text:
# Statics and Fast Dynamics of Nanomagnets with Vortex Structure

## 1 Introduction

Recently there is a strong interest in using small magnetic structures as storage elements and for fast magnetoelectronic computation (MRAMs, ). R. Cowburn, , has studied experimentally and by simulation arrays of flat magnetic structures with circular or square individual geometries, and M. Schneider et al., , have considered more general geometries of the dots. The present state of the art concerning the static behaviour of magnetic nano-dots and their arrays is contained in the very recent papers of Ross et al., , Metlov and Guslienko, , and Guslienko et al., . Concerning the dynamics we explicitly mention the even more recent papers of Gerrits et al., , and Novosad et al., , and the references therein.

If for a given thickness the radius $`R`$ of the flat dot is smaller than a critical value $`R_c`$ (see below), then the dot is in an in-plane single-domain state, whereas for $`R>R_c`$, the dot is magnetically in a vortex state, see .

Below, for flat dots, i.e. for small values of their aspect ratio $`a:=\left(t_h/R\right)1`$, where $`t_h`$ denotes the thickness of the dot, at first (for given $`R`$) the critical thickness $`t_c`$ is calculated for structures with permalloy material parameters, and a considerable stability range for the magnetic vortex state is obtained even in rather tiny nano-structures. By application of a sufficiently small in-plane static magnetic field the magnetic state of the dot does not change topologically, i.e. the vortex center shifts, however the vorticity is still well-defined, and also the central direction of the magnetization (so-called ”central polarisation” $`\pm `$) is unchanged. At the vortex center and in the region nearby, the magnetization (which must be constant in magnitude) is out-of-plane, whereas far from the center it is of course in-plane.

Therefore the magnetic vortex state of the dot has a fourfold topological degeneracy, since in principle one can measure (and flip) independently both the vorticity ($`r/l`$) of the state and the central polarisation ($`+/`$) of the vortex; i.e. one has two bits per dot for a ’vortex-state dot’, instead of only one bit for ’single-domain dots’.

At present, the vorticity of the dot can be measured e.g. by electron microscopy in the Lorentz mode while the central polarisation can be measured e.g. by magnetic force microscopy, : Of course, for the applications one should find more convenient methods; but this task is not considered here. In any case, the possibility of storing and switching two independent bits of information instead of only one, and the fact that one does not rely on the extremely small single-domain dots, gives a strong additional motivation to study the statics and dynamics of circular dots in the vortex state very thoroughly.

In the following chapter 2 we introduce the basic micromagnetic tools for such a study, the Landau-Lifshitz free energy functional and the dynamical Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, . In chapter 3, the behaviour of flat circular dots under static external magnetic in-plane fields is considered, with particular emphasis on the transitions between the vortex state and the in-plane single-domain state, whereas in the next chapter 4 we consider the dynamics, both for in-plane fields and perpendicular field-pulses. The switching-dynamics is exemplified by some kind of ”movie representation” for typical cases, which show that the time scale, $`\tau 40`$ ps, for the precessional switching of the vorticity by strong perpendicular field pulses, $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}5000`$ Oe over this duration, is extremely short, whereas the polarisation of the vortex core cannot be reliably switched at all on these time scales, see below. Therefore at the end, it is natural to skip the vortex center totally by considering in chapter 5 flat nano-rings, i.e. circular structures with an inner radius $`R_1`$ and an outer radius $`R_2`$, which are both small, i.e. of the order of 50 to 150 nm, but large compared to the thickness $`t_h`$. We find that in this case the stability of the information is significantly improved and the switching dynamics is as fast as before.

## 2 Basic equations

Let us write the magnetic polarisation $`\stackrel{}{J}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ as $`\stackrel{}{J}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=J_s\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, where $`J_s=\left|\stackrel{}{J}\right|`$ is the constant magnitude and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ the position- and time-dependent direction of the magnetic polarisation. We neglect in the following the small (in-plane) uniaxial magnetic anisotropy of Py, taking only the exchange interaction, the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction, and the Zeeman interaction (i.e. the interaction with the external magnetic field) into account. As a consequence, the Free Energy of the magnetic system $`K`$ considered is obtained by minimization of the following ”Landau-Lifshitz functional”, see e.g. :

$$F_{LL}:=\underset{V\left(K\right)}{}dV\left\{A\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{x_i}\right)^2J_s\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{Dip}}\stackrel{}{\alpha }+\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{ext}}\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right)\right\}$$
(1)
Here $`V\left(K\right)`$ is the integration volume of the magnetic system $`K`$, $`A`$ is the ”exchange constant”, $`J_s`$ is the above-mentioned saturation polarisation (we use $`A1.3\times 10^6`$ erg/cm and $`J_s1`$ Tesla for Py, unless otherwise stated); $`\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is the external magnetic field and $`\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{Dip}}`$ the internal dipolar field (also called: ”stray-field”) which is generated by the magnetic moments of the system according to the magnetostatic equation $`\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{Dip}}(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\mathrm{grad}\varphi _m(\stackrel{}{r},t),\mathrm{with}`$ $`^2\varphi _m=\frac{1}{\mu _0}\mathrm{div}\left(J_s\stackrel{}{\alpha }\right)`$ and the corresponding boundary and interface constraints. (Note that at this place, even on a ps time scale, we can safely use the magnetostatic equations without taking into account retardation effects, since e.g. in the time of $`\tau =1`$ ps a vacuum electromagnetic wave would traverse a distance of 300 $`\mu m`$, which is far beyond the length scales of the structures considered, .)

The dynamic equation of motion corresponding to (1) is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{\mathrm{d}t}=\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\alpha }\times \stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(2)
where $`\gamma _0=g\frac{\left|\mu _B\right|}{\mathrm{}}`$ is the ”gyromagnetic ratio” ($`\mu _B`$ is Bohr’s ”magneton”, $`\mathrm{}`$ Planck’s constant divided by $`2\pi `$, and $`g`$ the Landé factor, $`g=2`$ for spin magnetism, i.e. in this case $`\gamma _0`$ has the value $`1.17610^7`$ s<sup>-1</sup>/Oe), whereas $`\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the space- and time-dependent effective magnetic field, around which the magnetic polarisation precesses, namely

$$\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{ext}}+\stackrel{}{H}^{\mathrm{Dip}}+\frac{2A}{J_s}^2\stackrel{}{\alpha }\frac{\alpha _G}{\gamma _0}\frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$
(3)
Here – as already mentioned – $`\alpha _G`$ is Gilbert’s damping constant, ; i.e. the last term in equation (3) describes an isotropic velocity dependent phenomenological damping leading to a gradual decay of the precession amplitude. In principle, and particularly near interfaces, this damping should be anisotropic, see e.g. , but in the following this damping anisotropy is neglected, and also the thermal fluctuation fields, which would be proportional to $`\left(T\alpha _G\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, are neglected as usual (but see the recent papers of Brown et al. and Nowak et al., ). Also deviations from cubic symmetry of the magnetic material, which would lead to a more general density of the exchange energy, namely $`\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}A_{ij}\frac{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{x_i}\frac{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{x_j}`$, are neglected.

## 3 Static behaviour of a magnetic dot: Vortex state versus in-plane single-domain state

### 3.1 Vanishing external field

At first we consider the static behaviour of a flat circular magnetic dot for vanishing external field; in particular we consider the phase boundary between the vortex state and an in-plane single-domain state, , minimizing the ”Landau-Lifshitz Functional” (1) with the ansatz

$`\alpha _x\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\phi \left(r\right)\left(1\alpha _z^2\left(r\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (4)
$`\alpha _y\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`+\mathrm{cos}\phi \left(r\right)\left(1\alpha _z^2\left(r\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (5)
Our special ansatz for the ’profile function’ $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$ is an improved version of an approximation by Feldtkeller and Thomas, ), led by the following considerations:

For $`rl_m`$, where $`l_m:=\left(\frac{2A\mu _0}{J_s^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the ’magnetic exchange length’, one expects the behaviour $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)=1\mathrm{const}.r^2\mathrm{}`$ (where the dots denote higher-order terms); beyond that range one will observe an exponential spatial dependence with decay length $`l_m`$, while asymptotically for $`rl_m`$ some kind of ’Mexican Hat’ behaviour will apply, i.e. after the pronounced exponential decay $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$ should become negative and approach the $`r`$-axis from negative values. However, this negative part should be proportional to the magnetic moment of the central part of the dot, i.e. $`J_s\pi l_m^2t_h`$, and therefore it vanishes $`t_h`$ for very flat dots.

