text:
# The Gravitational Radiation degrees of freedom in Hyperbolic Systems for Numerical Relativity

## I Introduction

The structure of Einstein field equations has deserved great interest since the very beginning of General Relativity. It was early noticed that, by rearranging the order or partial derivatives, the principal part of the four dimensional Ricci tensor could be written as a sort of generalized wave equation

$$2R_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{}g_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu +_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu +\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where the box stands for the d’Alembert operator acting on functions and we have written for short

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu g^{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\rho \sigma }{}^{}=\mathrm{}x^\mu .$$
(2)
This opened the way to the use of harmonic spacetime coordinates ($`\mathrm{}x^\mu =0`$) in order to obtain an hyperbolic evolution system .

By the middle of the past century, however, the interest focused in the relativistic Cauchy problem. The 3+1 decomposition of the line element:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2dt^2`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\gamma _{ij}(dx^i+\beta ^idt)(dx^j+\beta ^jdt)i,j=1,2,3`$ (4)
allowed one to express six of the ten second order original equations as a system of evolution equations for the metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ij}`$ of the $`t=constant`$ slices, namely:

$`(_t_\beta )\gamma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha K_{ij}`$ (5)
$`(_t_\beta )K_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_i\alpha _j+\alpha [{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}2K_{ij}^2+trKK_{ij}]`$ (6)
where $``$ stands for the Lie derivative (we restrict ourselves to the vacuum case for simplicity). The remaining four equations could instead be expressed as constraints:

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}Rtr(K^2)+(trK)^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (7)
$`_kK_{}^{k}{}_{i}{}^{}_i(trK)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (8)
This opened the door to a new way of obtaining hyperbolic evolution systems . The key point was to use in one or another way the momentum constraint (8) to ensure hyperbolicity while keeping the freedom of choosing arbitrary space coordinates on every $`t=constant`$ slice. This allows for instance to use normal coordinates ($`\beta ^i=0`$) without affecting the mathematical structure of the evolution system.(See Ref.  for a detailed comparison of the ”old” and ”new” hyperbolic systems).

These findings came at the right moment for people working on Numerical Relativity with a view on the gravitational waves detector projects starting by the turn of the century. Following the wake of these first works, many groups found their own way of combining the momentum constraint with the evolution equation (6), leading in each case to a new brand of hyperbolic systems .

Suddenly, the problem of having too few hyperbolic formalisms for Numerical Relativity turned into the opposite problem of having too many of them. Some of the works considered even multiparameter families of hyperbolic systems . Faced with the problem of choice, we think that the right question at this point is: what are hyperbolic systems for?

There are many answers, of course, but we can get a hint when we realise that hyperbolic systems basically describe propagation phenomena along characteristic lines. This sets up the question of whether we can use these formalisms in the context of gravitational wave propagation. The 3+1 formalism does not seem at first sight very useful in that context, because it describes spacetime as a foliation of $`t=constant`$ hypersurfaces. Then, the natural structure associated with gravitational waves in that formalism is not the light cone itself, but the two-dimensional surfaces (wavefronts) obtained as the intersection of the light cone with the $`t=constant`$ hypersurfaces. The geometry of wavefronts will be discussed in Section II. The second difficulty arises from the fact that, because of the constraint equations (7, 8), only two degrees of freedom correspond to gravitational radiation in spite of the complete (strong) hyperbolicity of the formalisms. This point can be easily illustrated by looking at the list of characteristic speeds given in the KST paper  namely {$`0,\pm 1,\pm c_1,\pm c_2,\pm c_3`$} where $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ depend of a list of arbitrary parameters related with the gauge choice ($`c_1`$) and with the way in which the constraints are used to enforce hyperbolicity. It is clear that the degrees of freedom propagating with speed $`0`$, $`\pm c_1`$, $`\pm c_2`$ or $`\pm c_3`$ can not describe gravitational radiation, which we know that propagates at light speed ($`v=\pm 1`$), independently of how we manage to write down our equations. The two remaining degrees of freedom, as expected, are related with transverse traceless components of the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ij}`$. We will analyse more closely these eigenfields in Section III.

## II Light cones and wavefronts

Let us consider the propagation of a burst of gravitational waves. From the geometrical point of view, it can be described as a foliation of spacetime by a set of null hypersurfaces (light cones), namely

$`\varphi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`constant`$ (9)
$`d\varphi d\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
From every $`t=constant`$ hypersurface, the propagation is seen instead as a succession of wavefronts. It can be obtained by setting $`t=t_o`$ in (9) to obtain

$$\varphi (x,t_o)=constant$$
(11)
so that the null foliation (9) induces a spacelike foliation (11) by two-dimensional surfaces (wavefronts) on every $`t=constant`$ slice.

Let us consider now an adapted coordinate system on the $`t=t_o`$ slice so that the space unit normal $`n_k`$ to the wavefront (11) is given by

$$n_k=N\delta _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}$$
(12)
and the other two coordinates $`x^a`$ ($`a=1,2`$) display the wavefronts surface. The line element for the $`t=t_o`$ slice can then be written as (2+1 decomposition)

$`\gamma _{ij}`$ $`dx^i`$ $`dx^j=N^2dz^2`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\sigma _{ab}(dx^a+\lambda ^adz)(dx^b+\lambda ^bdz)a,b=1,2`$ (14)
where $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the induced metric on every wavefront surface, so that it describes the intrinsic geometry of the wavefronts.

The extrinsic geometry of the wavefront foliation (11) is in turn described by the second fundamental form $`\kappa _{ab}`$, namely

$$\kappa _{ab}=\frac{1}{2N}(_z_\lambda )\sigma _{ab}.$$
(15)
Both $`\sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\kappa _{ab}`$ are 2+1 tensors, in the sense that they transform in a covariant way under changes of coordinates of the form

$`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ $`=`$ $`f(z)`$ (16)
$`\stackrel{~}{x}^a`$ $`=`$ $`h^a(x,z)`$ (17)
which transform the wavefront foliation (11) into itself.

Notice that $`\sigma _{ab}`$, $`\kappa _{ab}`$ can be easily expressed in terms of the three-dimensional metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and the spacelike unit normal $`n_k`$, namely

$`\sigma _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{ab}`$ (18)
$`\kappa _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`n_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{}`$ stand for the Christoffel symbols of $`\gamma _{ij}`$.

## III Solving the ordering ambiguity

Let us come back now to the results of the KST paper . The principal part of the first order evolution systems presented there can be written in Flux-Conservative form for the array of variables $`u=\{\gamma _{ij},K_{ij},d_{kij}\}`$, namely

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }_tu+_kF^k(u)=\mathrm{}$$
(20)
so that propagation along the direction given by $`n_k`$ can be studied by solving the following characteristic eigenvalue problem

$$F^n(u)n_kF^k(u)=vu$$
(21)
From the transverse components $`K_{ab}`$, one has

$`F^n(K_{ab})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[d_{}^{n}{}_{ab}{}^{}(1+\zeta )d_{(ab)}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`m\gamma _{ab}(d_{}^{nk}{}_{k}{}^{}d_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{kn})]`$ (23)
so that the parameter $`m`$ (corresponding to $`\gamma `$ in ) does not contribute to the transverse traceless part. On the other hand, one has

$`F^n(d_{nab})`$ $`=`$ $`2K_{ab}\chi \gamma _{ab}(K^{nn}trK)`$ (24)
$`F^n(d_{abn})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\gamma _{ab}(K^{nn}trK)`$ (25)
so that it is clear again that the parameters $`\eta `$, $`\chi `$ do not contribute to the transverse traceless part.

This means that the traceless part of the combinations

$$K_{ab}\pm \frac{1}{2}[d_{}^{n}{}_{ab}{}^{}(1+\zeta )d_{(ab)}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}]$$
(26)
corresponds to eigenfields propagating with light speed ($`v=\pm 1`$, respectively). The parameter $`\zeta `$ appearing in (26) is related with the ordering ambiguity inherent to first order formalisms, where the space derivatives $`d_{kij}`$ are considered to be independent quantities, so that the identity

$$_{[r}d_{s]ij}=0$$
(27)
is not granted and must be considered as a supplementary constraint . The value $`\zeta =1`$ corresponds to a decomposition of the three-dimensional Ricci tensor of the form (1), which is closer to the wave equation. The value $`\zeta =+1`$ corresponds instead to the simpler decomposition

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}=_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{ij}{}^{}_{(i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{j)k}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{kr}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{r}{}_{ij}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{k}{}_{ri}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{r}{}_{kj}{}^{}$$
(28)
Notice that, allowing for (19), the combinations (26) in the $`\zeta =+1`$ case can be written as

$$K_{ab}\pm \kappa _{ab}$$
(29)
so that they have a geometrical meaning in terms of the extrinsic curvature of the $`t=constant`$ hypersurfaces and the wavefront foliation. For any other value of $`\zeta `$, however, the eigenfields described by the traceless part of (26) are not covariant under the coordinate transformations (16) and do not admit then any consistent, coordinate independent, physical interpretation. It follows that one can solve the ordering ambiguity for the derivatives in the principal part of the Ricci tensor by requiring that the eigenfields corresponding to the transverse traceless degrees of freedom do have a clear geometrical meaning in terms of the geometry of the $`t=constant`$ hypersurfaces and that of the wavefronts. This requirement amounts to select the particular value $`\zeta =+1`$, corresponding to the classical decomposition (28).

