater band theories of itinerant ferromagnetism Sla36 ; Sto38 . For decades these theories have been the only ones to provide detailed comparison with experiments. In this paper we have shown for the prototypical ferromagnet Ni that, starting from a DFT-based one-particle Hamiltonian, the Gutzwiller theory can resolve the main discrepancies for Ni. We thereby confirm the qualitative findings of previous model studies Bue98 ; Pru97  on the basic mechanism of itinerant ferromagnetism. In Ni the 3$`d^8`$, 3$`d^9`$, and 3$`d^{10}`$ multiplets are predominantly occupied to accommodate the 3$`d`$ electrons’ itinerancy. However, the occupation of the low-lying 3$`d^8`$ spin triplets is significantly enhanced over the occupation of the 3$`d^8`$ singlets. As in magnetic insulators, Hund’s first rule is found to be an important agent in itinerant ferromagnets. Therefore, we corroborate early ideas by van Vleck vV53 , Gutzwiller Gu63  and others on the origin of itinerant ferromagnetism. In contrast to band aspects, they emphasized the importance of local moments in narrow-band metals as a consequence of strong atomic correlations.

Further predictions of our theory, e.g., the increase of the exchange splittings as a function of energy, should be tested by more detailed spin-resolved experiments.

###### Acknowledgements.

W.W. thanks S.G. Louie and M.L. Cohen for their hospitality during his sabbatical stay. We thank H. Starnberg and P. Blaha for their help with the VLEED data acquisition and analysis. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (446JAP/113/104/0, BU1309/2-1, CL124/5-1, WE1412/8-1).


format: text

text:
# Acknowledgement

## Acknowledgement

This work is supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education (C.K.,S.-H.Y.) and KOSEF 1998 interdisciplinary research grant 98-07-02-07-01-5 (K.L.). We appreciate Dongsu Bak and Jeong-Hyuck Park for many discussions on the subject.

Appendix A.

To find out the number of free parameters in Eqs. (2) and (3), let us start by noting all commuting square matrices can be triangularized simultaneously by unitary matrices. We triangularize all $`Z_i`$ matrices. After triangularization, we count the number of free real parameters.To do that, we want to show that $`[Z_i,Z_{i+1}]=0`$ for $`i=1,..,k1`$, then $`[Z_i,Z_j]=0`$ for arbitrary $`i,j`$. Let us first start by showing that this is true for three upper triangular complex matrices $`Z_1,Z_2,Z_3`$.

Lemma. $`[Z_1,Z_2]=[Z_2,Z_3]=0`$ implies $`[Z_3,Z_1]=0`$ for generic upper triangular matrices.

Proof) We prove this by induction. Suppose the result holds for $`k\times k`$ matrices. Then for $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$ $`Z_i`$’s, we write

$$Z_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_i& v_i\\ 0& z_i\end{array}\right),$$
(A.1)
where $`S_i`$ is a $`k\times k`$ upper triangular matrix, $`v_i`$ is a $`k`$ dimensional column vector and $`z_i`$ is a number. Then

$$[Z_i,Z_j]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}[S_i,S_j]& S_iv_j+z_jv_iS_jv_iz_iv_j\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(A.2)
Now from $`[Z_1,Z_2]=[Z_2,Z_3]`$ = 0 we have $`[S_1,S_2]=[S_2,S_3]=0.`$ Then by induction hypothesis, it implies $`[S_3,S_1]=0.`$ So the only thing need to prove is

$$S_3v_1+z_1v_3S_1v_3z_3v_1=0.$$
(A.3)
Indeed, this can be easily shown using the corresponding equations from (1,2) and (2,3) pairs. More precisely, after short calculations we get

$$(S_2z_2)(S_3v_1+z_1v_3S_1v_3z_3v_1)=0.$$
(A.4)
But in general the determinant of $`S_2z_2`$ is not zero since $`det(S_2z_2)=_{a=1}^k((S_2)_{aa}z_2)`$ and the diagonal components of $`S_2`$ are not constrained by the commutators. Q.E.D.

For four triangular matrices such that $`[Z_1,Z_2]=[Z_2,Z_3]=[Z_3,Z_4]=0`$, the above lemma shows that $`[Z_1,Z_3]=0`$. Thus by using the above lemma again for $`Z_1,Z_3,Z_4`$, we see $`[Z_1,Z_4]=0`$. By induction, then it should be true for arbitrary number of $`Z_i`$’s.

For each triangular $`Z_i`$, there are $`N(N+1)`$ real parameters. The total number of parameters of triangular $`Z_i^{}s`$ and $`\psi `$ are $`kN(N+1)+2NM`$. The remaining gauge parameter after triangularization is $`N`$ and Eq.(2) imposes $`N^2`$ constraints. Due to the above argument there are $`(k1)N(N1)`$ constraints on $`[Z_i,Z_{i+1}]=0`$. Then total free parameters are

$$kN(N+1)+2NMN^2N(k1)N(N1)=N(2k+2M2).$$
(A.5)
Appendix B.