(Our ansatz for $`\alpha _z\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$, see below, is more accurate than that of eq. (5) of Usov and Peschany, , who neglect the magnetostatic energy generated by the vortex core completely to obtain their simplified profile function, which contains a singularity of the derivative at the so-called core radius and is constant for larger $`r`$, i.e. it does not contain the tail nor the negative part of the profile. Our calculation is also more accurate, see the results, than that of Guslienko and Metlov, , and Guslienko et al., , who take the magnetostatic field produced by the vortex core into account, but use basically the simplified core profile of  instead of the more correct one of (6) below.)

In any case, as a systematic approximation, expanding the ansatz of Feldtkeller and Thomas, , we use in eq. (4):

$$\alpha _z\left(r\right)ce^{\frac{r^2}{l_m^2}}+\left(1c\right)e^{\frac{r^2}{4l_m^2}},$$
(6)
where $`c`$ depends on the thickness of the sample and is obtained by an energy-fitting procedure leading to

$$c0.188+0.708\left(1+0.2T_h+0.0278T_h^2\right)^1.$$
(7)
Here $`T_h:=\frac{t_h}{l_m}`$ is the reduced thickness of our structures. Note that $`c0.5`$ for very flat dots ($`t_hR`$). (Eqs. (6) and (7) are of course only approximately valid, since ’Mexican hat profiles’, which one would get for thicker dots, are explicitly excluded for $`0.188c0.52`$.)

In fact, the gross behaviour of the profile function for our flat structure is given by the above-mentioned ansatz (6): This is exemplified in Fig. 1, where the results of a numerical simulation of $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$, performed with the OOMMF program, , for flat circular permalloy structures with $`R=175.5`$ nm and a thickness of $`t_h=6`$ nm, are compared with (6) and (7). Details are given in Fig. 1a and in the corresponding figure caption. In Fig. 1b an effective radius $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the central region of the vortex is presented as a function of the reduced thickness $`T_h`$. This effective radius $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is defined by the equation $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{1}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta }{\mathrm{d}r}|_{r=0}\right)}`$, taking into account the fact that the polar angle $`\theta `$ of the magnetic polarisation is zero rsp. $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ in the vortex center rsp. far from it. With (6) one gets $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{2+6c}}l_m`$, which is plotted in Fig. 1b. This means that $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is approximately between $`1.5l_m`$ and $`3l_m`$ depending on the thickness $`t_h`$.

Our ansatz $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$, eq. (6), for the above-mentioned profile function leads to analytical formulae for the exchange energy density $`f^{\mathrm{exch}}=\frac{A}{V}\underset{V}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{\alpha }}{x_i}\right)^2\mathrm{d}V`$, and we obtain for thin dots with $`c=0.5`$ approximately: $`f^{\mathrm{exch}}\frac{2A}{R^2}\left[2.67+\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{5l_m}\right]`$.

For circular single-domain dots with homogeneous magnetization there is only the stray-field energy. For in-plane states, magnetic poles arise exclusively at the side-face $`S`$ (i.e. $`rR`$), and we obtain for the stray-field energy density

$$f^{\mathrm{Dip}}:=\frac{1}{V}\frac{J_s^2}{8\pi \mu _0}\underset{S}{}\underset{S^{}}{}\frac{\left(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\stackrel{}{n}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}\right)\stackrel{}{n}\left(\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}\right)\right)}{\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{^{}}\right|})\mathrm{d}^2S\mathrm{d}^2S^{^{}}.$$
(8)
By numerical evaluation, followed by a fit, we get: $`f^{\mathrm{Dip}}\frac{J_s^2}{8\pi \mu _0}\left[2.41\mathrm{ln}\left(1+5.31\left(\frac{t_h}{2R}\right)^{0.88}\right)\right]`$.

From these results one obtains for the critical thickness $`t_c\left(R\right)`$, where the energies of the vortex state and the in-plane single-domain states agree, with the ansatz (6):

$$t_c\left(R\right)2R\left\{\frac{1}{5.31}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi }{2.41}\frac{l_m^2}{R^2}\left[2.67+\mathrm{ln}\frac{R}{5l_m}+0.5\right]\right)1\right\}\right\}^{\frac{1}{0.88}}.$$
(9)
Here the term $`0.5`$ comes from the dipolar energy of the central part of the vortex.

In Fig. 2, this result for the critical thickness is plotted against $`R`$ (the solid line) and compared with the results of an unpublished simplified calculation, (see , the dashed line, i.e. $`t_{c,0}\left(R\right)`$), where the fact that in the center of the vortex $`\alpha _z`$ is different from zero has been totally neglected (yielding a wrong asymptotics for $`Rl_m`$), and where the magnetostatic energy has been calculated by replacing the circular dot of radius $`R`$ and thickness $`t_h`$ by a prolate ellipsoid. It turns out that this simple calculation is not bad and captures the essentials, although there is still a significant discrepancy w.r.t. the direct numerical simulation e.g. by the OOMMF program. In contrast the better results with our ansatz (6) for the profile functions can hardly be distinguished, to the accuracy of the plot, from the results of the OOMMF simulation.

(Additionally, Metlov and Guslienko, in their recent paper  on thicker cylindrical dots, have determined the transition line between in-plane and out-of-plane single domain states, see Fig. 2 in . However for our flat dots with $`t_hR`$ this addition is not important. In fact, in our Fig. 2, the additional phase boundary would be represented by a very steep line almost parallel to the abscissa axis, which would terminate at our ’solid line’ phase boundary at a thickness of $`43`$ nm. This is far beyond the thicknesses we consider.)

### 3.2 In-plane external fields

For in-plane external fields, the vortex deforms, and its center shifts by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (in $`x`$-direction, if the external field is applied in the $`y`$-direction; actually, see Fig. 8, below, the dynamic behaviour is more complicated). For simplicity, in the following approximation we only take into account the shift. Here both $`\mathrm{\Delta }<R`$ and also $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ are considered, see below). With this approximation we minimize the Landau-Lifshitz functional. For the ’stray-field energy density’ we again have to evaluate (8) with the (fictitious) magnetic poles at the side-face $`S`$; additionally there is now the Zeeman energy density

$$f^{\mathrm{Zeeman}}=J_s\left|H^{\mathrm{ext}}\right|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(R,\mathrm{\Delta },l_m,c)}{\pi R^2},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(R,\mathrm{\Delta },l_m,c)`$ is a function of the parameters $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`l_m`$ and $`c`$. Note that – as already mentioned – $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be larger than $`R`$, although one expects that the transition from the vortex state to the in-plane single-domain state just happens in the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$.

In Fig. 3, again for a circular Py dot of $`R=150`$ nm and $`t_h=4`$ nm in an external in-plane field of $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=100`$ Oe, the energy densities (dipole energy, Zeeman energy, exchange energy, and total energy) are plotted as a function of the shift parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The equilibrium position of the vortex center would correspond to the minimum of the total energy, which appears at $`\mathrm{\Delta }0.4R`$. With increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(R\right)`$, in Fig. 3 there is an energy barrier, separating the in-plane single-domain state (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$) from the deformed vortex state (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }<R`$). However this energy barrier depends on $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$, and with increasing $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ it decays to zero as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 yields quantitative results for the ’annihilation fields’ of the vortex state rsp. for the energy barrier separating the vortex state from the in-plane single-domain state, if the in-plane external field is not strong enough for the transition. Since the deformation of the vortex during the shift is neglected in our approximation, this energy barrier is overestimated. In any case, near ’rough boundaries’ the actual behaviour will be too complex for a simple calculation, see .

In Fig. 5, we compare our calculations with experimental results for the annihilation fields of flat circular Py samples, plotted over the double reciprocal aspect ratio $`2R/t_h`$, see . In our calculation we have used the experimental values $`A=1.3\times 10^6`$ erg/ccm, $`J_s=0.9676`$ Tesla, zero anisotropy, and two thicknesses ($`t_h=15`$ nm and $`t_h=8.3`$ nm). As can be seen from the figure, in agreement with the above-mentioned arguments, our theoretical estimates are systematically $`2030`$ % too high, but a large part of the deviation is probably due to the fact that in the experiments a non-neglegible perpendicular field component was present, ; moreover, since the experiments are at room temperature, the influence of thermal fields may also have been non-neglegible, see ref. . In any case, in the paper of Guslienko and Metlov, , who also perform a comparison with the experiments of , the theoretical results are significantly overestimated at small values of $`R/t_h`$, contrasted with our Fig. 5. The discrepancy is due to the fact that the authors of  use basically the simplified profile function of Usov and Peschany, , which should not be applied for $`R\text{ }<\text{ }\text{ }t_h`$. But globally, i.e. averaged over all values of $`R/t_h`$, in , the agreement between the calculated vortex annihilation fields and the experiments looks better than that one presented in our Fig. 5, in spite of the drastic overestimation at small values.

## 4 Dynamics

This topic is particularly emphasized in our paper; to use both the vorticity and the central polarisation of flat circular dots for information processing one should be able to switch both properties reliably and independently, and – of course – fast, i.e. significantly below ns time scales.