## IV Concluding remarks

The parameter dependence of the eigenfields (26) may seem surprising at the first sight, because these transverse traceless degrees of freedom are related with a real physical phenomenon (gravitational waves), which is independent on how we do actually decompose the Ricci tensor. This paradox can be solved by noticing that the Fluxes appear in the evolution equations (20) under a divergence operator; the parameter $`\zeta `$ appears when including the ”rotational” constraint (27), but all these terms just cancel under the divergence operator, so that all values of $`\zeta `$ are physically equivalent.

The special choice $`\zeta =+1`$ corresponds to the only case in which the Fluxes themselves inherit the covariance properties of the equations. We claim that this is an important feature, because then gravitational radiation features are explicitly inherited by the eigenfields of the system.

On the other hand, there are indications that $`\zeta =+1`$ may not be convenient from the Numerical Relativity point of view. Most of the formalisms that are being currently (and successfully) used to that end actually imply the opposite choice ($`\zeta =1`$). These include at least the Bona-Massó , Shibata-Nakamura , Baumgarte-Shapiro  and Anderson-York  formalisms. The reason may be that with the $`\zeta =1`$ choice the transverse traceless part of the evolution system looks like that of the wave equation, as pointed out in , which is known to admit a symmetric-hyperbolic form.

Symmetric hyperbolicity is a stronger requirement than just strong hyperbolicity in order to ensure existence, unicity and stability of the solutions arising from a given set of initial data (well posedness) . When the evolution system is just strongly hyperbolic, but not symmetric hyperbolic, then well posedness is not ensured for non-smooth data, like the ones arising in numerical experiments due to finite machine accuracy.

We actually have some preliminary evidence that the choice $`\zeta =+1`$ is prone to numerical instabilities. To confirm this, one must proceed to a systematic exploration of parameter space like the one presented in the KST paper  for the $`\zeta =1`$ case. There is also some theoretical evidence  that the choice $`\zeta =+1`$, when combined with conventional choices of the other parameters introduced in , does not lead to a symmetric hyperbolic system. This opens the way, from the theoretical point of view, to using the symmetric hyperbolicity requirement, in the $`\zeta =+1`$ case, to restrict the values of the other parameters, then reducing the volume of parameter space.

We are currently working along these lines, both from the theoretical and from the numerical point of view.

Acknowledgements: We thank Manuel Tiglio for helpful and stimulating discussions during his visit to Palma de Mallorca. This work has been supported by the EU Programme ’Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base’ (Research Training Network Contract (HPRN-CT-2000-00137), by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia through the research grant number BFM2001-0988 and by a grant from the Conselleria d’Innovacio i Energia of the Govern de les Illes Balears.


format: text

text:
# Using Entropy to Discriminate Annihilation Channels in Neutralinos Making up Galactic Halos

## I Introduction

There are strong theoretical arguments favoring lightest supersymmetric particles (LSP) as making up the relic gas that forms the halos of actual galactic structures. Assuming that R parity is conserved and that the LSP is stable, it might be an ideal candidate for cold dark matter (CDM), provided it is neutral and has no strong interactions. The most favored scenario Ellis ; Report ; Torrente ; Roszkowski ; Fornengo ; Ellis2  considers the LSP to be the lightest neutralino ($`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$), a mixture of supersymmetric partners of the photon, $`Z`$ boson and neutral Higgs boson Report . Since neutralinos must have decoupled once they were non-relativistic, it is reasonable to assume that they constituted originally a Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) gas in thermal equilibrium with other components of the primordial cosmic plasma. In the present cosmic era, such a gas is practically collision–less and is either virialized in galactic and galactic cluster halos, in the process of virialization or still in the linear regime for superclusters and structures near the scale of homogeneityKoTu ; Padma1 ; Peac .

Besides the constraint due to their present abundance as main constituents of cosmic dark matter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}0.3`$), it is still uncertain which type of annihilation cross section characterizes these neutralinos. In this paper we present a method that discriminates between different cross sections, based on demanding that (besides yielding the correct abundance) a theoretically estimated entropy per particle matches an empiric estimate of the same entropy, both constructed for actual galactic dark halo structures. The application of this “entropy consistency” criterion is straightforward because entropy is a state variable that can be evaluated at equilibrium states, irrespective of how enormously complicated the evolution between each such state might have been. In this context, the two fiducial equilibrium states of the neutralino gas are (to a good approximation) the decoupling (or “freeze out”) epoque and their present state as a virialized relic gas. Considering simplified forms of annihilation cross sections, the joint application of the abundance and entropy–consistency criteria favors the neutralinos as mainly “B–inos” over neutralinos as mainly “higgsinos”. These results are consistent with the theoretical analysis of the HEAT experiment HEAT-TH ; HEAT1 ; HEAT2  which aims at relating the observed positron excess in cosmic rays with a possible weak interaction between neutralinos and nucleons in galactic halos.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe the thermodynamics of the neutralino gas as it decouples. The microcanonical ensemble entropy is applied in section 3 to the post–decoupling neutralino gas to estimate the change in entropy between freeze out and present day conditions, leading to a suitable theoretical estimate of the entropy per particle. In section 4 we obtain an empirical estimate of this entropy based on actual halo variables, while in section 5 we examine the consequences of demanding that these two entropies coincide. We summarize our results in section 6.

## II The Neutralino Gas

Before the freeze out, the neutralinos satisfy the thermal equation of state of a non-relativistic MB gas KoTu ; Padma1 ; Peac

$`\rho =`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2x}}\right),p={\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}}{x}},`$ (1)
$`x`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}}{T}},`$ (2)
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}`$ and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}`$ are the neutralino mass and number density. Since we will deal exclusively with the lightest neutralino, we will omit henceforth the subscript $`_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}`$, understanding that all usage of the term “neutralino” and all symbols of physical and observational variables (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0,m,\rho ,n,`$ etc.) will correspond to this specific particle. As long as the neutralino gas is in thermal equilibrium, we have

$`nn^{\text{(eq)}}=`$ $`g\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\right]^3x^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(x\right),`$ (3)
where $`g=2`$ is the degeneracy factor of the neutralino species. The number density $`n`$ satisfies the Boltzmann equation Report ; KoTu

$`\dot{n}+3Hn=\sigma |\text{v}|\left[n^2\left(n^{\text{(eq)}}\right)^2\right],`$ (4)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble expansion factor and $`\sigma |\text{v}|`$ is the annihilation cross section. Since the neutralino is non-relativistic as annihilation reactions “freeze out” and it decouples from the radiation dominated cosmic plasma, we can assume for $`H`$ and $`\sigma |\text{v}|`$ the following forms

$`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{m_p}},`$ (5)
$`\sigma |\text{v}|=a+b\text{v}^2,`$ (6)
where $`m_p=1.22\times 10^{19}`$ GeV is Planck’s mass, $`g_{}=g_{}(T)`$ is the sum of relativistic degrees of freedom, $`\text{v}^2`$ is the thermal averaging of the center of mass velocity (roughly $`\text{v}^21/x`$ in non-relativistic conditions) and the constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ are determined by the parameters characterizing specific annihilation processes of the neutralino (s-wave or p-wave) Report . The decoupling of the neutralino gas follows from the condition

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }n\sigma |\text{v}|=H,`$ (7)
leading to the freeze out temperature $`T_\text{f}`$. Reasonable approximated solutions of (7) follow by solving for $`x_f`$ the implicit relation Report

$`x_\text{f}=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{0.0764m_pc_0(2+c_0)(a+6b/x_\text{f})m}{(g_\text{f}x_\text{f})^{1/2}}}\right],`$ (8)
where $`g_\text{f}=g_{}(T_\text{f})`$ and $`c_01/2`$ yields the best fit to the numerical solution of (4) and (7). From the asymptotic solution of (4) we obtain the present abundance of the relic neutralino gas Report

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2=`$ $`Y_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮_0m}{\rho _{\text{crit}}/h^2}}2.82\times 10^8Y_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}},`$ (9)
where

$`Y_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_0}{𝒮_0}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[0.264g_\text{f}^{1/2}m_pm\left\{a/x_\text{f}+3(b1/4a)/x_\text{f}^2\right\}\right]^1,`$
and $`𝒮_04000\text{cm}^3`$ is the present radiation entropy density (CMB plus neutrinos), $`\rho _{\text{crit}}=1.05\times 10^5\text{GeV}\text{cm}^3`$.