Here we explore the two dimensional case in detail. For $`k=1,M=1`$, the general solutions of the constraint (2) for any $`N`$ have been found by introducing two Hermitian matrices $`X,Y`$ such that $`Z=(X+iY)/\sqrt{2}`$. After diagonalizing one of them by the unitary transformation, we use the remnant $`U(1)^N`$ gauge freedom to put the column vector $`\psi `$ to be real positive. The solution of the constraint (2) is given as

$`X_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_i& \mathrm{for}i=j\\ i\zeta /(y_iy_j)& \mathrm{for}ij\end{array},`$ (B.3)
$`Y_{ij}=y_i\delta _{ij},\psi _i=\sqrt{\zeta }.`$ (B.4)
In this coordinate the rotational symmetry is not manifest. (While the diagonal components of the triangularized $`Z`$ matrices is rotationally manifest and the distance between particles are obvious, it is much hard to solve the constraint (2) in this coordinate.) Since the general solution is obtained, we might say that the moduli space metric can be obtained in principle and the multiparticle dynamics could be understood. However it turns out that it is technically somewhat difficult. Here we consider only the two particle case and find its explicit moduli space metric in this form of the solution. Again the Gauss law determines the infinitesimal gauge parameter $`\delta \alpha `$ uniquely. After some calculation, the metric for the relative motion is given by

$$ds_{rel}^2=\frac{1}{8(x^2+y^2+\frac{4\zeta ^2}{y^2})}\left(\left[x^2+y^2\right]dx^2+\left[x^2+\frac{1}{y^2}(y^2+\frac{4\zeta ^2}{y^2})^2\right]dy^2\frac{8\zeta ^2x}{y^3}dxdy\right),$$
(B.5)
where $`xx_1x_2,yy_1y_2`$. (In this case it turns out $`\delta \psi =0`$, too.)

Although $`(x_i,y_i)`$ can be identified as the position of particles at large separation, its meaning at short distance changes. We can relate $`(x,y)`$ to the relative coordinate $`z`$ by taking the eigenvalues of $`Z=(X+iY)/\sqrt{2}`$. One can see that these two coordinates $`(x,y)`$ for moduli space metric do not have one to one correspondence though one form of the metric can be obtained from the other by the direct coordinate relations.

We need to elucidate the Polychronakos system at this point because Polychronakos has studied the first order time derivative Lagrangian

$$_1=\kappa \mathrm{tr}\left(i\overline{Z}D_0Z+i\overline{\psi }D_0\psi \zeta A_0\right)w^2\mathrm{tr}\overline{Z}Z,$$
(B.6)
where $`D_0Z=\dot{Z}i[A_0,Z]`$, and $`D_0\psi =\dot{\psi }iA_0\psi .`$. The auxiliary field $`A_0`$ leads to the Gauss law constraint $`[Z,\overline{Z}]+\psi \overline{\psi }=\zeta 1_N`$, which is identical to the constraint (2) Classically there are $`2N^2+2N`$ degrees of freedom in $`Z`$ and $`\psi `$. Since there is only a first order term in time derivative, the space of $`Z,\psi `$ forms a phase space. $`N^2`$ parameters are constrained by the above Gauss law and another $`N^2`$ parameters can be absorbed to the gauge parameters, leaving free $`2N`$ parameters in the phase space. These $`2N`$ parameters denote the $`N`$ particle location on two dimensional noncommutative plane. The eigenvalues and eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H=w^2\mathrm{tr}(\overline{Z}Z)`$ are completely solved .

The first order kinetic energy (B.6) leads to one form $`A=\mathrm{tr}(Zd\overline{Z}+\psi d\overline{\psi })`$ on the $`2N`$ dimensional moduli space, making it to be a phase space. As $`dA=\mathrm{tr}(\delta Z\delta \overline{Z}+\delta \psi \delta \overline{\psi })`$ regardless of $`\delta \alpha `$, the Kähler two form of our moduli space gives the symplectic structure of the Polychronakos system. Our moduli space becomes the phase space of the first order system. It would be interesting to work out the quantum problem in terms of the moduli space coordinate.


text:
# Principle of balance and the sea content of the proton

## I Introduction

One of the goals of hadronic physics is to describe the hadrons in terms of their fundamental quark and gluon degrees of freedom from basic principles. The structure of hadrons has been found to be rather complicated due to the non-perturbative and relativistic nature of the quark and gluon motions inside the hadrons. The sea of hadrons plays a particular role as a source for the complication. There have been many surprising discoveries concerning the structure of the nucleon, and the sea content of the nucleon has been found to be rather plentiful than natively expected. For example, it was generally assumed that there should be a symmetry between the light flavor $`u`$ and $`d`$ sea quarks inside the proton. However, a surprisingly large asymmetry between the $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ quark distributions of the proton has been observed from experiments of both deep inelastic scattering and Drell-Yan processes FlavorAsymmetry ; NMC91 ; NA51 ; HERMES ; E866a ; E866 . The strange content of the proton sea is also found to be non-trivial in the spin contribution Bro88  as well as in the quark-antiquark content Bro96 .