Unfortunately, the vorticity of the static magnetic state cannot be directly influenced experimentally with circular dots. However, M. Schneider et al. have shown how one can easily influence the vorticity of the magnetic state by using dots, which are not perfectly circular, cutting-off a segment of the structure, see . This refers to static or quasi-static conditions. But in the following we consider fast dynamic changes, at first by time-dependent in-plane fields, and then by time-dependent perpendicular fields :

### 4.1 Time-dependent in-plane fields

As usual, we consider a circular Py dot ($`A=1.3\times 10^6`$ erg/ccm, $`J_s=1.08`$ T, neglegible anisotropy) with $`R=150`$ nm and $`4`$ nm thickness. Without external field, the dot is in a stable vortex state. At time $`t=0`$, an in-plane external field $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is applied, and the ’critical duration’ $`t_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is determined, i.e. the time until the vortex has been shifted to the edge of the dot ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=R`$), so that the vortex state is either ’lost’ to an in-plane single-domain state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, or restored ($`\mathrm{\Delta }0)`$ after the field $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is switched off. The results (which have been obtained by computer simulations with the OOMMF code, ) are presented in Fig. 6; they depend on Gilbert’s damping parameter $`\alpha _G`$ in a rather subtle way (see below). At first, we see from this figure that to reach critical times below $`t=1`$ ns one needs quite strong external fields, namely $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }300`$ Oe to get below 800 ps, and $`\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }500`$ Oe to get below 600 ps. Moreover, the information contained in the polarisation of the vortex center is only preserved for unrealistically large $`\alpha _G`$ (e.g. for $`\alpha _G=1`$ the vortex center is only stable for fields $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}<1100`$ Oe, i.e. up to the end-point of the lowest curve in Fig. 6.) For $`\alpha _G=0.5`$ the corresponding (second-lowest) curve in Fig. 6 ends already at $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=650`$ Oe with $`t_{\mathrm{crit}}=500`$ ps, and for $`\alpha _G=0.01`$ we have only obtained one point in Fig. 6, namely with $`t_{\mathrm{crit}}=1000`$ ps and $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=200`$ Oe. If the vortex state is ’lost’ to an in-plane single-domain state by the application of the in-plane field $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$, one would need roughly at least another ’critical duration’ to generate a new vortex state beginning from the boundary of the circular dot and propagating the core of the new vortex to the center; maybe this new vortex has inverted vorticity, inverted according to the systematic but slow prescription of . In any case, this vorticity-switching would be too slow, and too complex.

In fact, one sees from Fig. 7, where in an ($`\alpha _G`$, $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$)–plane the boundary line separating stable and unstable regions of the (deformed) vortex state is plotted, that for realistically small values of $`\alpha _G`$ the vortex center is unstable for fields above $`200`$ Oe, i.e. the independent information contained in the central polarisation of the vortex gets lost by the application of $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$: Stability of this ’polarisation information’ can only be obtained for smaller in-plane fields $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$, which also means ’critical times’ larger than 1 ns.

In the next figure, Fig. 8, which corresponds to some kind of ’movie sequence’, the particular case of $`\alpha _G=0.02`$ is considered in detail, for $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=300`$ Oe. (The observation that the vortex core moves in the ’north-east’ direction, although from the fact that the switching-field is applied in the y-direction one would expect that it should move exactly ’eastwards’, comes from the following: In the first $`100`$ picoseconds the vortex core, in fact, starts moving to the right, but at the same time some kind of $`180^o`$ domain wall is formed on the segment between $`x=0`$ and $`x=R`$; under the influence of the $`H_y`$-field this domain wall tends to move upwards, and after 600 ps it can still be identified in Fig. 8 to the r.h.s. of the vortex core. In any case, since the ’domain wall segment’ is fixed to the (slower) vortex core, the ”north-east” motion of the core results, as a consequence of the complicated coupling between all spins in course of the dynamics. Further details are only seen if the ’movie’ corresponding to Fig. 8 is observed on a shorter time-scale.)

The total simulation time of Fig. 8 is $`1.5`$ ns: One concludes that vorticity annihilation is interesting and complicated, but rather slow ($`t_{\mathrm{crit}}1.5`$ ns); particularly, the information contained in the central polarisation is lost by applying the field $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ for the critical duration, and one is far from simply ’switching’ the vorticity. (These conclusions would also apply for larger values of $`\alpha _G`$, although for $`\alpha _G=1`$, which is unrealistically large, one would gain a factor of 3 in speed.)

As a consequence, for vorticity-switching one should not use in-plane fields, but instead one should work with perpendicular fields, as discussed in the following.

### 4.2 Time-dependent perpendicular fields

We have finally performed simulations, starting from the planar equilibrium vortex configuration, with pulsed external ’switching fields’ which are now perpendicular to the plane. We consider the same structure as before. The applied field pulse was very strong, $`B_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mu _0H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=0.5`$ T, i.e. $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}\widehat{=}5000`$ Oe, but also very short (see below). The Gilbert damping was assumed to be as small as in Fig. 8, i.e. $`\alpha _G=0.02`$, but the pulse time of $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ was only $`42`$ ps, i.e. only a small fraction of the total simulation time of the corresponding ’movie sequence’, which we calculated for that example. This time the vorticity is really inverted, and the switching is very fast, 42 ps, and without ”ringing” after the end of the field-pulse.

In Fig. 9 we consider the effective ’switching time’ $`t_{\mathrm{sw}}=t_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, i.e. the time needed to turn around the spins – in a spatial average – by $`180`$ degrees, systematically as a function of $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. For vanishing damping this corresponds to a gyromagnetic precession by an angle $`\pi `$, i.e. $`t_{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\pi }{\left|\gamma _0\right|H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}}`$. This is shown in Fig. 10, which presents results from the first part of our ’movie’. After a duration of $`t_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, 42 ps in our case, the field is switched off; the system then ’wiggles’ around the new equilibrium vortex state and gets slowly into equilibrium after several ns. But the ’wiggles’ are small enough that the new equilibrium state can be clearly recognized already after $`42`$ ps, although the system is still far from equilibrium, .

(Note that in Fig. 10 the exchange energy does not change with time, in contrast to the magnetostatic energy, although after $`21`$ ps the transient spin configuration has changed from a vortex state to a ’hedgehog state’; this invariance of the exchange energy is in agreement with a ’topological statement’ of W. Döring, .)

In Fig. 11, the ’wiggling’ of the spatial average of $`\alpha _z`$ is presented. Finally in Fig. 12 we plot, what happens to the polarisation of the vortex center under the influence of a ’tilted vertical field pulse’, involving a strong perpendicular component $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=1000`$ Oe, applied between $`t=0`$ and $`60`$ ps, accompanied by a simultaneous weaker in-plane pulse of $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=150`$ Oe between $`t=0`$ and $`t=30`$ ps. We find that at first the central polarisation is inverted from (+) to (-), but then it returns to the starting state (+). In fact, we find it difficult to control the central polarisation independently and with similar speed as the vorticity.

That very strong vertical fields in the kOe range are necessary for polarity-switching of the vortex core is also found in a recent letter of Kikuchi et al., .

We have seen that the fast switching of the vorticity by vertical fields works successful, but the ’switching field pulses’ are in fact very large in strength, $`5000`$ Oe, and very short in duration, $`40`$ ps. However, concerning the independent switching of the polarisation of the center of the vortex, we always have found (for realistically small values of $`\alpha _G`$) that the central polarisation – in contrast to the vorticity – can hardly be controlled even by strong field pulses oriented perpendicular to the plane; therefore in this case we are unsuccessful and do not plot the results of our simulations.

### 4.3 Vortex structure in flat circular dots: discussion

Here we collect our results for the flat circular Permalloy (Py) dots considered in this section 4:

1. The switching fields are quite large, i.e. necessary values are higher than 300 Oersteds (for in-plane fields), and 5000 Oersteds for the case of perpendicular fields.
2. For realistic values of the Gilbert damping parameter $`\alpha _G`$, see , only the vorticity can be reliably switched, , but not the central polarisation of the vortex core.
3. The time scale necessary for the precessional switching of the vorticity is very short, $`\tau 40`$ ps, for the case of perpendicular field pulses. In that case, after the switching the magnetization ”wiggles” slightly, i.e. there are relatively small oscillations, below $`\pm 10`$%, around the new equilibrium. These small precessional oscillations decay rather slowly on a much larger ns time scale. But principally the information contained in the new state can already be obtained after 40 ps with sufficiently strong perpendicular field pulses without necessity to suppress the ’wiggling’, .
4. For the case of in-plane switching fields the field strengths for the dynamic annihilation of the vortex state are an order of magnitude lower, $`B_y^{\mathrm{ext}}300`$ Oersteds, and they need not to be pulsed; but the time scales for vortex-switching with in-plane fields are also an order of magnitude slower, namely $`\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }500`$ ps, .