Since neutralino masses are expected to be in the range of tens to hundreds of GeV’s and typically we have $`x_\text{f}20`$ so that $`T_\text{f}>`$ GeV, we can use $`g_\text{f}80`$ Report  in equations (8) – (LABEL:eqYinf). Equation (8) shows how $`x_\text{f}`$ has a logarithmic dependence on $`m`$, while theoretical considerations Ellis ; Report ; Torrente ; Roszkowski ; Fornengo ; Ellis2  related to the minimal supersymetric extensions of the Standard Model (MSSM) yield specific forms for $`a`$ and $`b`$ that also depend on $`m`$. Inserting into (9)–(LABEL:eqYinf) the specific forms of $`a`$ and $`b`$ for each annihilation channel leads to a specific range of $`m`$ that satisfies the “abundance” criterion based on current observational constraints that require $`0.2<\mathrm{\Omega }_0<0.4`$ and $`h0.65`$ Peac .

Suitable forms for $`\sigma |v|`$ can be obtained for all types of annihilation reactions Report . If the neutralino is mainly pure B-ino, it will mostly annihilate into lepton pairs through t-channel exchange of right-handed sleptons. In this case the cross section is p-wave dominated and can be approximated by (6) with Torrente ; Moroi ; Olive

$`a0,b{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi \alpha _1^2}{m^2\left[1+m_l^2/m^2\right]^2}},`$ (11)
where $`m_l`$ is the mass of the right-handed slepton ($`m_lm`$ Torrente ) and $`\alpha _1=g_1^2/4\pi 0.01`$ is the fine structure coupling constant for the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge interaction. If the neutralino is Higgsino-like, annihilating into W-boson pairs, then the cross section is s-wave dominated and can be approximated by (6) with Torrente ; Moroi ; Olive

$`b0,a{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha _2^2(1m_W^2/m^2)^{3/2}}{2m^2(2m__W^2/m^2)^2}},`$ (12)
where $`m__W=80.44`$ GeV is the mass of the W-boson and $`\alpha _2=g_2^2/4\pi 0.03`$ is the fine structure coupling constant for the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge interaction.

In the freeze out era the entropy per particle (in units of the Boltzmann constant $`k__B`$) for the neutralino gas is given by KoTu ; Peac ; Padma1

$`s_\text{f}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{nT}}\right]_\text{f}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+x_\text{f},`$ (13)
where we have assumed that chemical potential is negligible and have used the equation of state (1). From (8) and (13), it is evident that the dependence of $`s_\text{f}`$ on $`m`$ will be determined by the specific details of the annihilation processes through the forms of $`a`$ and $`b`$. In particular, we will use (11) and (12) to compute $`s_\text{f}`$ from (8)-(13).

## III The Microcanonical Entropy

After the freeze out era, particle numbers are conserved and the neutralinos constitute a weakly interacting and practically collision–less and self–gravitating gas. This gas is only gravitationally coupled to all other components of the cosmic fluid. As it expands, it experiences free streaming and eventually undergoes gravitational clustering forming stable bound virialized structures Peac ; Padma1 ; Padma2 ; Padma3 . The evolution between a spectrum of density perturbations at the freeze out and the final virialized structures is extremely complex, involving a variety of dissipative effects characterized by collisional and collision–less relaxation processes Padma2 ; Padma3 ; HD . However, the freeze out and present day virialized structures roughly correspond to “initial” and “final” equilibrium states of this gas. Therefore, instead of dealing with the enormous complexity of the details of the intermediary processes, we will deal only with quantities defined in these states with the help of simplifying but general physical assumptions.

While the assumption of an ideal (thermodynamical) gas complying with Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics is justified before the freeze out (because the collision–dominated interactions are short–ranged), this type of thermodynamical formalism, associated with extensive entropy and energy and with a well defined thermodynamical limit, cannot be applied to present day collision–less neutralinos subject to a long–range gravitational interaction Padma2 ; Padma3 . In these conditions, the appropriate approach follows from the microcanonical ensemble in the “mean field” approximation that yields an entropy definition that is well defined for a self–gravitating gas in an intermediate scale, between the short range and long range regimes of the gravitational potential. This intermediate scale can be associated with a region that is “sufficiently large as to contain a large number of particles but small enough for the gravitational potential to be treated as a constant” Padma2 . Considering the neutralino gas in present day virialized halo structures as a diluted, non-relativistic (nearly) ideal gas of weakly interacting particles, its microcanonical entropy per particle under these conditions can be given in terms of the volume of phase space Padma3

$`s=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2mE)^{3/2}V}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}}\right],`$ (14)
where $`V`$ and $`E`$ are local average values of volume and energy associated with the intermediate scale. For non-relativistic velocities $`v/c1`$, we have $`V1/nm/\rho `$ and $`Emv^2/2m/x`$. In fact, since the microcanonical description is more fundamental, definition (14), evaluated at the freeze out, is consistent with (3) and (13), and so it is also valid immediately after the freeze out era (once particle numbers are conserved). Since (14) is valid at both the initial and final states, respectively corresponding to the freeze out ($`s_\text{f},x_\text{f},n_\text{f}`$) and to the values associated with a suitable halo structure ($`s^{\text{(h)}},x^{\text{(h)}},n^{\text{(h)}}`$), the change in entropy per particle that follows from (14) between these two states is given by

$`s^{\text{(h)}}s_\text{f}=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{n_\text{f}}{n^{\text{(h)}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x_\text{f}}{x^{\text{(h)}}}}\right)^{3/2}\right],`$ (15)
where (13) can be used to eliminate $`s_\text{f}`$ in terms of $`x_\text{f}`$. Considering present day halo structures as roughly spherical, inhomogeneous and self-gravitating gaseous systems, it is safe to assume that near the symmetry center the spacial gradients of all macroscopic quantities are negligible HG ; IS2 . Even if one assumes a “cuspy” density profile, as predicted by numerical simulations, the gravitational potential of the halo can be considered to be practically constant within any typical region of up to $`10\text{pc}^3`$ within the halo core (a scale that is smaller than the resolution scale of these simulations NSres ). Since such a typical region fits reasonably well the conditions associated with the intermediate scale of the microcanonical description, we will consider current halo macroscopic variables as evaluated near the center of the halo: $`s_c^{\text{(h)}},x_c^{\text{(h)}},n_c^{\text{(h)}}`$.

In order to obtain a convenient theoretical estimate of $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$ from (15), we need to relate $`n_\text{f}`$ with present day cosmological parameters like $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`h`$. Bearing in mind that density perturbations at the freeze out era were very small ($`\delta n_\text{f}/n_\text{f}<10^4`$, KoTu ; Padma1 ; Peac ), the density $`n_\text{f}`$ is practically homogeneous and so we can estimate it from the conservation of particle numbers: $`n_\text{f}=n_0(1+z_\text{f})^3`$, and of photon entropy: $`g_\text{f}𝒮_\text{f}=g_0𝒮_0(1+z_\text{f})^3`$, valid from the freeze out era to the present for the unperturbed homogeneous background. Eliminating $`(1+z_\text{f})^3`$ from these conservation laws yields

$`n_\text{f}=n_0{\displaystyle \frac{g_\text{f}}{g_0}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T_\text{f}}{T_0^{\text{CMB}}}}\right]^320.46n_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_0^{\text{CMB}}}{x_\text{f}}}\right]^3,`$ (16)
$`\text{where}x_0^{\text{CMB}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{T_0^{\text{CMB}}}}=4.29\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{12}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}`$
and $`g_0=g_{}(T_0^{\text{CMB}})3.91`$ and $`T_0^{\text{CMB}}=2.7\text{K}`$. Since for present day conditions $`n_0/n_c^{\text{(h)}}=\rho _0/\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}`$ and $`\rho _0=\rho _{\text{crit}}\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2`$, we collect the results from (16) and write (15) as

$`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{th}}}=x_\text{f}+92.78+\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{(x_\text{f}x_c^{\text{(h)}})^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\text{crit}}}{\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right]`$
$`=x_\text{f}+81.31+\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{(x_\text{f}x_c^{\text{(h)}})^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{GeV/cm}^3}{\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right]`$
(17)
Therefore, given $`m`$ and a specific form of $`\sigma |\text{v}|`$ associated with $`a`$ and $`b`$, equation (17) provides a theoretical estimate of the entropy per particle of the neutralino halo gas that depends on the initial state given by $`x_\text{f}`$ in (8) and (13), on observable cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0,h`$ and on generic state variables associated to the halo structure.