Many theoretical attempts have been made to understand the sea flavor asymmetry FlavorAsymmetry , and it is believed that the mesons inside the nucleon can account for such asymmetry. Recently, there is a new attempt to understand the sea flavor asymmetry of the proton from a pure statistical consideration in a detailed balance model Zhang1 ; spintalk . The idea is rather simple and perspicuous: while the sea quark-antiquark $`u\overline{u}`$ and $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs can be produced by gluon splitting with equal probabilities, the reverse processes of the annihilation of the antiquarks with their quark partners into gluons are not flavor symmetric due to the net excess of $`u`$ quarks over $`d`$ quarks. As a consequence, the $`\overline{u}`$ quarks have large probability to annihilate with the $`u`$ quarks than that of the $`\overline{d}`$ quarks, and this brings an excess of $`\overline{d}`$ over $`\overline{u}`$ inside the proton. Taking the proton as an ensemble of a complete set of quark-gluon Fock states, and using the principle of detailed balance that any two nearby Fock states should be balanced with each other, one can obtain the probabilities of finding every Fock state of the proton. Thus one can calculate the quark and gluon content of the nucleon without any parameter from a pure statistical consideration. It is interesting that the model gives a sea flavor $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$ asymmetry as $`\overline{d}\overline{u}0.124`$, which agrees surprisingly with the experimental data $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.118\pm 0.012`$. A further numerical calculation Zhang2  also reproduced the explicit $`x`$ dependence of $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$, in good agreement with the experimental data.

The purpose of this paper is to re-exam the detailed balance model with more careful and general considerations. It will be shown that the requirement of detailed balance, that any two nearby Fock states should be balanced with each other, is an over-strong constraint. It leads to inconsistency in cases if more channels of sub-processes are introduced, as will be shown explicitly. We are thus forced to start from a more general consideration which only requires that every Fock state should be balanced with all of the nearby Fock states, and then we construct the balance model as a revised version of the detailed balance model. It will be shown that in case of $`ggg`$ sub-processes not considered, the balance model and the detailed balance model give the same results. In case of $`ggg`$ sub-processes considered, there is a difference of about 10 percent between the results of the two models. We also calculate the strange content of the proton using the balance model under the equal probability assumption.

## II General Principle of Balance instead of Detailed Balance

In the detailed balance model Zhang1 ; spintalk , the proton state is expended by a complete set of quark-gluon Fock states as

$$|p=\underset{i,j,k}{}c_{i,j,k}|uud,i,j,k,$$
(1)
where $`i`$ is the number of quark-antiquark $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs, $`j`$ is the number of quark-antiquark $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs, and $`k`$ is the number of gluons. Then the probability of finding the proton in the Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k`$ is

$$\rho _{i,j,k}=\left|c_{i,j,k}\right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ satisfies the normalization condition,

$$\underset{i,j,k}{}\rho _{i,j,k}=1.$$
(3)
Then using the detailed balance principle, and with sub-processes $`qqg`$ and $`gq\overline{q}`$ considered, one can calculate all $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ explicitly Zhang1 ; spintalk . The detailed balance principle means that any two nearby quark-gluon Fock states should balance with each other. However, when the detailed balance principle is used to the case with the sub-processes $`ggg`$ also considered, there is an inconsistency which is not easy to be noticed. For example, there are two ways to calculate $`\rho _{uud\overline{u}ug}`$/$`\rho _{uudg}`$. One way is

$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}3+1\\ \\ 2\times 3+1\end{array}|uudgg\begin{array}{c}2\\ \\ 1\times 3\end{array}|uud\overline{u}ug,`$ (10)
which leads to

$`\rho _{uudgg}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}\rho _{uudg},\rho _{uud\overline{u}ug}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\rho _{uudgg},{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{uud\overline{u}ug}}{\rho _{uudg}}}={\displaystyle \frac{8}{21}}.`$ (11)
Another way is

$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 1\times 3\end{array}|uud\overline{u}u\begin{array}{c}5\\ \\ 1\times 5\end{array}|uud\overline{u}ug,`$ (18)
which leads to

$`\rho _{uud\overline{u}u}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\rho _{uudg},\rho _{uud\overline{u}ug}=\rho _{uudgg},{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{uud\overline{u}ug}}{\rho _{uudg}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}.`$ (19)
One way gives the result $`\frac{8}{21}`$, while another way gives the result $`\frac{1}{3}`$. This inconsistency forces us to adopt a more general principle named the balance principle instead the detailed balance principle.

The basic property of the ensemble assumption of the proton is that the probability to find the proton in any Fock state should not change during the time. Both the detailed balance principle and balance principle can give this property of ensemble assumption.

The detailed balance demands that any two nearby Fock states $`A`$ and $`B`$ balance with each other spintalk ,

$`\rho _AR_{AB}=\rho _BR_{BA},`$ (20)
where $`\rho _A`$ is the probability of finding the proton in state of $`A`$, $`\rho _B`$ is the probability of finding the proton in state $`B`$, $`R_{AB}`$ is the transition probability of $`A`$ to $`B`$, and $`R_{BA}`$ is the transition probability of $`B`$ to $`A`$.