## 5 Vortex structure in flat circular ’nano-rings’

As a consequence, at the end, we dismiss the vortex center totally, although this implies the definite loss of the the possibility, to manipulate a second bit. We consider flat circular ’nano-rings’ with an inner radius $`R_1`$ and an outer radius $`R_2`$. In this case, see Fig. 13, with increasing $`R_1`$ the energy density of the vortex state decreases, while that of the homogeneous in-plane state (’single-domain state’) increases significantly, i.e. the stability of the vortex state is enhanced.

At the same time the switching of the vorticity by perpendicular field pulses is hardly influenced by the size of $`R_1`$: In Fig. 14 we present simulations for Py dots with $`R_2=150`$ nm and $`t_h=4`$ nm, comparing our former results for $`R_1=0`$ with similar ’ring results’ for $`R_1=50`$ nm, as a function of the switching field $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. Obviously the switching time $`t_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is practically not changed.

## 6 Conclusions

Within the framework of the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, using permalloy parameters, we have studied the statics and dynamics of flat circular magnetic nano-structures with an in-plane magnetic vortex configuration putting particular emphasis on the (perpendicular) polarisation of the vortex center (which may be shifted with respect to the center of the circle), and on the (in-plane) vorticity of the magnetic state. Studying switching processes induced by in-plane and out-of-plane field pulses, we find that it is possible to switch the vorticity of the magnetic dot on an ultra-short time scale of $`40`$ ps with strong enough and short enough perpendicular external field pulses (strength $`\mu _0H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}0.5`$ T; duration $`40`$ ps); but for realistic values of the Gilbert damping constant $`\alpha _G`$, only the vorticity can be switched this fast, but not the magnetic polarisation $`\alpha _z=\pm 1`$ of the vortex core, so that it is better to dismiss the center of the circular structures totally, concentrating instead on flat nano-rings, i.e. with an inner radius $`R_1`$ and an outer radius $`R_2`$. In such nano-rings, the stability of the vortex state is enhanced, and concerning the switching of the vorticity, they have similar properties as circular ones, i.e. with $`R_1=0`$.

For in-plane fields, the field strength need only to be $`\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }200`$ Oersteds, but the time scales of vorticity-switching are $`\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }1`$ ns; the vortex center is typically unstable, i.e. the topology of the state is changed from a ’deformed vortex state’ to a ’deformed in-plane single-domain state’, if in-plane fields of the ’critical duration’ are applied. So the case of ’in-plane vortex switching fields’ should be dismissed rightaway for circular dots.

## Acknowledgements

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with C. Back, G. Bayreuther, H. Hoffmann, M. Schneider, and J. Zweck.

Figures and Figure Captions

Fig.1a: The ’profile function’ $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$ as given by our analytical ansatz is compared with results of the direct numerical simulation by the OOMMF code. Material parameters: Permalloy. The radius of the circular dot considered is 175.5 nm, the height is 6 nm.

Fig.1b: The effective radius $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the vortex core is presented over the reduced thickness $`T_h:=\frac{t_h}{l_m}`$ of the circular dot, in units of the magnetic exchange length $`l_m`$. Material parameters: Py, as in Fig. 1a.

Figure 2: The critical thickness $`t_c\left(R\right)`$, i.e. the line which separates the stability ranges of the vortex state from that of the in-plane single-domain state, is presented as a function of the radius $`R`$ of the circular dot. Parameters of Permalloy material are used. The solid line describes our results, as given in the text; the dashed line presents the simplified approximation $`t_{c,0}\left(R\right)`$, also described in the text, and the circles describes the results of a numerical calculation with the OOMMF code. (Besides, the additional phase transition line separating the out-of-plane single-domain state from the in-plane single domain state would in the present plot almost coincide with the abscissa axis.)

Figure 3: The total energy density $`f`$ ( the solid line), and the partial energy densities of the dipolar energy (squares), exchange energy (diamonds) and Zeeman energy (triangles)) for the vortex state in a circular permalloy dot of radius $`R=150`$ nm (note the vertical line) and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm are presented as a function of the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the vortex core; for more details see the text

Figure 4: For different values of the external in-plane Zeeman field the density $`f_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the total energy of Fig. 3 is presented against the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the vortex core. One can see that for strong enough Zeeman fields ($`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}190`$ Oe) there is no longer a local minimum, i.e. the vortex vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$), which means a transition to a single-domain state. The vertical line denotes the radius $`R`$ of the circular dot.

Figure 5: For Py dots of thickness $`t_h=15`$ nm and $`8.3`$ nm, respectively, experimental results, and our theoretical results, for the in-plane annihilation fields of the vortex state are presented over the double reciprocal aspect ratio $`2R/t_h`$ of the dot.

Figure 6: The critical time $`t_c`$ for dynamic annihilation of the vortex state by in-plane fields $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is presented against $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ for different values of the Gilbert damping $`\alpha _G`$. For further details see the text.

Figure 7: The line separating the dynamic stability and instability regions for dynamic annihilation of the vortex core by in-plane fields, as in the preceding figure, is presented in an $`(\alpha _G,H_y^{\mathrm{ext}})`$ plane, where $`\alpha _G`$ is Gilbert’s damping parameter and $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ the in-plane ’switching field’.

Figure 8: This ’movie sequence’ presents the annihilation of a vortex state by an in-plane field. This is a rather slow process, which needs at least 1.5 ns, although the in-plane field is as strong as 300 Oe . Gilbert’s damping parameter has been assumed to be $`\alpha _G=0.02`$

Figure 9: This plot presents the typical ’switching time’ $`t_{1/2}`$ of a vortex state by a pulsed perpendicular field $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. This is a very fast process, which needs typically only $``$ 40 ps, but the necessary strength of the field is very large, $``$ 5000 Oe. Gilbert’s damping parameter has been assumed to be $`\alpha _G=0.02`$. ”Theory” means the simple result $`t_{1/2}=\pi /\left(\left|\gamma _0\right|H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)`$; the other results are from OOMMF-simulations.

Figure 10: This plot shows details of the fast switching of the vorticity of our flat circular Permalloy dot of radius $`R=150`$ nm and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm by a pulsed vertical field of $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=5000`$ Oe. The energy densities $`f`$ of the dipolar energy (’stray-field’) and of the exchange energy are presented over the time for the first 50 ps after the start of the perpendicular field pulse, which lasts from $`t=0`$ to $`t=42`$ ps.

Figure 11: This plot shows the ’wiggling’ of the small out-of-plane component $`\alpha _z`$ of the (spatially averaged) magnetization of the circular Permalloy dot; $`\alpha _z`$ comes to rest only after several ns, although the switching of the vorticity needs essentially only 42 ps, see the preceding figure. Again we have assumed $`\alpha _G=0.02`$.

Figure 12: Here white (black) background colours mean positive (negative) values of $`\alpha _z`$; so this ’movie sequence’ shows that under the conditions described in the text the vorticity is not switched at all, whereas the central polarity changes from +1 to -1 at $`t60`$ ps, remains there until $`t170`$ ps, but returns to +1 for $`t\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }220`$ ps. The applied field pulses were $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=1`$ kOe between 0 and 60 ps, and simultaneusly $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=150`$ Oe between 0 and 30 ps. As before, the radius and the thickness of our Py dot were $`150`$ and $`4`$ nm, respectively, and the Gilbert damping was $`\alpha _G=0.02`$. Note that for 60 ps and 220 ps one is no longer dealing with a vortex state, but rather with a spiral.

Figure 13: For flat ’nano-rings’ made of Py material with fixed outer radius $`R_2=150`$ nm and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm, the total energy densities $`f_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the vortex state and the homogeneous in-plane state (’single-domain state’) are presented against the inner radius $`R_1`$.

Figure 14: The switching time $`t_{1/2}`$ of the vorticity of a flat circular Permalloy dot (thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm, radius $`R=150`$ nm) and of a corresponding ’nano-ring’ with outer radius $`R_2=R`$ and inner radius $`R_1=R/3`$ is plotted against the vertical switching field $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$.

Figure Captions

Fig.1a: The ’profile function’ $`\alpha _z\left(r\right)`$ as given by our analytical ansatz is compared with results of the direct numerical simulation by the OOMMF code. Material parameters: Permalloy. The radius of the circular dot considered is 175.5 nm, the height is 6 nm.

Fig.1b: The effective radius $`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the vortex core is presented over the reduced thickness $`T_h:=\frac{t_h}{l_m}`$ of the circular dot, in units of the magnetic exchange length $`l_m`$. Material parameters: Py, as in Fig. 1a.