## IV Theoretical vs. Empirical Entropies

If the neutralino gas in present halo structures would strictly satisfy MB statistics, the entropy per particle, $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$, in terms of $`\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}=mn_c^{\text{(h)}}`$ and $`x_c^{\text{(h)}}=mc^2/(k__BT_c^{\text{(h)}})`$, would follow from the well known Sackur–Tetrode entropy formula Pathria

$`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{MB}}}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^4c^3}{\mathrm{}^3(2\pi x_c^{\text{(h)}})^{3/2}\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right]`$
$`=94.42+\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{GeV/cm}^3}{\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right].`$
(18)
Such a MB gas in equilibrium is equivalent to an isothermal halo if we identify BT

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{x^{\text{(h)}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{k__BT^{\text{(h)}}}{m}}=\sigma _{\text{(h)}}^2,`$ (19)
where $`\sigma _{\text{(h)}}^2`$ is the velocity dispersion (a constant for isothermal halos). However, as mentioned before, the assumption of MB statistics, in which entropy and energy are extensive quantities, does not apply for self–gravitating colissionless gases. Hence, an exactly isothermal halo is not a realistic model, not only because of these theoretical arguments, but also because its total mass diverges and its distribution function allows for infinite particle velocities (theoretically accessible in the velocity range of the MB distribution). Therefore, this case will not be considered any further.

More realistic halo models follow from “energy truncated” (ET) distribution functions Padma3 ; BT ; Katz1 ; Katz2 ; MPV  that assume a maximal “cut off” velocity (an escape velocity). Therefore, we can provide a convenient empirical estimate of the halo entropy, $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$, from the microcanonical entropy definition (14) in terms of phase space volume, but restricting this volume to the actual range of velocities (i.e. momenta) accessible to the central particles, that is up to a maximal escape velocity $`v_e(0)`$. It is reasonable to assume a relation of the form

$`v_e^2(0)=2|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)|\alpha \sigma _{\text{(h)}}^2(0),`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ is the newtonian gravitational potential. With the help of (20) we have then

$`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{em}}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^4v_e^3}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`89.17+\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{x_c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right)^{3/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{GeV/cm}^3}{\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}}}\right],`$
where we used $`x_c^{\text{(h)}}=c^2/\sigma _{\text{(h)}}^2(0)`$ as in (19). As expected, the scalings of (LABEL:SHALO) are identical to those of (18).

In order to provide a numerical estimate for $`\alpha `$, we remark that by a suitable choice of a core radius and a total radius, $`R_{\text{core}}`$ and $`R_{\text{tot}}`$, any realistic halo model can be accommodated to a generic galactic halo density profile consisting of a region of constant density $`0<r<R_{\text{core}}`$, joined continuously to an outer region $`R_{\text{core}}<r<R_{\text{tot}}`$ in which $`\rho `$ decays as $`r^2`$ and goes to zero for $`r>R_{\text{tot}}`$. If we further assume a velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\text{(h)}}^2(0)2v_{\text{rot}}^2`$, where $`v_{\text{rot}}`$ is the maximal observed rotation velocity, the parameter $`\alpha `$ defined in (20) will be given by:

$$\alpha 2+4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R_{\text{tot}}}{R_{\text{core}}}\right)$$
(22)
From this estimation, the minimum value of $`\alpha `$ occurs for the combination of large $`R_{\text{core}}`$ and small $`R_{\text{tot}}`$, with extreme values given (for a large spiral galaxy) by $`10`$ kpc and $`100`$ kpc, respectively. Conversely, the maximum value of $`\alpha `$ corresponds to small $`R_{\text{core}}`$ and large $`R_{\text{tot}}`$, with extreme values safely estimated as $`1`$ kpc and $`300`$ kpc, respectively. Considering these extreme values, we obtain the uncertainty range

$$11.2\alpha 24.8.$$
(23)
Values of $`\alpha `$ outside these bounds are unrealistic alpha1 ; alpha2 ; alpha3 , an assertion that can be also based on theoretical studies of dynamical and thermodynamical stability associated with ET distribution functions Katz1 ; Katz2 ; cohn ; MPV ; HM ; GZ ; RST  and on observational data for normal spiral and LSB galaxies as well as galaxy clusters young ; DBM ; HG ; FDCHA1 ; FDCHA2 . In any case, it must be noted that $`\alpha `$ is an integral feature of the halo, highly insensitive to the differential details of the density profile.

## V Testing the Entropy Consistent Criterion

The expressions for $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$ obtained from (17) and (LABEL:SHALO) are not very useful, since they depend on dynamic halo variables, such as $`\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}`$ and $`x_c^{\text{(h)}}`$, whose values depend on specific galactic systems and are subject to possibly large uncertainties. However, since both entropy estimates (17) and (LABEL:SHALO) must correspond to the same quantity, $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$, the comparison of these independent estimates leads to the following constraint

$`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{th}}}`$ $`=s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{em}}}`$
$`x_\text{f}`$ $`=7.85+\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha x_\text{f})^{3/2}}{h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\text{GeV}}}\right].`$ (24)
which does not depend on halo variables other than $`\alpha `$, hence eliminating the effects of potentially large uncertainties in the estimation of these quantities. In fact, the constraint (24) can be interpreted as the constraint on $`s_\text{f}=5/2+x_\text{f}`$ that follows from the condition $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{th}}}=s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{em}}}`$. Since we can use (9) and (LABEL:eqYinf) to eliminate $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the constraint (24) becomes a relation involving only $`x_\text{f},m,a,b,\alpha `$. This constraint is independent of (8), which is another (independent) expression for $`s_\text{f}=5/2+x_\text{f}`$, but an expression that follows only from the neutralino annihilation processes. Therefore, the comparison between $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{th}}}`$ and $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{em}}}`$, leading to a comparison of two independent expressions for $`s_\text{f}`$, is not trivial but leads to an “entropy consistency” criterion that can be tested on suitable desired values of $`m,a,b,\alpha `$. This implies that a given dark matter particle candidate, characterized by $`m`$ and by specific annihilation channels given by $`x_\text{f}`$ through (8), will pass or fail to pass this consistency test independently of the details one assumes regarding the present day dark halo structure. This is so, whether we conduct the consistency test by comparing (8) and (24) or (17) and (LABEL:SHALO). Since the matching of either (8) and (24) or (17) and (LABEL:SHALO) shows a weak logarithmic dependence on $`m`$, the fulfillment of the “entropy consistency” criterion identifies a specific mass range for each dark matter particle. This allows us to discriminate, in favor or against, suggested dark matter particle candidates and/or annihilation channels by verifying if the standard abundance criterion (9) is simultaneously satisfied for this range of masses.

Since we can write (24) as:

$`\mathrm{ln}(h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0)=7.85x_\text{f}+\mathrm{ln}\left[(\alpha x_\text{f})^{3/2}m\right],`$ (25)
this constraint becomes a new estimate of the cosmological parameters $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, given in terms of a structural parameter of galactic dark matter halos, $`\alpha `$, the mass of the neutralino, $`m`$, and the temperature of the neutralino gas at freeze out, $`x_\text{f}`$. This last quantity depends explicitly not only on $`m`$, but also on its interaction cross section, and hence on the details of its phenomenological physics through (8). Notice that in reaching (25) we have used (14) twice, both in estimating the change in entropy in going from the freeze out condition to the present virialized halo, and in obtaining the actual empirical entropy in present day halos. However, in these two instances, (14) was expressed in terms of two different sets of variables, involving $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`h`$ in the former case (through the calculation of (16) and (17)), and containing only halo parameters in the latter. In this way, equating the two expressions for the same quantity yields a constraint between the two sets of variables: equation (25).

At this point we consider values for the constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ that define the interaction cross section of the neutralino, and use (25) to plot $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ as a function of $`m`$ in GeV’s. Using $`h=0.65`$ and given the uncertainty range of $`\alpha `$ in (23), we will obtain not a curve, but a region in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0m`$ plane. Considering first condition (12), corresponding to Higgsino–like neutralinos, leads to the shaded region in figure 1a. On this figure we have also plotted the relation which the abundance criterion (9) yields on this same plane. It is evident that within the observationally determined range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (the horizontal dashed lines 0.2-0.4), there is no intersection between the shaded region and the abundance criterion curve. This implies that both criteria are mutually inconsistent, thus the possibility that Higgsino-like neutralinos make up both the cosmological dark matter and galactic dark matter can be ruled out.