The balance principle demands that the “go out” probability just balances the “come in” probability for any Fock state. For a Fock state $`A`$, the “go out” probability is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\rho _AR_{AB},`$ (21)
where $`B`$ is a completed set of all nearby Fock states other than $`A`$, while the “come in” probability is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\rho _BR_{BA}.`$ (22)
So the balance principle can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\rho _AR_{AB}={\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}\rho _BR_{BA}.`$ (23)
From the formulae (20) and (23), it is easy to find that the detailed balance principle (20) gives more strong constraint than the balance principle (23). That is why the detailed balance principle leads to the inconsistency discussed above while the balance principle does not. In similar to the detailed balance principle, the balance principle can also determine all $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$, but the situation becomes a little more complicated and solving an equation set with a large number of equations is needed.

## III The Balance Model with no $`ggg`$ sub-Processes Considered

In this section, we only consider the transition processes involving the sub-processes $`qqg`$ and $`gq\overline{q}`$, with the sub-processes $`ggg`$ not considered at first. When applying the balance principle to Fock state $`|uud`$, we have the “go out” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg,`$ (27)
and the “come in” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg.`$ (31)
According to the formula (23), we have the equation

$`3\rho _{uud}=3\rho _{uudg}.`$ (32)
When using the balance principle to the Fock state $`|uudg`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (36)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (40)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (44)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (48)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (52)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (56)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (60)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d.`$ (64)
From the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left(3\times 1+3+1+1\right)\rho _{uudg}=3\rho _{uud}`$ $`+(3\times 2)\rho _{uudgg}+(1\times 3)\rho _{uud\overline{u}u}+(1\times 2)\rho _{uud\overline{d}d}.`$ (65)
When using the balance principle to a general Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j\right)k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,`$ (69)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,`$ (73)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,`$ (77)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}i\left(i+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,`$ (81)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,`$ (85)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}j\left(j+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,`$ (89)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,`$ (93)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j\right)\left(k+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,`$ (97)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,`$ (101)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,`$ (105)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,`$ (109)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1.`$ (113)
Then from the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left[(3+2i+2j)k+(3+2i+2j)+k+i(i+2)+k+j(j+1)\right]\rho _{i,j,k}`$
$`=`$ $`(3+2i+2j)\rho _{i,j,k1}+(3+2i+2j)(k+1)\rho _{i,j,k+1}+(i+1)(i+3)\rho _{i+1,j,k1}`$ (114)
$`+(k+1)\rho _{i1,j,k+1}+(j+1)(j+2)\rho _{i,j+1,k1}+(k+1)\rho _{i,j1,k+1}.`$
When one applies the equation (114) to a certain Fock state, he should make sure that the corresponding Fock states in processes (69-113) exist, otherwise he should delete the corresponding terms. For example, when one applies the equation (114) to the Fock state $`|uud`$, only one corresponding Fock state in processes (69-113) exists, i.e., it is $`|uudg`$. So the equation (114) leads to equation (32).

For every Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k`$, there is an equation according to formula (114). If we can construct an equation set using these equations, then $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be solved. However, there is an infinite number of Fock states that lead to an infinite number of equations. We must choose the upper limits of $`i`$,$`j`$ and $`k`$ to select a finite number of Fock states. Then by increasing the upper limits, we can approach the values for $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ because $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ decreases quickly in a manner somewhat like $`\frac{1}{i!j!k!}`$ as $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$ increasing. When choosing the upper limits of $`i`$ to $`N_i`$, $`j`$ to $`N_j`$ and $`k`$ to $`N_k`$, we get

$$|p=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N_k}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N_j}{}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N_i}{}}c_{i,j,k}|uud,i,j,k.$$
(115)
There are $`N=(N_i+1)(N_j+1)(N_k+1)`$ Fock states selected. So there are $`N`$ numbers of $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ to be solved. There are $`N`$ equations when using formula (114) to these $`N`$ Fock states. However, these $`N`$ equations are not independent. In order to show this fact, we write the formula (23) in the new form by including these upper limits as

$$\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m}R_{A_mA_m^{}}=\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m^{}}R_{A_m^{}A_m},$$
(116)
where $`A_m`$ and $`A_m^{}`$ are any two Fock states of those $`N`$ Fock states selected by formula (115) and we let $`R_{A_mA_m}=0`$ which gives no any physical effect but is convenience for calculation in mathematics. There are $`N`$ such equations as formula (116) for $`N`$ selected Fock states. Summing over all these equations, we get

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m}R_{A_mA_m^{}}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m^{}}R_{A_m^{}A_m}.$$
(117)
On the other side, from the pure mathematical point, we have the relation of

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m}R_{A_mA_m^{}}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exchange}m\mathrm{and}m^{}\\ \end{array}\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m^{}}R_{A_m^{}A_m}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{m^{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _{A_m^{}}R_{A_m^{}A_m},$$
(118)
which is the same form as relation (117). So the relation (117) does not depend on the existence of equation (116) and it is always right in mathematics. It means that the relation (117) is a constraint of these $`N`$ equations so that there are only $`N1`$ independent equations left. With the normalization condition (3) included, there are just $`N`$ equations to construct a complete equation set for $`N`$ variables ($`\rho _{i,j,k}`$). Thus this equation set can be solved.