Figure 2: The critical thickness $`t_c\left(R\right)`$, i.e. the line which separates the stability ranges of the vortex state from that of the in-plane single-domain state, is presented as a function of the radius $`R`$ of the circular dot. Parameters of Permalloy material are used. The solid line describes our results, as given in the text; the dashed line presents the simplified approximation $`t_{c,0}\left(R\right)`$, also described in the text, and the circles describes the results of a numerical calculation with the OOMMF code. (Besides, the additional phase transition line separating the out-of-plane single-domain state from the in-plane single domain state would in the present plot almost coincide with the abscissa axis.)

Figure 3: The total energy density $`f`$ ( the solid line), and the partial energy densities of the dipolar energy (squares), exchange energy (diamonds) and Zeeman energy (triangles)) for the vortex state in a circular permalloy dot of radius $`R=150`$ nm (note the vertical line) and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm are presented as a function of the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the vortex core; for more details see the text

Figure 4: For different values of the external in-plane Zeeman field the density $`f_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the total energy of Fig. 3 is presented against the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the vortex core. One can see that for strong enough Zeeman fields ($`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}190`$ Oe) there is no longer a local minimum, i.e. the vortex vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$), which means a transition to a single-domain state. The vertical line denotes the radius $`R`$ of the circular dot.

Figure 5: For Py dots of thickness $`t_h=15`$ nm and $`8.3`$ nm, respectively, experimental results, and our theoretical results, for the in-plane annihilation fields of the vortex state are presented over the double reciprocal aspect ratio $`2R/t_h`$ of the dot.

Figure 6: The critical time $`t_c`$ for dynamic annihilation of the vortex state by in-plane fields $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ is presented against $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ for different values of the Gilbert damping $`\alpha _G`$. For further details see the text.

Figure 7: The line separating the dynamic stability and instability regions for dynamic annihilation of the vortex core by in-plane fields, as in the preceding figure, is presented in an $`(\alpha _G,H_y^{\mathrm{ext}})`$ plane, where $`\alpha _G`$ is Gilbert’s damping parameter and $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ the in-plane ’switching field’.

Figure 8: This ’movie sequence’ presents the annihilation of a vortex state by an in-plane field. This is a rather slow process, which needs at least 1.5 ns, although the in-plane field is as strong as 300 Oe . Gilbert’s damping parameter has been assumed to be $`\alpha _G=0.02`$

Figure 9: This plot presents the typical ’switching time’ $`t_{1/2}`$ of a vortex state by a pulsed perpendicular field $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. This is a very fast process, which needs typically only $``$ 40 ps, but the necessary strength of the field is very large, $``$ 5000 Oe. Gilbert’s damping parameter has been assumed to be $`\alpha _G=0.02`$. ”Theory” means the simple result $`t_{1/2}=\pi /\left(\left|\gamma _0\right|H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}\right)`$; the other results are from OOMMF-simulations.

Figure 10: This plot shows details of the fast switching of the vorticity of our flat circular Permalloy dot of radius $`R=150`$ nm and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm by a pulsed vertical field of $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=5000`$ Oe. The energy densities $`f`$ of the dipolar energy (’stray-field’) and of the exchange energy are presented over the time for the first 50 ps after the start of the perpendicular field pulse, which lasts from $`t=0`$ to $`t=42`$ ps.

Figure 11: This plot shows the ’wiggling’ of the small out-of-plane component $`\alpha _z`$ of the (spatially averaged) magnetization of the circular Permalloy dot; $`\alpha _z`$ comes to rest only after several ns, although the switching of the vorticity needs essentially only 42 ps, see the preceding figure. Again we have assumed $`\alpha _G=0.02`$.

Figure 12: Here white (black) background colours mean positive (negative) values of $`\alpha _z`$; so this ’movie sequence’ shows that under the conditions described in the text the vorticity is not switched at all, whereas the central polarity changes from +1 to -1 at $`t60`$ ps, remains there until $`t170`$ ps, but returns to +1 for $`t\text{ }>\text{ }\text{ }220`$ ps. The applied field pulses were $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}=1`$ kOe between 0 and 60 ps, and simultaneusly $`H_y^{\mathrm{ext}}=150`$ Oe between 0 and 30 ps. As before, the radius and the thickness of our Py dot were $`150`$ and $`4`$ nm, respectively, and the Gilbert damping was $`\alpha _G=0.02`$. Note that for 60 ps and 220 ps one is no longer dealing with a vortex state, but rather with a spiral.

Figure 13: For flat ’nano-rings’ made of Py material with fixed outer radius $`R_2=150`$ nm and thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm, the total energy densities $`f_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the vortex state and the homogeneous in-plane state (’single-domain state’) are presented against the inner radius $`R_1`$.

Figure 14: The switching time $`t_{1/2}`$ of the vorticity of a flat circular Permalloy dot (thickness $`t_h=4`$ nm, radius $`R=150`$ nm) and of a corresponding ’nano-ring’ with outer radius $`R_2=R`$ and inner radius $`R_1=R/3`$ is plotted against the vertical switching field $`H_z^{\mathrm{ext}}`$.


format: text

text:
# Learning from Dispersive Effects in the Nucleon Polarisabilities

Static nucleon polarisabilities gauge the stiffness of the nucleon against an external electro-magnetic field, parameterising the part of the real Compton amplitude at zero energy which is not explained by the pole terms, i.e. by the successive interactions of two photons with a point-like nucleon of anomalous magnetic moment $`\kappa `$. *Dynamical* nucleon polarisabilities are the energy dependent generalisation to real Compton scattering and thus provide more information about the low energy effective degrees of freedom inside the nucleon. Here, I sketch their definition and interpretation in terms of the low energy degrees of freedom, referring to  for particulars and references.

Investigating in more detail the nucleon polarisabilities at non-zero photon energy, one first subtracts the “nucleon pole” effects from the real Compton amplitude $`T`$, writing $`\overline{T}(\omega ,z)=\overline{A}_1(\omega ,z)(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\stackrel{}{ϵ})+\overline{A}_2(\omega ,z)(\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}{}_{}{}^{})`$
$`+\mathrm{},`$ for the two spin-independent structure amplitudes in the centre of mass (cm) frame, with the non-Born part already subtracted. $`\omega `$ is the cm energy of an incident (outgoing) real photon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ ($`\stackrel{}{k}^{}`$) and polarisation $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ ($`\stackrel{}{ϵ}^{}`$), scattering under the cm angle $`\theta `$ off the nucleon, with $`z=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

At fixed real photon energy, the structure dependent part of the amplitude is then analysed by expanding it in multipoles. In terms of the first four electric and magnetic (dipole and quadrupole) polarisabilities of definite multipolarity, $`\alpha _{E1}(\omega ),\beta _{M1}(\omega ),\alpha _{E2}(\omega )`$ and $`\beta _{M2}(\omega )`$, the amplitudes read

$`\overline{A}_1(\omega ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi W}{M}}[(\alpha _{E1}(\omega )+z\beta _{M1}(\omega ))\omega ^2+`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(z\alpha _{E2}(\omega )+(2z^21)\beta _{M2}(\omega ))\omega ^4+\mathrm{}]`$
$`\overline{A}_2(\omega ,z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi W}{M}}\left[\beta _{M1}(\omega )\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left(\alpha _{E2}(\omega )+2z\beta _{M2}(\omega )\right)\omega ^4+\mathrm{}\right],`$
where $`W=\omega +\sqrt{M^2+\omega ^2}`$ is the total cm energy and $`M`$ the nucleon mass. The multipolarities are dis-entangled by their angular dependence. The pre-factors are chosen such that at zero photon energy, the definitions of the static polarisabilities are recovered, e.g.: $`\overline{\alpha }_E=\alpha _{E1}(\omega =0),\overline{\beta }_M=\beta _{M1}(\omega =0)`$.

Dynamical polarisabilities test the temporal response of the global, low energy excitation spectrum of the nucleon at non-zero energy. They therefore contain information about dispersive effects induced by internal relaxation mechanisms, baryonic resonances and meson production thresholds of the nucleon. This is also clearly seen in Figs. 2, where the result of a dispersion theory analysis of the four leading dynamical polarisabilities is compared to a chiral effective field theory describing the nucleon at low energies, called Modified Small Scale Expansion MSSE. The latter is a rigorous, model-independent and systematic approach to low energy QCD. It incorporates the nucleon, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$ and their respective pion clouds as explicit low energy degrees of freedom, see Fig. 1 for the dominant contributions .