Repeating the same procedure for mainly B–ino neutralinos, (11) yields figure 1b. In this case, we can see that the abundance criterion curve falls well within the shaded region defined by the entropy criterion. Although we can not improve on the mass estimate provided by the abundance criterion alone, the consistency of both criteria reveals the B-ino neutralino as a viable option for both the cosmological and the galactic dark matter.

As noted above, the results of figures 1a and 1b are totally insensitive to the values of halo variables, $`x_c^{\text{(h)}}`$ and $`\rho _c^{\text{(h)}}`$, used in evaluating (LABEL:SHALO) and (17). Different values of these variables (say, for different halo structures) would only result in larger or smaller actual values of $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}`$ for each halo structure (subject to potentially large uncertainties). Therefore, our results are not only insensitive to these uncertainties, but are also scale–invariant.

## VI Conclusions

We have presented a robust consistency criterion that can be verified for any annihilation channel of a given dark matter candidate proposed as the constituent particle of the present galactic dark matter halos. Since we require that the empirical estimate $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{em}}}`$ of present dark matter haloes must match the theoretical value $`s_c^{\text{(h)}}|_{_{\text{th}}}`$, derived from the microcanonical definition and from freeze out conditions for the candidate particle, the criterion is of a very general applicability, as it is largely insensitive to the details of the extremely complicated evolution of the neutralino gas from its freeze out era (hence, it is also insensitive to the structure formation scenario that might be assumed). Further, the details of the present day halo structure enter only through an integral feature of the dark halos, the central escape velocity, thus our results are also insensitive to the fine details concerning the central density and the various models describing the structure of dark matter halos. A crucial feature of this criterion is its direct dependence on the physical details (i.e. annihilation channels and mass) of any particle candidate.

Recent theoretical work by E. A. Baltz et al. HEAT-TH  confirmed that neutralino annihilation in the galactic halo can produce enough positrons to make up for the excess of cosmic ray positrons experimentally detected by the HEAT collaboration HEAT1 ; HEAT2 . Baltz et al. concluded that for a boost factor $`B_s30`$ the neutralinos must be primarily B-inos with mass around 160 GeV. For a boost factor $`30<B_s<100`$, the gaugino–dominated SUSY models complying with all constraints yield neutralino masses in the range of $`150\text{GeV}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_0^1}<400\text{GeV}`$. On the other hand, Higgsino dominated neutralinos are possible but only for $`B_s1000`$ with masses larger than 2 TeV. However, our results show this second option to be unlikely and are in agreement with the predictions that follow from HEAT-TH , as we obtain roughly the same mass range for the B-ino dominated case (see figure 1b) and the Higgsino channel is shown to be less favored in the mass range lower than TeV’s.

We have examined the specific case of the lightest neutralino for the mostly B-ino and mostly Higgsino channels. The joint application of the “entropy consistency” and the usual abundance criteria clearly shows that the B-ino channel is favored over the Higgsino. This result can be helpful in enhancing the study of the parameter space of annihilation channels of LSP’s in MSSM models, as the latter only use equations (8) and (9)–(LABEL:eqYinf) in order to find out which parameters yield relic gas abundances that are compatible with observational constraints Ellis ; Report ; Torrente ; Roszkowski ; Fornengo ; Ellis2 . However, equations (8) and (9)–(LABEL:eqYinf) by themselves are insufficient to discriminate between annihilation channels. A more efficient study of the parameter space of MSSM can be achieved by the joint usage of the two criteria, for example, by considering more general cross section terms (see for example Report ) than the simplified approximated forms (11) and (12). This work is currently in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by DGAPA–UNAM grant No. 109001 and CONACYT grants 137307–E and 139181–E.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It was pointed out some three decades ago  that the currently and continually popular “ tower graph ” eikonal scattering model  contains within it a pair of fundamental omissions, which can be simply characterized as (i) the absence of all but leading–logarithm (LL) graphs (that is, only the leading $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$ dependence of each perturbative, “ ladder graph ” order is retained, where $`s`$ is the total center–of–mass energy square, and $`m`$ is a convenient scale setting mass); and (ii) all of the contributions of the many, many other, non tower graphs are neglected. These approximations are understandable, in view of the immense complexity involved in extracting the sum of high order perturbative contributions; and it has been most fortunate that the tower graphs so approximated have provided a theoretical framework  for understanding essentially all experimental hadronic scattering at energies above a few $`GeV`$.

Nevertheless, approximations (i) and (ii) have long represented open questions, whose answers have long been believed to be obtainable only in a functional approach, rather than by summing the contributions of individual, perturbative graphs. Precise answers were not possible at the time of the work of ref., which was only able to point out the wide variety of possible forms for the scattering amplitude – and, in particular, for the predicted total cross section, which is the physical quantity of interest emphasized here – and for which it was shown that a wide variety of answers were possible, many of them differing from the Froissart bound of the tower graphs. The model analysis used in  was part functional and part perturbative, and we here consider it to be the first paper of this “ series ”, with the present paper, designated II, as the continuation of that work, some three decades later.

The reason that such a continuation is now possible is due to a recent paper by Tomaras, Tsamis and Woodard , generalizing the exact, half century old, Schwinger calculation of the probability of $`e^+e^{}`$ production in the presence of a constant electric field, to the situation where the electric field can depend upon either of the light-cone coordinates, $`x_+`$ or $`x_{}`$ (but not both). This latter calculation was then repeated using an independent functional approach ; and it was subsequently realized that the solubility contained in the functional light-cone model is sufficient to provide a decent representation of inelastic particle production in a mutiperipheral manner. By “ decent ” one means that the essential Physics should be preserved, even though relevant cut–offs may be necessary; and for the first time it now becomes possible, in this context, to carry through a complete functional estimation of the sum of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{all}}`$ the eikonal graphs.

The result of these calculations suggests, very strongly, that “ internal, unitarity ” cancellations will, with rising $`s`$, eventually become so strong that all $`\sigma _{TOT}(s)`$ will start to fall off and tend to constant values. Just where this happens depends upon how closely the present, “ scalar pion ” model approximates full QCD; but if this model calculation is matched in a reasonable way to experimental data, one sees that the fall off cannot begin until well past the $`s`$ value of the so–called “ cosmic ray point ”. Hence, at present, this effect would not be directly measurable, although it may have some relevance to cosmic ray cross sections at extremely high energies. Nevertheless, any qualitative, or even cruder answer to the questions raised by the approximations (i) and (ii) above is not without interest.

## 2 Formulation

A brief but self–contained, functional derivation of eikonal scattering amplitudes has been given elsewhere , and need not be repeated here; this subject requires a certain familiarity with the $`S`$ Matrix, and the way in which its elements may be expressed in terms of appropriate, mass–shell amputated, $`n`$–point functions of Quantum Field Theory. Perhaps the most comprehensive collection of eikonal references may be found in the book by Cheng and Wu , whose later chapters describe the perturbative calculations which have been made for the eikonal function in QCD. The intent of this section’s remarks is to set the stage for an explicit, functional representation of the eikonal for high energy scattering in the so–called “ multiperipheral model ”, with calculations appearing in the subsequent sections.

Aside from multiplicative and renormalization constants, the essence of the connection between Green’s functions and corresponding $`S`$ Matrix elements, in the limit of large scattering energy and small momentum transfer, lies in the exponential factors appearing in the mass–shell amputated Green’s function for each (in this case) fermion entering and leaving the scattering region. When the scattering fermion couples to a Neutral Vector Meson (NVM), and the exchange of arbitrary numbers of NVMs between a pair of scattering fermions is desired, eikonalization of the amplitude takes place such that the scattering amplitude is expressed in terms of an eikonal function

$$T(s,t)=\frac{is}{2m^2}d^2be^{i\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{b}}\left[1e^{i\chi (s,\stackrel{}{b})}\right]$$
(2.1)
where $`t=q^2`$ and $`s=`$ (total center–of–mass energy)2. The eikonal is a function of impact parameter $`b`$, and of $`s`$; and for the simple case of the exchange of an arbitrary number of virtual NVMs between the scattering fermions, one finds the result

$$i\chi _1(s,b)=\frac{ig^2}{2\pi }\gamma (s)K_0(Mb),\gamma (s)=\frac{(s2m^2)}{\sqrt{s(s4m^2)}}$$
(2.2)
where $`g`$ is the fermion–NVM coupling constant, and $`M`$ denotes the NVM mass; to this eikonal there correspond the graphs of Fig.1. At high energies, the invariant differential cross section is given by $`d\sigma /dt=(m^4/\pi s^2)|T|^2`$, while the total cross section is given by

$$\sigma _{TOT}(s)=2\mathrm{Re}d^2b\left[1e^{i\chi (s,\stackrel{}{b})}\right]$$
(2.3)
Equations (2.1) and (2.3) are generic results, for any eikonal function, while (2.2) denotes the eikonal built from virtual NVM exchange between the scattering fermions.