By solving this equation set numerically, we find that the balance model and detailed balance model give the same results in case of sub-processes $`ggg`$ not considered. From a strict sense, by substituting the solution of the detailed balanced model, i.e., Eq. (26) of Ref. Zhang1 ,

$$\rho _{i,j,k}=\frac{2}{i!(i+2)!j!(j+1)!k!}\rho _{0,0,0},$$
(119)
for the corresponding terms in equation (114), we find that (114) is exactly satisfied. This proves that the balanced model has the exact solution as that of the detailed balance model.

## IV The Balance Model with $`ggg`$ sub-Processes Considered

In this section, the processes involving sub-processes $`ggg`$ are also considered. When using the balance principle to Fock state $`|uud`$, we have the “go out” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg,`$ (123)
and the “come in” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg.`$ (127)
According to the formula (23), we have the equation

$`3\rho _{uud}=3\rho _{uudg}.`$ (128)
When using the balance principle to the Fock state $`|uudg`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (132)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (136)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (140)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (144)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (148)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 2+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (152)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (156)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d.`$ (160)
From the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left(3\times 1+(3+1)+1+1\right)\rho _{uudg}=3\rho _{uud}+(3\times 2+1)\rho _{uudgg}+(1\times 3)\rho _{uud\overline{u}u}+(1\times 2)\rho _{uud\overline{d}d}.`$
When using the balance principle to a general Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j\right)k+C_k^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,`$ (164)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,`$ (168)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,`$ (172)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}i\left(i+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,`$ (176)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,`$ (180)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}j\left(j+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,`$ (184)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+k1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,`$ (188)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j\right)\left(k+1\right)+C_{k+1}^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,`$ (192)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,`$ (196)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,`$ (200)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,`$ (204)
$`|uud,i,j,k`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1.`$ (208)
From the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left\{\left[(3+2i+2j)k+C_k^2\right]+(3+2i+2j+k)+k+i(i+2)+k+j(j+1)\right\}\rho _{i,j,k}`$
$`=`$ $`(3+2i+2j+k1)\rho _{i,j,k1}+\left[(3+2i+2j)(k+1)+C_{k+1}^2\right]\rho _{i,j,k+1}+(i+1)(i+3)\rho _{i+1,j,k1}`$ (209)
$`+(k+1)\rho _{i1,j,k+1}+(j+1)(j+2)\rho _{i,j+1,k1}+(k+1)\rho _{i,j1,k+1},`$
where $`C_k=k(k1)/2`$. An equation set for $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be constructed by using the above equation after choosing the upper limits on $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$. We can solve the equation set by increasing the upper limits to a situation that the results do not sensitive to the upper limits further. Thus $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be obtained and the results are shown in Table 1. Data of Table 1 show that the balance model give different results compared with that of the detailed balance model. From data of Table 1 we have

$`\overline{u}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}i\rho _{i,j,k}=0.337,`$ (210)
$`\overline{d}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}j\rho _{i,j,k}=0.470,`$ (211)
$`g={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}k\rho _{i,j,k}=1.099,`$ (212)
$`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.133.`$ (213)
We notice that $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.133`$ for the light-flavor sea asymmetry in comparison with the result of detailed balance model $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.123`$ Zhang1 , while the FNAL/NuSea experiment is $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.118\pm 0.012`$ E866 . The balance model is different from the detailed balance model by about 10%, with both are compatible with the experimental result.

## V Strange Quark Content and Gluon Energy Distribution

It has been known that the strange sea is non-trial inside the proton, and a phenomenological analysis suggests that the number of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs inside a proton is about $`0.05`$ Bro96 . Here we extend the balance model to include the strange quark-antiquark pairs, and write the proton state as

$$|p=\underset{i,j,k,l}{}c_{i,j,k,l}|uud,i,j,k,l,$$
(214)
where $`l`$ is the number of quark-antiquark $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs. Then the probability of finding the proton in the Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ is

$$\rho _{i,j,k,l}=\left|c_{i,j,k,l}\right|^2,$$
(215)
where $`\rho _{i,j,k,l}`$ satisfies the normalization condition,

$$\underset{i,j,k,l}{}\rho _{i,j,k,l}=1.$$
(216)
The $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs are generated from gluons by the sub-processes $`gs\overline{s}`$. However the mass of the strange quark $`M_s`$ is big and should not be neglected as for the light-flavor quarks. So only those gluons with energy large than 2 times of the strange quark mass, $`\epsilon _g>2M_s`$, can take part in the process of splitting into strange quark-antiquark pairs by the constraint of energy conservation. So we should know the gluon energy distribution before the calculation of the strange content of the proton.