Short distance physics is sub-sumed into local counter terms whose strengths are naïvely given by dimensional analysis to be of the order of $`|\delta \alpha _{E1},\delta \beta _{M1}|12`$222All dipole polarisabilities here given in the “natural units” of $`10^4\mathrm{fm}^3`$. which would make them higher order effects. However, fitting these two free parameters to reproduce the static values of the dipole polarisabilities shows that they are indeed much larger, $`\delta \alpha _{E1}5,\delta \beta _{M1}10`$, i.e. of leading order in accord with the MSSE power counting. It is at this point that the new dimension of the dynamical polarisabilities comes into play by allowing for a *parameter-free prediction* of the energy dependence after the zero energy value is fixed.

For example, a large dia-magnetic but only very weakly energy dependent contribution is needed in the magnetic dipole polarisability to cancel the well known large para-magnetism coming from the strong $`M1M1`$ transition between nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which clearly rules this channel. As the shape of $`\beta _{M1}(\omega )`$ is dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ already below the pion production threshold $`\omega _\pi `$, the good agreement between its experimentally measured value at zero energy ($`\beta _{M1}(0)=1.5`$) and the result of Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory HB$`\chi `$PT with only pions and nucleons as low energy degrees of freedom ($`\beta _{M1}^{\mathrm{HB}\chi \mathrm{PT}}(0)=1.2`$) can be seen as accidental. The energy dependence of the dynamical polarisabilities demonstrates therefore that the underlying physics mimicked at zero energy by the counter term is in a large range insensitive to derailed dynamics at short distances. No genuinely new degrees of freedom are missed at low energies. As the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has no width at leading order in MSSE, the result for $`\beta _{M1}(\omega )`$ diverges close to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance energy $`\omega _\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For this reason, the imaginary part of $`\beta _{M1}(\omega )`$ above the one pion production threshold is also ill reproduced in MSSE. Dispersion theory shows that it is clearly dominated by the non-zero width of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1232)`$. The cusp strength and structure at $`\omega _\pi `$ is well captured in MSSE, and very well so for $`\alpha _{E1}(\omega )`$.

Thanks to the contribution from the pion cloud around the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the agreement for $`\alpha _{E2}(\omega )`$ at low energies is good. NOt surprisingly, there is no residue of the famed $`E2E2`$ transition due to its smallness. No counter term is used or necessary in this channel to account for short distance physics. A nucleon resonance might be seen in the discrepancy between the DR and chiral calculations at very high momenta $`\omega >250\mathrm{MeV}`$.

Albeit there is some improvement by adding the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ continuum, nearly half of the static strength of $`\beta _{M2}(\omega )`$ is still missing. Introducing a counter term to reproduce the correct static value, as was done for the dipole polarisabilities but is for the quadrupole polarisabilities inconsistent with the MSSE power counting, is of no help in the magnetic quadrupole polarisability because the slope of the dispersion theory result is much steeper than the one obtained in MSSE. Not even the physics of the pion production threshold seems to be reproduced correctly.

This analysis is an overall success for MSSE: In the régime at low energies where it is supposed to work, the agreement is surprisingly good, and the deviation around $`\omega _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is clearly related to the fact that the “natural” power counting must be modified in order to account for the non-zero width of a resonance by summing a sub-class of diagrams.

Dynamical polarisabilities do not contain more or less information than the corresponding Compton scattering amplitudes, but as with any multipole decomposition, the facts are more readily accessible and easier to interpret. Stringent constraints for models and model-independent power countings of a low energy effective field theory of the nucleon follow from their analysis.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The suggestion of Verlinde  that there may exist a holographic bound on the subextensive entropy associated with the Casimir energy, makes it natural to ask: is this formal merging between the holographic principle, the Cardy entropy formula from conformal field theory , and the Friedmann equations from cosmology, merely a formal coincidence or does it reflect a deep physical property? As one might expect, the Verlinde proposal has inspired a considerable number of investigations, wherein various facets of the Cardy-Verlinde entropy formula, in particular, have been elucidated. An extensive list of references to the recent literature can be found in the paper of Youm . Let us only mention here the large interest that has arisen in connection with the entropy and the energy as following from quantum and thermal fluctuations in conformal field theories .

Verlinde assumed a spatially closed and radiation dominated universe. It becomes natural to inquire to what degree these basic assumptions can be generalized. For instance, Wang et al.  considered universes having a cosmological constant, and Nojiri et al.  considered quantum bounds for the Cardy-Verlinde formula. Recently, we examined the generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde formula allowing for a constant bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$ in the radiation dominated universe . The conclusion of our analysis was that such a generalization is mathematically possible, although one should bear in mind that there occurs a possible interpretional difficulty: it is not evident from a physical point of view that the interpretiation of the subextensive part of the energy should be interpreted as a Casimir energy.

The mentioned paper of Youm  is interesting, since it shows that the entropy of the universe can no longer be expressed in the conventional Cardy-Verlinde form if one relaxes the radiation dominance state equation and instead assumes a more general equation

$$p=(\gamma 1)\rho ,$$
(1)
with $`\gamma `$ a constant. A more general form of the entropy formula results. And this brings us to the main theme of the present note, namely to explore to which extent the presence of a bulk viscosity in the cosmic fluid, together with the state equation (1), influences the entropy formula. In fact, it will turn out that the modified entropy formula found by Youm still persists, even when a constant bulk viscosity is allowed for. The central formula is Eq. (15) below.

We also supply the general analysis with some numerical estimates on viscous cosmology. Thus Section 3.1 calculates the scale factor $`a(t)`$ for a viscous universe, assuming for simplicity that $`k=0`$, if the viscosity is taken to set in suddenly at some instant $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$, which we choose to lie in the plasma era. Section 3.2 exploits the smallness of $`\zeta `$ to calculate the viscosity-induced correction to $`a(t)`$ via a perturbative expansion in $`\zeta `$ to the lowest order. The correction becomes very small, if $`\zeta `$ is calculated in the plasma era from conventional kinetic theory. However, at earlier instants in the history of the universe the value of $`\zeta `$ might have been much higher, thus strengthening the effect.

## 2 Inclusion of viscosity

We take the number $`n`$ of spatial dimensions to be equal to 3, assume a FRW metric with k=+1,

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1r^2}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right),$$
(2)
set the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equal to zero, and assume that the cosmic fluid possesses a constant bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$. The energy-momentum tensor can then be written as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\rho U_\mu U_\nu +(p\zeta \theta )h_{\mu \nu },$$
(3)
where in comoving coordinates $`U^\mu =(1,0),\theta U_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=3\dot{a}/a`$, $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+U_\mu U_\nu `$ being the projection tensor. The effective pressure is $`\stackrel{~}{p}=p\zeta \theta `$. From Einstein’s equations $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }`$ we derive the first Friedmann equation (the ”initial value equation”)

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho \frac{1}{a^2}$$
(4)
(with $`H=\dot{a}/a`$), which is seen to be independent of the viscosity. The second Friedmann equation (the ”dynamic equation”), when combined with Eq. (4), yields

$$\dot{H}=4\pi G(\rho +\stackrel{~}{p})+\frac{1}{a^2},$$
(5)
in which the effect from viscosity is explicit. The conservation equation for energy, $`T_{}^{0\nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0`$, yields

$$\dot{\rho }+(\rho +p)\theta =\zeta \theta ^2.$$
(6)
A direct calculation using the Friedmann equations leads to the equation

$$\frac{d}{da}\left(\rho a^4\right)=(\rho 3\stackrel{~}{p})a^3.$$
(7)
So far, the equation of state for the cosmic fluid has not been used. Let us hereafter assume the specific form (1). Then, using Eq. (7) we derive

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\rho a^{3\gamma }\right)=\zeta \theta ^2a^{3\gamma }.$$
(8)
This equation is useful for our purpose. We wish to combine it with the conservation law for entropy: if $`n`$ is the particle number density and $`\sigma `$ the entropy per particle, the four-divergence of the entropy current vector, $`S^\mu =n\sigma U^\mu `$, is

$$S_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=\frac{\zeta }{T}\theta ^2$$
(9)
which, in view of the equation $`(nU^\mu )_{;\mu }=0`$, yields

$$n\dot{\sigma }=\frac{\zeta }{T}\theta ^2$$
(10)
in the comoving coordinate system.

We can now carry out the same kind of reasoning as in Ref. : Since $`\zeta `$ is small, we can use for $`a=a(t)`$ the same expression as for a nonviscous closed universe, namely $`a(t)=a_{}\mathrm{sin}\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is the conformal time, the constant $`a_{}`$ is defined as

$$a_{}=\sqrt{(8\pi G/3)\rho _{\mathrm{in}}a_{\mathrm{in}}^4},$$
(11)
and the subscript ”in” designates the initial instant of the onset of viscosity. (Strictly speaking, the approximate expression (11) assumes that the universe is radiation dominated.) Imagine that Eqs (8) and (10) are integrated with respect to time. Since $`\zeta ^1\rho a^{3\gamma }`$ and $`\zeta ^1n\sigma `$ can be drawn as functions of $`t`$, it follows that $`\rho a^{3\gamma }`$ can be considered as a function of $`n\sigma `$. Then, since the total energy is $`E\rho a^3`$ and the total entropy is $`Sn\sigma a^3`$, it follows that $`Ea^{3(\gamma 1)}`$ is independent of the volume $`V`$ and is a function of $`S`$ only. This generalizes the pure entropy dependence of the product $`Ea`$, found by Verlinde  in the case of a nonviscous radiation dominated universe. And it is noteworthy that the derived property of $`Ea^{3(\gamma 1)}`$ formally agrees exactly with the property found by Youm  when $`\zeta =0`$.