It should be noted that the total cross section calculated for the eikonal of (2.2) becomes a constant, independent of $`s`$ as $`s/m^2\mathrm{}`$, a fact which can be understood physically by the observation that the only inelastic graphs of this model are those of bremsstrahlung, and the latter always vanish for zero momentum transfer.

The important observation made by Cheng and Wu was that, in massive NVM QED, there is another type of inelastic process which can contribute to inelastic production at small $`|t|/s`$, the so–called “ multiperipheral ” graphs pictured in Fig.2a, which, by unitarity, correspond to the “ inelastic shadow ” graphs of Fig.2b, graphs that must diminish the elastic amplitude if such inelastic production increases as energies increase. One there finds a phase space factor proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$ for the probability of each fermion pair to be produced in this way, which suggests that the graphs of Fig.2b are the relevant graphs calculated by Cheng and Wu in massive–photon QED, and yielded an eikonal of form

$$i\chi _2(s,b)=as^\alpha e^{\mu b}$$
(2.4)
with $`a`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\mu `$ constants, which leads directly (Appendix A) to the estimate that $`\sigma _{TOT}(s)\mathrm{ln}^2s+\mathrm{}`$ in the limit of very high energies .

Shortly after this observation, it was pointed out by various authors  that another, and simpler form of multiperipheral interaction generates a very similar result; this appears if scalar particles are exchanged between the NVM pairs, which are themselves exchanged between the scattering fermions, as in Fig.3a. Again, the unitarity “ shadow ” corresponds to inelastic graphs of the form shown in Fig.3b, where the phase space of each scalar particle emitted contributes a factor of $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$. The corresponding eikonal, constructed from the graphs of Fig.3b takes the form

$$i\chi _2\frac{a}{\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)}\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^\alpha e^{\mu ^2b^2/\mathrm{ln}\left(s/s_0\right)}$$
(2.5)
with $`a`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\mu `$, $`s_0`$ constants, and leads to a very similar elastic amplitude, and to the same form of high energy $`\sigma _{TOT}(s)`$ as that of Cheng and Wu.

A functional description of all the eikonal graphs, including those not considered by Cheng and Wu and successors, has been given in references  and , and can be expressed in simple functional language. One begins by considering fermions coupled to NVM fields, and the latter coupled to “ scalar pion ” fields; and one then organizes the functional pieces that are involved in the desired scattering amplitude, discarding all terms which correspond to more structure than that of NVMs exchanged between a pair of scattering fermions, with all possible virtual $`\pi `$ exchanges between all possible NVMs. In analogy with the forms quoted above, the NVM interactions eikonalize, carrying with them the composite substructures corresponding to multiple $`\pi `$ exchange between all possible NVMs, with a resulting expression for the eikonal

$$e^{i\chi }=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi }D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi }]\mathrm{exp}\left[if_I\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]f_{II}\right]|_{\pi 0}$$
(2.6)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(x,y|\pi )`$ denotes the propagator of a NVM of mass $`M`$ in the presence of a (fictitious) field $`\pi (z)`$, $`D_c`$ is the free propagator of a scalar pion of mass $`\mu `$, and the $`f_{I,II}^\mu (z)`$ denote the classical currents of the two fermions.

In this eikonal context, (2.6) is an exact result. The only approximation to (2.6) that will be considered here – and only temporarily – will be to discard all terms which correspond to self–energy structure of virtual $`\pi `$ emission an absorption along each NVM. The reason for this approximation is that we wish to begin with an estimation as close as possible to the LL ladder graphs of reference , in which the only graphs considered correspond to virtual $`\pi `$ exchanges between a pair of NVMs, and in all possible ways (ladder plus all possible crossed graphs). But then, attempting to calculate this eikonal generalization of (2.5) – which is given by expanding the right hand side of (2.6) to its quadratic dependence on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]`$ – we shall find it most appropriate to return to the more exact form which retains self linkages along each NVM propagator. Finally, when the generalization to $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{all}}`$ the eikonal graphs is attempted, we shall work with the complete eq.(2.6), modeling self linkages along with all possible $`\pi `$ exchanges, between all possible numbers of NVMs.

The inadequacy of previous LL approximation ladder graph calculations, which have made use of the unjustified approximation of retaining only the “ leading–log ” terms of every perturbative order, may be pointed out in the following way. If the coupling constant of the NVM to the scalar particle is $`G`$, a ladder graph with $`n`$ rungs contributes an amount proportional to $`G^{2n}[\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)]^n`$, in contrast to a ladder in which one pair of rungs is crossed, of contribution proportional to $`G^{2n}[\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)]^{n1}`$; every time another pair of rungs is crossed, the $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$ dependence drops by another power. The total number of such graphs is given by $`n!`$, and if only those terms with the largest powers of $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$ are kept, this means that $`n!1`$ “ less important ” terms are discarded, an approximation that is mathematically untenable for $`n`$ sufficiently large such that $`n!1`$ is on the order of $`\mathrm{ln}^{n1}(s)`$, or larger. Nevertheless, for reasons of “ simplicity ” – one calculates what one can, and hopes for the best – this type of approximation has long been made, without justification.

The second approximation mentioned in Section 1, made for the same reason of calculational simplicity, has been to neglect contributions coming from eikonal graphs more complicated than the towers. To even attempt such a calculation one is forced into a functional description, for the number of classes of graphs which must be included, corresponding to the exchange between scattering fermions of all possible $`t`$ channel NVMs, between which are exchanged all possible numbers of scalar mesons, is simply staggering. Such a functional description, given in (2.6), has been known for three decades; but what was lacking was a suitable NVM Green’s function $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(x,y|\pi )`$ corresponding to NVM propagation in a fictitious scalar field $`\pi (x)`$, which could be used to model the inelastic production of scalar particle, here called “ scalar pions ”, in order to estimate the elastic scattering eikonal of (2.6). Such a Green’s function is presented immediately below, and is used to suggest one possible form of the eikonal in a “ generalized ” Cheng–Wu context, containing towers formed from ladders and crossed rung ladders, in all possible combinations, and to compare the result with that of the leading–log ladder graph eikonals. In the next Section, the calculation is extended to include the sum of all eikonal graphs of this model, without exception.

As a preliminary step, we remind the reader of the functional cluster expansion discussed in detail in the second book of reference , in particular to

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi }D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(L[\pi ]\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_n/n!\right)$$
(2.7)
where the $`Q_n`$ are the appropriate, connected, cluster functionals. In the present context, the functional $`L[\pi ]`$ is given by the right hand side exponential factor of (2.6), and is operated upon by the linkage operator, as shown. At first, we will be interested only in the exchange of virtual $`\pi `$s between the virtual NVMs – that is where the Physics of the LL ladder–tower graphs lies, governed by unitarity – and we first drop all radiative corrections along each NVM, which is a simplification that can easily be performed functionally. In particular, the NVM mass $`M`$ and coupling $`G`$ to the pions are taken as “ renormalized ” constants ( at least until the end of the next Section, when a closer correspondence of this model with QCD is attempted ).

Dropping all radiative corrections along the NVMs, the quantity $`Q_1`$, as defined in (2.7), becomes just the $`i\chi _1`$ of (2.2), while the $`Q_2`$ of (2.7) may be written as

$$Q_2=[e^{i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _a}D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _b}}}1]L[\pi _a]L[\pi _b]|_{\pi _{a,b}=0}$$
(2.8)
and is the “ tower graph ” approximation to the eikonal of this problem, with all numbers of virtual $`\pi `$s exchanged, as ladders and crossed rung ladders, between one pair of NVMs. The $`Q_n`$ for higher powers of $`n`$ correspond to corrections to this tower eikonal, constructed from $`\pi `$–exchange between more than two NVMs, and in all possible ways between these multiple NVMs.

The next step is the specification of a suitable Green’s function, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]`$, which can model the emission of relatively high energy pions from each NVM. Experimentally, most of the momenta of particles emitted inelastically is in close–to–forward directions, and so we may imagine that the field $`\pi (x)`$ depends only on $`x_3`$ and $`x_0`$, with transverse momentum components subsequently limited ( which is also in agreement with experimental inelastic emissions ) in another, model–dependent way. Because these emitted particles ( gluonic jets, in QCD ) are of high energy – or, more accurately, we wish to extract those parts of these individual processes which increase as $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$ – we can assume that these are all relativistic particles, and replace $`\pi (x_3,x_0)`$ by $`\pi (x_3x_0)`$.