An equal probability assumption is presented in paper Zhang2 , assuming that for a $`n`$-parton Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k`$, any parton’s energy configuration ($`E_1,\mathrm{},E_n`$) has the same probability to appear,

$`d\rho _n(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)=\delta ^4(P{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}p_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_id\mathrm{\Omega }_i}{2(2\pi )^3}},`$ (217)
with $`P`$ the 4-momentum of the proton, and $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ the 4-momenta of $`n`$ partons. The formula (217) is equivalent to a series of constraints,

$`f^n(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)1,`$ (218)
$`E_1^2p_{1x}^2p_{1y}^2p_{1z}^2=0,`$ (219)
$`E_2^2p_{2x}^2p_{2y}^2p_{2z}^2=0,`$ (220)
$`\mathrm{},`$
$`E_n^2p_{nx}^2p_{ny}^2p_{nz}^2=0,`$ (221)
$`f_{E_1}(p_{1x}^2,p_{1y}^2,p_{1z}^2)1,`$ (222)
$`f_{E_2}(p_{2x}^2,p_{2y}^2,p_{2z}^2)1,`$ (223)
$`\mathrm{},`$
$`f_{E_n}(p_{nx}^2,p_{ny}^2,p_{nz}^2)1,`$ (224)
$`p_{1x}+p_{2x}+\mathrm{}+p_{nx}=0,`$ (225)
$`p_{1y}+p_{2y}+\mathrm{}+p_{ny}=0,`$ (226)
$`p_{1z}+p_{2z}+\mathrm{}+p_{nz}=0,`$ (227)
$`E_1+E_2+\mathrm{}+E_n=M_{\mathrm{proton}}=938\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},`$ (228)
where (218) gives the principle of equal probability, (219)-(221) mean that the partons are massless and on shell, (222)-(224) mean that the distribution does not depend on the 3-momentum, and (225)-(228) mean that the energy-momentum conservation constraint is satisfied and our calculation is in the rest frame of proton.

If we only concern about the energy distribution, then from constraint (218) and (228), we may get it as,

$`f^n(E_1,E_2,\mathrm{},E_n)=(n1)!\delta (1{\displaystyle \frac{E_1}{M_{\mathrm{proton}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_2}{M_{\mathrm{proton}}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{M_{\mathrm{proton}}}}),`$ (229)
which satisfies the normalization condition.

Before we extend the formula (229) to include the strange quark, a new concept named free energy needs to be introduced to deal with the strange quark mass $`M_s`$. For a $`n`$-parton Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ where $`n=3+2i+2j+k+2l`$, the parton’s free energy is presented as $`\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n`$. Here the parton’s free energy denotes the energy of a parton that can be used to produce other partons, and it is defined as the total energy of one parton minus the mass of that parton, $`\epsilon =EM`$. For the partons as $`u`$, $`d`$, and $`g`$, they are almost massless so that we have

$`\epsilon =E.`$ (230)
For the strange quark $`s`$, we have

$`\epsilon =EM_s.`$ (231)
Then the total free energy of the Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ is

$`\xi _f={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\epsilon _m={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}E_m2lM_s=M_{\mathrm{proton}}2lM_s,`$ (232)
where $`M_{\mathrm{proton}}`$ is the mass of the proton.

We define the dimensionless free energy as

$`y_1={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{\xi _f}},`$ (233)
$`y_2={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _2}{\xi _f}},`$ (234)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`y_n={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _n}{\xi _f}},`$ (235)
which lead to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}y_m=1.`$ (236)
Replacing the variable of energy $`E`$ by the variable of free energy $`\epsilon `$, we rewrite the energy distribution formula (229) to a form as

$`f^n(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n)=(n1)!\delta (1y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_n),`$ (237)
which can be used to deal with $`s`$ quarks as well as $`u`$ quarks, $`d`$ quarks, and gluons.

Then for one parton in a $`n`$-parton Fock state, the free energy distribution is

$`f^n(y)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_{n1}f^n(y,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{n1})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_{n1}(n1)!\delta (1yy_1\mathrm{}y_{n1})`$
$`=`$ $`(n1)(1y)^{n2},`$ (238)
which can be proved using the following completed derivation.

It is easy to see

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1\delta (1yy_1)=1,`$ (239)
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_22\delta (1yy_1y_2)={\displaystyle _0^{1y}}𝑑y_12=2(1y),`$ (240)
if

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_{n1}(n1)!\delta (1yy_1\mathrm{}y_{n1})=(n1)(1y)^{n2},`$ (241)
then

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y_nn!\delta (1yy_1\mathrm{}y_{n1}y_n)`$ (242)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1y}}𝑑y_nn(n1)(1yy_n)^{n2}`$ (243)
$`=`$ $`n(1y)^{n1},`$ (244)
so formula (238) is proved.