Let us carry out the analysis a bit further, and write the total energy $`E`$ as a sum of an extensive part $`E_E`$ and a subextensive part $`E_C`$:

$$E(S,V)=E_E(S,V)+\frac{1}{2}E_C(S,V).$$
(12)
Under a scale transformation $`S\lambda S`$ and $`V\lambda V`$ with constant $`\lambda `$, $`E_E`$ scales linearly with $`\lambda `$. But the term $`E_C`$ scales with a power of $`\lambda `$ that is less than one: as $`E_C`$ is the volume integral over a local energy density expressed in the metric and its derivatives, each of which scales as $`\lambda ^{1/3}`$, and as the derivatives occur in pairs, the power in $`\lambda `$ has to be 1-2/3= 1/3. Thus we have

$$E_E(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda E_E(S,V),E_C(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda ^{1/3}E_C(S,V),$$
(13)
which implies

$$E_E=\frac{C_1}{4\pi a^{3(\gamma 1)}}S^\gamma ,E_C=\frac{C_2}{2\pi a^{3(\gamma 1)}}S^{\gamma 2/3},$$
(14)
where $`C_1,C_2`$ are constants. In CFTs, their product is known: $`\sqrt{C_1C_2}=n=3`$ ; this being a consequence of the AdS-CFT correspondence. Using Eqs. (12) and (14) we obtain

$$S=\left[\frac{2\pi a^{3(\gamma 1)}}{\sqrt{C_1C_2}}\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)}\right]^{\frac{3}{3\gamma 1}}.$$
(15)
This is the generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula, in agreement with Eq. (20) in Youm’s paper, reducing to the standard formula (with square root) in the case of a radiation dominated universe. In conclusion, we have extended the basis of Eq. (15) so as to include the presence of a constant bulk viscosity in the cosmic fluid.

## 3 Numerical estimates

### 3.1 Spatially flat universe

It is of physical interest to supplement the above considerations with some simple numerical estimates, showing, in particular, the order of magnitude of the viscosity terms. Let us assume, as mentioned above, that the effect of the bulk viscosity effectively sets in at some initial instant $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and that $`\zeta `$ is thereafter constant for the times that we consider. For definiteness we choose

$$t_{\mathrm{in}}=1000\mathrm{s}$$
(16)
after the big bang. The universe is then in the plasma (or radiation) era; it consists of ionized H and He in equilibrium with radiation. The particle density is $`n_{\mathrm{in}}=10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the temperature is $`T_{\mathrm{in}}=4\times 10^8`$ K. The advantage of considering this relatively late stage of the universe’s history is that the magnitude of $`\zeta `$ can be calculated using conventional kinetic theory. At $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$ one finds

$$\zeta =7.0\times 10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^1\mathrm{s}^1$$
(17)
(cf.  and further references therein).

For our estimate purposes it appears reasonable to assume that the influence from the spatial curvature is not very important. For simplicity let us put $`k=0`$. This implies that there exists the following simple differential equation for the scalar expansion :

$$\dot{\theta }(t)+\frac{1}{2}\gamma \theta ^2(t)12\pi G\zeta \theta (t)=0,$$
(18)
which can be solved to give the expression for the scale factor:

$$a(t)=a_{\mathrm{in}}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\gamma \theta _{\mathrm{in}}t_c\left(e^{(tt_{\mathrm{in}})/t_c}1\right)\right]^{2/(3\gamma )},$$
(19)
where

$$t_c=(12\pi G\zeta )^1.$$
(20)
. The corresponding expression when viscosity is absent, is

$$a(t,\zeta =0)=a_{\mathrm{in}}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\gamma \theta _{\mathrm{in}}(tt_{\mathrm{in}})\right]^{2/(3\gamma )}.$$
(21)
The ratio between the expressions (19) and (21) reduces to unity in the limit when $`(tt_{\mathrm{in}})/t_c1`$. This is we would expect. The influence from viscosity generally turns up only in the factor $`t_c`$, and the effect becomes strengthened when $`t_c`$ becomes smaller, i.e., when $`\zeta `$ becomes larger. The numerical values given above for the instant $`t_{\mathrm{in}}=1000`$ s correspond to

$$\theta _{\mathrm{in}}=1.5\times 10^3\mathrm{s}^1,t_c=5.1\times 10^{28}\mathrm{s}.$$
(22)
### 3.2  Perturbative expansion for a radiation dominated closed universe

The smallness of $`\zeta `$ makes it natural, as an alternative to the approach of the previous subsection, to make a Stokes expansion in $`\zeta `$. For simplicity we now assume that $`\gamma =4/3`$, i.e., that the universe is radiation dominated. We put $`k=1.`$ Let subscript zero refer to quantities in the nonviscous case. We write the first order expansions as

$$a=a_0(1+\zeta a_1),\rho =\rho _0(1+\zeta \rho _1),$$
(23)
where the functions $`a_1`$ and $`\rho _1`$ are of zeroth order in $`\zeta `$; they are regarded as functions of $`t`$ or alternatively as functions of the conformal time $`\eta `$. Correspondingly, the scalar expansion $`\theta =3\dot{a}/a`$ is written as

$$\theta =\theta _0(1+\zeta \theta _1).$$
(24)
The Friedmann equation (4), and Eq. (8), now yield to the zeroth order

$$\theta _0^2=24\pi G\rho _0\frac{9}{a_0^2},$$
(25)
$$\rho _{\mathrm{in}}a_{\mathrm{in}}^4=\rho _0a_0^4,$$
(26)
and to the first order

$$\theta _0^2\theta _1=12\pi G\rho _0\rho _1+\frac{9a_1}{a_0^2},$$
(27)
$$\rho _{\mathrm{in}}a_{\mathrm{in}}^4(\dot{\rho }_1+4\dot{a}_1)=\theta _0^2a_0^4.$$
(28)
The solutions of Eqs. (25) and (26) are

$$a_0=a_{}\mathrm{sin}\eta ,\rho _0=\frac{3}{8\pi G}\frac{1}{a_{}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^4\eta },$$

$$\theta _0=\frac{3\mathrm{cos}\eta }{a_{}\mathrm{sin}^2\eta },$$
(29)
where $`a_{}`$ is defined by Eq. (11). From Eq. (28) we now have

$$\frac{d\rho _1}{d\eta }+\frac{4da_1}{d\eta }=24\pi Ga_{}\mathrm{sin}\eta \mathrm{cos}^2\eta ,$$
(30)
which can be integrated from $`\eta =\eta _{\mathrm{in}}`$ onwards:

$$\rho _1+4a_1=8\pi Ga_{}(\mathrm{cos}^3\eta _{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{cos}^3\eta ).$$
(31)
We have here assumed that $`a_1=\rho _1=0`$ at the initial instant $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$. With

$$\theta _1=\frac{da_1}{d\eta }\mathrm{tan}\eta $$
(32)
(cf. Eq. (23)), we obtain from Eq. (27) a first order differential equation for the scale factor correction:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\eta \frac{da_1}{d\eta }+2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\eta )a_1+8\pi Ga_{}\mathrm{cos}^3\eta =8\pi Ga_{}\mathrm{cos}^3\eta _{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(33)
This equation admits the integrating factor

$$\mu (\eta )=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\eta )}{\mathrm{sin}2\eta }𝑑\eta \right]=\sqrt{2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }{\mathrm{cos}\eta },$$
(34)
whereby we find after some calculation the following solution, again observing the initial conditions at $`t=t_{\mathrm{in}}`$:

$$a_1(\eta )=\frac{4\pi Ga_{}}{\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }\left[\mathrm{cos}^3\eta _{\mathrm{in}}+\left(\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cos}2\eta \mathrm{cos}^2\eta _{\mathrm{in}}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{cos}2\eta _{\mathrm{in}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\eta \right].$$
(35)
Once the scale factor correction $`a_1`$ is known, the corresponding density correction $`\rho _1`$ follows from Eq. (31).