This form suggests particles moving relativistically in the $`+x_3`$ direction; but whether that direction lies in the $`\pm z_3`$ direction of the center–of–mass depends on how these $`x`$–variables connect to the pion propagator $`D_c(uv)`$. The latter is perfectly relativistic, in the sense that it contains both particle and anti–particle poles in its $`k_0`$–plane; and it will generate a logarithmic divergence corresponding to particles emitted in the $`\pm z_3`$ directions, as dictated by energy–momentum considerations. That log divergence corresponds to one that would be found in the probability for emitting a scalar pion of arbitrarily high longitudinal momentum; and just as is done for the ordinary tower ( ladder ) graphs, we regulate that log divergence by the physically sensible requirement that each $`(k_3)_{max}\sqrt{s}`$. The model is completed by inserting, by hand, a $`k_{}`$ cut–off in the definition of $`D_c`$, and one can then study the effects of doing this for different types of $`k_{}`$ cut–offs.

These physically–motivated restrictions and insertions define the model, which can then be used to reproduce the essential results of the ladder graph towers, and to explore the “ internal, unitarity cancellations ” which one might expect to result from summing over all the eikonal graphs, as in the next Section. However, even with the physical attributes of this model, one is not yet able to perform the full analysis without an additional assumption, which will shortly become clear.

The model’s simplicity can now be realized by rewriting $`\pi (x_3x_0)`$ as $`\pi (n^{()}x)`$, and by recognizing the similarity of this Green’s function with that of the “ scalar laser ” $`G_c[A]`$, one of the very few Green’s functions that can be obtained explicitly; here, $`A(x)A(kx)=A(n^{()}x)`$, for $`k_\mu =(0,0,\omega ;i\omega )`$. All the results of that analysis, reproduced for completeness in Appendix B, may be taken over immediately by replacing $`k_\mu `$ of (B.7) by $`k_\mu /\omega `$ and $`A(x)`$ by $`\pi (x)`$, so that one can write $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{c,\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$, with

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(x,y|\pi )=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_a}{s_a^2}e^{is_am^2+i{\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^2}{4s_a}}}e^{iGs_a{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda \pi \left(n^{()}\xi (x,y|\lambda )\right)}$$
(2.9)
where $`\xi _\mu =\lambda x_\mu +(1\lambda )y_\mu `$, and where we will use the subscripts $`a,b,c\mathrm{}`$ to distinguish the different NVM propagators.

## 3 Tower–graph calculations

Each such Green’s function enters into (2.6) in the form

$`ig^2(p_1p_2){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\overline{s}𝑑\overline{t}\delta (u[z_1\overline{s}p_1])\delta (v[z_2\overline{t}p_2])\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c(u,v|\pi )}`$
$`=i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(p_1p_2)}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a^2}}e^{is_am^2}\times `$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_ad\overline{t}_ae^{\left(i/4s_a\right)\left(z_{12}\overline{s}_ap_1+\overline{t}_ap_2\right)^2}e^{iGs_a{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda _a\pi \left(n^{()}\xi _a\left(\lambda _a\right)\right)}`$
where $`z_{12}=z_1z_2`$ and $`\xi _a(\lambda _a)=\xi _a(z_1\overline{s}_ap_1,z_2\overline{t}_ap_2|\lambda _a)`$. Restricting the calculation to $`Q_2`$, which will yield this model’s version of $`i\chi _2`$, from (2.8) we need calculate

$`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(p_1p_2)}{16\pi ^2}}\right]^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_b}{s_b^2}}e^{i\left(s_a+s_b\right)m^2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\overline{s}_a𝑑\overline{t}_a_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\overline{s}_b𝑑\overline{t}_b}`$
$`\times e^{\left(i/4s_a\right)\left(z_{12}\overline{s}_ap_1+\overline{t}_ap_2\right)^2}e^{\left(i/4s_b\right)\left(z_{12}\overline{s}_bp_1+\overline{t}_bp_2\right)^2}\left[e^{i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _a}D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _b}}}1\right]`$
$`\times e^{iGs_a{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda _a\pi _a\left(n^{()}\xi _a\left(\lambda _a\right)\right)}e^{iGs_b{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda _b\pi _b\left(n^{()}\xi _b\left(\lambda _b\right)\right)}|_{\pi _{a,b}=0}`$ (3.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{D}_c(k)=e^{\gamma ^2k_{}^2}[\mu ^2+k_3^2k_0^2iϵ]^1`$, and $`\gamma `$ is the $`k_{}`$ cut–off to be specified below.

The linkage operator $`\left[e^{i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _a}D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _b}}}1\right]`$ acting on the two last exponentials of (3.1) gives

$$e^{iG^2s_as_b{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda _a{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda _bD_c\left(\xi _a^{()}\left(\lambda _a\right)\xi _b^{()}\left(\lambda _b\right)\right)}1$$
(3.2)
while the propagator of (3.2) may be written as

$$\frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}e^{\gamma ^2k_{}^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{dk_+dk_{}}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{e^{\left(i/2\right)k_+\left(\xi _a^{()}\left(\lambda _a\right)\xi _b^{()}\left(\lambda _b\right)\right)}}{\mu ^2+k_+k_{}iϵ}$$
(3.3)
where $`k_\pm =k_3\pm k_0`$. With $`𝒵=(\xi _a^{()}\xi _b^{()})/2`$, the $`k_+`$ integrals of (3.3) may be written as

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{dk_{}}{k_{}}𝑑k_+e^{ik_+𝒵}\left[\frac{\mu ^2}{k_{}}+k_+iϵϵ(k_{})\right]^1$$

where $`ϵ0^+`$, and $`ϵ(x)=\theta (x)\theta (x)`$. Integration over $`k_+`$ depends on the sign of $`k_{}`$ and yields

$$(2i\pi )\left\{\theta (k_{})e^{i\left|𝒵\right|\mu ^2/k_{}}\theta (k_{})e^{+i\left|𝒵\right|\mu ^2/k_{}}\right\}$$
(3.4)
so that both terms of (3.4) contribute equally to the remaining $`k_{}`$ integral, yielding

$$\frac{i}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{k}e^{i\left|𝒵\right|\mu ^2/k}$$
(3.5)
This integral diverges logarithmically for large $`k`$, and as explained above, we insert a cut–off $`k_{max}\sqrt{s}`$, and an arbitrary scale parameter $`m`$, to obtain the dominant contribution for large $`s`$: $`(i/4\pi )\mathrm{ln}\left(s/m^2\right)`$. In this way, (3.3) becomes $`\left(i/(4\pi \gamma )^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(s/m^2\right)`$; and because this leading $`s`$–dependence is independent of $`\lambda _{a,b}`$, (3.2) simplifies to

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha _G\left(\frac{m^2s_as_b}{4\pi \gamma ^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)\right]1$$
(3.6)
where $`\alpha _G=G^2/4\pi m^2`$, and, subsequently, $`\alpha _g=g^2/4\pi `$.

The parametric integrals over $`s_{a,b}`$, $`t_{a,b}`$ still remain to be done, with (3.1) replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _g^2s^2}{4(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_b}{s_b^2}}e^{i\left(s_a+s_b\right)m^2}\left[e^{\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\alpha _G}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}\right)s_as_b\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m^2}}\right)}1\right]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_ad\overline{t}_a{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_bd\overline{t}_b\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4s_a}}(z_{12}\overline{s}_ap_1+\overline{t}_ap_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4s_b}}(z_{12}\overline{s}_bp_1+\overline{t}_bp_2)^2]`$
and with $`p_{1\mu }=En_\mu ^{()}`$, $`p_{2\mu }=En_\mu ^{(+)}`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}=\stackrel{}{z}_{12}`$, those integrals display a lovely cancellation of all non transverse $`z_{12}`$ dependence, and generate

$`i\chi _2=\alpha _g^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_b}{s_b}}e^{i\left(s_a+s_b\right)m^2+i{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_b}}\right)}`$
$`\times \left[e^{\alpha _G\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2s_as_b}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m^2}}\right)}1\right]`$
or

$`i\chi _2=\alpha _g^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\alpha _G}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}\right)^n\mathrm{ln}^n\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m^2}}\right)`$
(3.7)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_b}{s_b}}(s_as_b)^ne^{i\left(s_a+s_b\right)m^2}e^{i{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_b}}\right)}`$
It is now convenient to make the standard continuation: $`s_ai\tau _a`$, $`s_bi\tau _b`$, so that (3.7) becomes

$$i\chi _2=\alpha _g^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{m^2\alpha _G\mathrm{ln}\left(s/m^2\right)}{4\pi \gamma ^2}\right)^n\left[_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\tau ^ne^{m^2\tau b^2/4\tau }\right]^2$$
(3.8)
Since the integral inside the squared bracket of (3.8) is proportional to the Bessel function $`K_n(mb)`$, an alternate expression is

$$i\chi _2=4\alpha _g^2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{\alpha _G}{16\pi }\left[\frac{b^2}{\gamma ^2}\right]\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right)^nK_n^2(mb)$$
(3.9)
This eikonal is properly absorptive, but – were the sum over all $`n`$ performed ( or retained ) at the outset – the final integrals over the $`\tau `$ variables appear to diverge in the large $`\tau `$ regions. But since we expect a strong correlation between the behavior of $`\sigma _{TOT}(s)`$ and large $`b`$ values $`(bb_0(s)\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2))`$, we can ask if (3.9) simplifies in the limit of large $`b`$; this would be the case for $`b1/m`$, which is certainly expected, since one assumes that $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)1`$. Note that, for large impact parameter, the only natural $`k_{}`$ cut–off in the model propagator is $`b`$ itself, and this is our choice: $`\gamma =b`$.