Applying formula (238) to a gluon in a $`n`$-parton Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$, we get the gluon’s free energy distribution

$`f_g^n(y)=`$ $`(n1)(1y)^{n2}.`$ (245)
Then we introduce a parameter

$`c_l={\displaystyle \frac{2M_s}{\xi _f}}={\displaystyle \frac{2M_s}{M_{\mathrm{proton}}2lM_s}}.`$ (246)
Only those gluons satisfying $`y>c_l`$ have the energy $`E>2M_s`$, so that they can split into $`\overline{s}s`$ pairs. Then for a gluon in a $`n`$-parton Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$, the probability that it can split to a $`\overline{s}s`$ pair is

$`{\displaystyle _{c_l}^1}𝑑y(n1)(1y)^{n2}=(1c_l)^{n1}.`$ (247)
Taking $`(1c_l)^{n1}`$ as a suppressing factor of generating $`s\overline{s}`$ from a gluon, the content of strange quark of proton can be calculated by using the balance model.

### V.1 Strange content with no $`ggg`$ sub-processes considered

We first consider the strange quark content of the proton with the processes involving the $`ggg`$ sub-processes not considered. When using the balance principle to Fock state $`|uud`$, we have the “go out” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg,`$ (251)
and the “come in” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg.`$ (255)
According to the formula (23), we have the equation

$`3\rho _{uud}=3\rho _{uudg}.`$ (256)
When using the balance principle to Fock state $`|uudg`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (260)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (264)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (268)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (272)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times \left(1c_0\right)^3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{s}s,`$ (276)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (280)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (284)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (288)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (292)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{s}s.`$ (296)
Then we have the equation

$`\left[3\times 1+3+1+1+1\times (1c_0)^3\right]\rho _{uudg}`$
$`=`$ $`3\rho _{uud}+(3\times 2)\rho _{uudgg}+(1\times 3)\rho _{uud\overline{u}u}+(1\times 2)\rho _{uud\overline{d}d}+(1\times 1)\rho _{uud\overline{s}s}`$ (297)
Applying the balance principle to a general Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l,`$ (301)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+2l\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l,`$ (305)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,l,`$ (309)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}i\left(i+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,l,`$ (313)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,l,`$ (317)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}j\left(j+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,l,`$ (321)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\left(1c_l\right)^{n1}\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l+1,`$ (325)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}l^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l1,`$ (329)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+2l\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l,`$ (333)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)\left(k+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l,`$ (337)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,l,`$ (341)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,l,`$ (345)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,l,`$ (349)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,l,`$ (353)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(l+1\right)\left(l+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l+1,`$ (357)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(k+1\right)\left(1c_{l1}\right)^{n2}\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l1.`$ (361)
From the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left\{\left[\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)k\right]+\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)+k+i\left(i+2\right)+k+j\left(j+1\right)+k\left(1c_l\right)^{n1}+l^2\right\}\rho _{i,j,k,l}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)\rho _{i,j,k1,l}+\left[\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)\left(k+1\right)\right]\rho _{i,j,k+1,l}+\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\rho _{i+1,j,k1,l}+\left(k+1\right)\rho _{i1,j,k+1,l}`$
$`+\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\rho _{i,j+1,k1,l}+\left(k+1\right)\rho _{i,j1,k+1,l}+\left(l+1\right)\left(l+1\right)\rho _{i,j,k1,l+1}+\left(k+1\right)\left(1c_{l1}\right)^{n2}\rho _{i,j,k+1,l1},`$
where $`n=3+2i+2j+2l+k`$.

Once the strange quark mass $`M_s`$ is given, we can choose the upper limits on $`i,j,k,l`$ to construct an equation set to determine $`\rho _{i,j,k,l}`$ and the strange content of proton. We will take the strange quark mass $`M_s`$ as a parameter. By solving the equation set, we give the relation between the number of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs and the strange quark mass $`M_s`$ in Fig. 1 and give the relation between $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ and $`M_s`$ in Fig. 2. When $`0<M_s<\mathrm{}`$, The parton number’s changing scope is

$`\overline{u}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}i\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0.309,0.310],`$ (363)
$`\overline{d}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}j\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0.433,0.434],`$ (364)
$`\overline{s}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}l\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0,0.666],`$ (365)
$`g={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}k\rho _{i,j,k,l}[1.000,1.003],`$ (366)
$`\overline{d}\overline{u}[0.1243,0.1245].`$ (367)
### V.2 Strange content with $`ggg`$ sub-processes considered

We now consider the strange quark content of the proton with processes involving the $`ggg`$ sub-processes also considered. When using the balance principle to Fock state $`|uud`$, we have the “go out” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg,`$ (371)
and the “come in” process as

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}|uudg.`$ (375)
According to the formula (23), we have the equation

$`3\rho _{uud}=3\rho _{uudg}.`$ (376)
When using the balance principle to Fock state $`|uudg`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (380)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (384)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (388)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (392)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times \left(1c_0\right)^3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{s}s,`$ (396)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,`$ (400)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3\times 2+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uudgg,`$ (404)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 3\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (408)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (412)
$`|uudg`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1\times 1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud\overline{s}s.`$ (416)
Then from the formula (23), we have the equation