From Eq. (35) it is apparent that the relative correction $`\zeta a_1`$ to the scale factor is of order $`4\pi G\zeta a_{}`$ or, in dimensional units, $`4\pi G\zeta a_{}/c^3`$. We here note that $`4\pi G\zeta /c^2=1/(3t_c)`$, thus about $`6.5\times 10^{30}\mathrm{s}^1`$ according to Eq. (20), which in dimensional form reads $`t_c^1=12\pi G\zeta /c^2`$. The quantity $`a_{}`$, according to Eq. (29), is the maximum value of the scale factor in a nonviscous $`k=1`$ theory. Let us put $`a_{}`$ equal to the commonly accepted value of the radius of the universe, i.e., $`a_{}=10^{28}`$ cm. Then we obtain $`4\pi G\zeta a_{}/c^3=2\times 10^{12}`$. The relative correction to the scale factor is thus in this case very small. Physically, this is due to the fact that we are considering an instant relatively late in the history of the universe. If the bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$ were higher at earlier times, or, if there were an anisotropic stage present in the early universe at which the enormously higher shear viscosity would come into play , then the effect would be significantly enhanced.

Acknowledgment

I thank professor Sergei Odintsov for valuable correspondence.


text:
# Strangeness production in a constituent quark model

## I The Statistical Model of Hadronisation (SHM) and the Wroblewski factor $`\lambda _S`$

A statistical calculation of hadron multiplicities in high energy collisions has been developed in ref. . The SHM relies on the assumption of equiprobability of multi-hadronic states originating from hadronising clusters, entailing that particle production in hadronisation of both elementary (EC) and heavy ion (HIC) collisions can be treated as an equilibrium process. The main advantage of the model is the low number of free parameters necessary to reproduce the observed hadron multiplicities. These are: the total volume $`V`$ of the set of clusters, temperature $`T`$, and a phenomenological parameter $`\gamma _S`$ reducing the production of strange particles with respect to a fully chemically equilibrated hadron gas. The exact conservation of initial electric, baryon and strange total quantum charges is enforced in the model. However, when dealing with HIC, the conservation of the initial baryon number can be imposed only on the average and the baryon chemical potential $`\mu _B`$ has to be introduced. A remarkable outcome of the SHM is that the temperature fitted in any EC is almost constant ($`T160`$ MeV), and very close to that obtained in HIC with small fitted $`\mu _B`$. Furthermore, for different HIC, to an increase of the fitted value of $`\mu _B`$ corresponds a decrease of the value of $`T`$.

An interesting insight in strangeness production is obtained when studying the so-called Wroblewski factor, the ratio between newly produced valence strange and light quark pairs $`\lambda _S=2s\overline{s}/(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})`$, which is fairly constant in several EC, with $`\sqrt{s}`$ spanning two orders of magnitude, whereas it is significantly higher and more variable in HIC  (see Fig. 1).

The peculiar behaviour of $`\lambda _S`$, together with the apparent universality of the scale of temperature fitted within EC, suggest to look for a more fundamental description of strangeness production, by employing effective models (EM) having quarks as fundamental degrees of freedom.

## II Connection with effective models

In using EM, the same physical scheme of the SHM is kept. However, we now assume the formation of a set of hadronising clusters endowed with given $`U,D,S`$ and color charges, in which every allowed quantum state is equally likely. The assumption of suitable maximum disorder fluctuations of cluster flavor charges is retained , which allows to impose exact flavor conservation over the total volume $`V`$. Further conjectures are introduced:

1. Temperature $`T`$ and baryon chemical potential $`\mu _B`$, fitted within the SHM, are interpreted as the critical values for deconfinement and (approximate) chiral symmetry restoration
2. The produced s quarks, or at least the ratio s/u, survive in the hadronic phase
3. Each single cluster is a color singlet

The first assumption is the strongest one, as it implies that hadronisation itself is assumed to be a critical process. The aforementioned constancy of fitted temperature for many collisions  and the consistency with other estimates, support this identification. Assumption (2) implies that full chemical equilibrium is assumed at constituent quark level. Thus, no parameter such as $`\gamma _S`$ is now required to account for strangeness production. Conversely, assumption (3) introduces a further parameter, a characteristic cluster size $`V_c`$ over which color is exactly conserved, which, together with the constancy of $`T`$ and a weak dependence of $`\lambda _S`$ itself on the total volume $`V`$, contributes in stabilizing $`\lambda _S`$ for EC. On the other hand, a large $`V_c`$ in HIC could be a signal for color deconfinement over large volumes.

The simplest effective model to start with is the thermal Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model . It cannot account for deconfinement but it does embody chiral symmetry breaking and its restoration ($`\chi `$SR), which is expected to occur at the same critical point . Although not renormalizable, the NJL model shares the main features with other effective models, referred in literature as ladder-QCD . Actually the phase diagram for $`\chi `$SR exhibits a tricritical point in the chiral limit, separating second order from first order phase transitions. We are interested to include the current quark masses, in which case a smooth cross-over transition is expected for the light quarks in the second order region (in which we are interested in the present work). This implies a quasi-critical behavior of the light quark condensates and a smooth decrease of the strange one for higher temperatures. The same happens to the constituent quark masses which are the physical quantities, together with the UV cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ , affecting the number of quarks (or antiquarks). Actually, the thermodynamics of the mean-field NJL model can be derived by a free Dirac Hamiltonian having constituent quark masses replacing the current ones. The dependence of quark multiplicities on $`V,V_c`$ emerges when requiring exact conservation of quantum flavor and color charges by restricting the partition function to the allowed set of multi-particle states. This is accomplished by means of standard methods  and implies a five-dimensional integration over the group $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_u\times U(1)_d\times U(1)_s`$. Calculations are shown in detail in ref. .

## III Results

### III.1 Heavy Ions

For HIC , the fitted total volumes  are large enough to disregard the fluctuations of flavor quantum numbers. Then, if $`V_c`$ is large enough, it can be explicitly checked that a grand-canonical calculation of quark multiplicities is reliable. This implies that $`\lambda _S`$ can be obtained by the simple grand-canonical formula for a gas of free constituent quarks with an UV cutoff limiting the momentum integration , and it is independent on $`V,V_c`$. Temperature $`T`$ and chemical potentials $`\mu _i`$ are taken coincident with those fitted within the SHM. A first comparison with the SHM predictions can be performed by considering the values of the constituent quark masses $`M_i`$ for the strange quark ($`\mu _s=0`$) and for a light quark $`q`$ $`(\mu _q\mu _B/3`$) with mass $`\widehat{m}=(m_u+m_d)/2`$, as free parameters to be determined imposing the SHM value of $`\lambda _S`$ for a given process. A more complete analysis can be obtained by using the thermal NJL model in a predictive way. The coincidence of the cross-over point with the best fit of the SHM is possible by tuning the parameter $`T_0`$, defined in ref. , which controls the strength of the six-fermion term and which physically represents the critical temperature for $`U(1)_A`$ restoration. Then the cross-over line, obtained by studying the chiral light quark susceptibility can be compared with the fitted values of $`T`$ and $`\mu _B`$ in the SHM, as well as $`\lambda _S`$ along the critical line. In this case the constituent masses $`M_i(T,\mu _i)`$ are predicted by minimizing the NJL grand canonical potential. A good agreement is found with $`T_0=`$170 MeV for various HIC.

However, as it turns out that $`M_s`$ is almost independent on the choice of $`T_0`$, the model needs the specification of only one parameter, either $`T_0`$ or $`M_q`$. This is shown in Fig. 2, which shows, on the other hand, that under the reasonable assumption that the light quark constituent mass has sensibly decreased at the cross-over point, the agreement with the SHM is guaranteed by $`M_s(T=0)500`$ MeV. The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ serves to show that the UV contribution is not expected to change this picture, even if the analysis in renormalizable models such as ladder-QCD  is necessary.

### III.2 Elementary Collisions

The location of the cross-over point for EC, $`T160`$ MeV ($`\mu _B=0`$), as well as $`M_i`$, are obtained in the predictive NJL model with $`T_0=170`$ MeV in the infinite volume limit. Consequently, quark multiplicities depend on the volume only through the explicit dependence of the canonical partition function on $`V,V_c`$ . This approximation already allows us to observe canonical suppression. We find consistency with our physical picture, as far as processes with zero initial electric charge are concerned, whereas for pp collisions the Pauli exclusion principle and canonical suppression balance each other and $`\lambda _S`$ remains constant around $`0.3`$. In Fig. 3 we plot the predictions of the model compared to the SHM expectations for e<sup>+</sup>e$`^{}`$collisions.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied strangeness production within a statistical model of hadronisation by using an effective model with constituent quarks. The study supports the idea that the SHM analysis may help in effective models building for the QCD phase transition, whereas EM may give a natural explanation of strangeness suppression in EC, assuming full chemical equilibrium, as due to the absence of baryon chemical potential and to canonical suppression working in small volumes. A significative discrepancy is found only in pp collisions, where further analysis is required.