$`\left[3\times 1+(3+1)+1+1+1\times (1c_0)^3\right]\rho _{uudg}`$
$`=`$ $`3\rho _{uud}+(3\times 2+1)\rho _{uudgg}+(1\times 3)\rho _{uud\overline{u}u}+(1\times 2)\rho _{uud\overline{d}d}+(1\times 1)\rho _{uud\overline{s}s}.`$ (417)
Applying the balance principle to a general Fock state $`|uud,i,j,k,l`$, we have the “go out” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)k+C_k^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l,`$ (421)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+2l+k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l,`$ (425)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,l,`$ (429)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}i\left(i+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,l,`$ (433)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,l,`$ (437)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}j\left(j+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,l,`$ (441)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k\left(1c_l\right)^{n1}\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l+1,`$ (445)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}l^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l1,`$ (449)
and the “come in” processes as

$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+2l+k1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l,`$ (453)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)\left(k+1\right)+C_{k+1}^2\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l,`$ (457)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i+1,j,k1,l,`$ (461)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i1,j,k+1,l,`$ (465)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j+1,k1,l,`$ (469)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}k+1\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j1,k+1,l,`$ (473)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(l+1\right)\left(l+1\right)\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k1,l+1,`$ (477)
$`|uud,i,j,k,l`$ $`\begin{array}{c}\left(k+1\right)\left(1c_{l1}\right)^{n2}\\ \end{array}`$ $`|uud,i,j,k+1,l1.`$ (481)
Thus we have the equation

$`\left\{\left[\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)k+C_k^2\right]+\left(3+2i+2j+2l+k\right)+k+i\left(i+2\right)+k+j\left(j+1\right)+k\left(1c_l\right)^{n1}+l^2\right\}\rho _{i,j,k,l}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(3+2i+2j+2l+k1\right)\rho _{i,j,k1,l}+\left[\left(3+2i+2j+2l\right)\left(k+1\right)+C_{k+1}^2\right]\rho _{i,j,k+1,l}+\left(i+1\right)\left(i+3\right)\rho _{i+1,j,k1,l}`$ (482)
$`+\left(k+1\right)\rho _{i1,j,k+1,l}+\left(j+1\right)\left(j+2\right)\rho _{i,j+1,k1,l}+\left(k+1\right)\rho _{i,j1,k+1,l}+\left(l+1\right)\left(l+1\right)\rho _{i,j,k1,l+1}`$
$`+\left(k+1\right)\left(1c_{l1}\right)^{n2}\rho _{i,j,k+1,l1}`$
where $`n=3+2i+2j+2l+k`$.

By solving the equation set constructed from equation (482) after choosing the upper limits on $`i,j,k,l`$, we give the relation between the number of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs and the strange quark mass $`M_s`$ in Fig. 3 and give the relation between $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ and $`M_s`$ in Fig. 4. When $`0<M_s<\mathrm{}`$, the parton number’s changing scope is

$`\overline{u}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}i\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0.331,0.337],`$ (483)
$`\overline{d}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}j\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0.463,0.470],`$ (484)
$`\overline{s}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}l\rho _{i,j,k,l}[0,0.703],`$ (485)
$`g={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}k\rho _{i,j,k,l}[1.079,1.099],`$ (486)
$`\overline{d}\overline{u}[0.131,0.134].`$ (487)
We find that the number of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs equals to 0.05 at $`M_s220`$ MeV, which is in the reasonable range of the strange mass. We also notice that the introduction of the strange sea content brings very small influence to the results for the light-flavor sea content.

## VI conclusion

We improved the detailed balance model to a balance model because the detailed balance model leads to inconsistency some times. We find that there is about 10 percent difference between the results of these two models in case with sub-processes $`ggg`$ also considered. The detailed balance model is simple and perspicuous, and it is a good approximation of the balance model, while the balance model is from a more general consideration, but is complicated, and needs to introduce the upper limits on $`i,j,k,l`$ and to solve an equation set with a big number of equations. To consider the strange content inside the proton, we use the equal probability assumption to get the gluon energy distribution and from which, we get the relation between the suppressing factor of $`gs\overline{s}`$ and the strange quark mass. Then in the balance model, the number of $`s\overline{s}`$ pairs in the proton can be determined once the strange quark mass is given.

We make some comments about the limitations of our results such as those in Table I. The quarks and gluons in the Fock states are the “intrinsic” partons of the proton, since they are multi-connected non-perturbatively to the valence quarks Bro96 . Such partons are different from the “extrinsic” partons generated from the QCD hard bremsstrahlung and gluon-splitting as part of the lepton scattering interaction. Thus the results in our paper are expected to work at a scale for the “intrinsic” partons, which is about $`Q^21`$ GeV<sup>2</sup>. The total number of intrinsic partons inside the proton is around 5.5, which is a small number of particles for the feasibility of the statistical method.

The detailed balance model and balance model can be taken as a new statistical model besides other successful statistical models such as Bhalerao  and Soffer . We also noticed that the effect from the interaction of the quark-antiquark pairs with the quarks inside the nucleon has been also considered in a simple model that can account for the light-flavor sea asymmetry DiSalvo . The advantage of the balance model is that a complete set of all quark-gluon Fock states can be obtained without any parameter in the case with only light-flavor quarks, but we still need to deal with the more complicated situation with parton polarizations taken into account for more general applications.

Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to Prof. Li-Ming Yang for his supervision and encouragement. This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.