One would then like to be able to replace each $`K_n(mb)`$ of (3.9) by its large $`mb`$ asymptotic form $`\left[\pi /(2mb)\right]^{1/2}e^{mb}[1+\mathrm{}]`$, but any such interchange of sum and asymptotic limit must be viewed with suspicion, and justified, even if the result is so reasonable that it is not difficult to suppress disbelief. The mathematically improper step that one would like to take, for $`mb1`$, is to replace each $`K_n(mb)`$ of (3.9) by its asymptotic form above, with leading term independent of $`n`$, so that the sum again exponentiates. This is correct only if $`mb>(n^21)/2`$, as is easily seen by examining the next terms of the expansion . Were there only a finite number of such large $`n`$ correction terms, one could argue that the essential results of that approximation would be correct. But the sum of (3.9) runs over all $`n`$; and hence this simplifying approximation is clearly incorrect.

In fact, what this does suggest is that the model needs to be refined so that a new set of functions $`H_n(mb)`$, whose asymptotic $`n`$ dependence is sufficiently weak, should replace the $`K_n(mb)`$ of (3.9), in order to permit the interchange of limits stated abvove. This can be accomplished if one imagines that the neglected self–energy structure along each $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]`$ line is included, with a net effect of damping away large $`\tau `$ contributions to the previous representations. It is at this point that one realizes that the neglected self–linkages along each $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ must play an important role if non–ladder–graph processes and their non–leading order contributions are to be included. Such self–linkages are not necessary for the LL ladders, where a “ nesting ” of the $`n`$ longitudinal momenta exchanged ( in order $`G^{2n}`$ ) between neighboring NVMs generates a factor of $`1/n!`$, so that the sum over $`n`$ is finite ( and exponentiates ). But if one asks for the sum of non leading contributions of a fixed order, e.g., proportional to $`\left(\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right)^2/2!`$, the number of terms which enters into the corresponding sum grows so rapidly with $`n`$, that it is difficult to believe that the sum will converge. In our calculation, which embraces the sum of all ladder and crossed rung graphs of every order, large $`n`$ convergence is associated with large $`\tau `$ convergence; and, for this, one is thus naturally directed to attempt to include previously neglected self–linkages.

The model used above for extracting the non perturbative forms of high momentum linkages between different $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$ is not necessarily the one appropriate for the less energetic self–linkages along each $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c`$; but were it used for the latter, an extra factor of $`\mathrm{exp}[iG^2\tau ^2I/2]`$, $`I=_0^1𝑑\lambda _0^1𝑑\lambda ^{}D_c(\xi ^{()}(\lambda )\xi ^{()}(\lambda ^{}))`$ would appear in each $`\tau `$ integral, and for $`ReI0`$ and/or $`ImI<0`$, would generate significant damping for very large $`\tau `$.

A completely different, soluble model, is one in which the original, Fradkin variable statement  of all possible self–linkages is exactly expressed by the exponential of $`iG^2/m^2{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle _0^{s_1}}𝑑s_2D_c\left({\displaystyle _{s_1}^{s_2}}𝑑s^{}v(s^{})\right)`$, and where the latter quantity is then approximated in a “ no recoil ” fashion by $`iG^2/m^2{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle _0^{s_1}}𝑑s_2D_c\left(v_0(s_1s_2)\right)`$, with $`v_0`$ corresponding to an “ averaged ” NVM 4–velocity, such that $`v_0^2=1`$. For zero mass propagator, it is well known that this propagator can be expressed exactly by

$$D_c(z)=\left(\frac{i}{4\pi ^2}\right)\frac{1}{z^2+i\epsilon }|_{\epsilon 0^+},D_c(v_0s_{12})\left(\frac{i}{4\pi ^2}\right)\frac{1}{(s_1s_2i\overline{\epsilon })^2}|_{\overline{\epsilon }0^+}$$

and, as evaluated elsewhere , the corresponding, self–linkage computation for linkages by a scalar field $`\pi (x)`$ yields the factors

$$e^{is\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha _G/\pi }e^{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _G}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m^2\right)}(sm^2)^{\alpha _G/\pi }$$

with momentum cut–off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=(\overline{\epsilon })^1`$.

In sequence, these terms correspond to a model–dependent mass renormalization, a wave–function renormalization, and a damping of the $`s`$–integrand for large $`s`$. It is this latter factor which is of interest here, which damping remains after the $`si\tau `$ variable change introduced above. The model is not particularly realistic; but it again displays damping at large $`s`$, or $`\tau `$ values.

Let us therefore assume that, in general, such large $`\tau `$ damping does result from previously neglected self–linkages along each line; and take the simplifying step of inserting an effective, upper cut–off $`q/m^2`$ in the $`\tau `$ integral of (3.8), corresponding to the largest value of $`\tau `$ that enters when self–linkages are included

$$_0^{q/m^2}\frac{d\tau }{\tau }\tau ^ne^{m^2\tau b^2/4\tau }2\left(\frac{b}{2m}\right)^nH_n(mb)$$
(3.10)
In effect, $`K_n(mb)`$ will then be replaced by $`H_n(mb)`$, a real, positive quantity with an upper bound given by

$$H_n(mb)<\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2q}{2mb}\right)^n_0^q\frac{dt}{t}e^{t\left(mb\right)^2/4t}$$
(3.11)
What is the dimensionless quantity $`q`$? It can depend on the relevant, renormalized parameters of the theory, an effective $`\alpha _G`$, $`m`$, and $`b`$. If $`q`$ is chosen as a constant, $`q_0`$, then the summation of (3.9) will yield an approximate factor of $`s^{\left(q_0^2\alpha _G/8\pi \left(mb\right)^2\right)}\overline{K}_0^2(mb)`$ where $`\overline{K}_0`$ differs from $`K_0`$ in that its defining integral has an upper limit $`q_0`$, rather than $`\mathrm{}`$. But it is easy to show that, for $`mb1`$, there is ( exponentially ) little difference between $`\overline{K}_0`$ and $`K_0`$, so that an argument similar to that given in Appendix A produces the quantity $`(q_0^2\alpha _G/8\pi (mb_0)^2)\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)2mb_0`$, so that $`b_0\left[\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]^{1/3}`$, and $`\sigma _{TOT}\left[\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]^{2/3}`$. If, however, $`q`$ is assumed to grow linearly with $`mb`$, $`qmb`$, then the same argument reproduces the old Cheng–Wu result.

It seems that whichever form one adopts, for any $`q(mb)^i`$, with $`0<i<1`$, one will find the tower–graph prediction of a slow–rising $`\sigma _{TOT}`$. Hence, the inclusion of all crossed – as well as ladder– graphs, in this model version of the tower graphs which requires strong, proper–time damping attribuable to the self–linkage graphs, generates a slowly rising $`\sigma _{TOT}`$; and for one special choice of cut–off, $`qmb`$, it reproduces the form of the original Cheng–Wu result. This model is surely crude – and was so from the beginning – but crudeness does not necessary preclude correctness; and the predictions of the next Section could, conceivably, lead to qualitatively correct Physiccs.

For $`mb1`$, the transvers cut–off $`\gamma `$ should be taken as the inverse of an appropriate mass, and not as the smaller impact parameter; that is, $`\gamma `$ should always be chosen as the largest, relevant quantity with the dimension of length. In this region, the corresponding sum of the tower–graph contributions to the eikonal of (3.9) does not appear to converge, since the leading term of $`K_n(mb)`$ is $`(1/2)(n1)!/(mb/2)^n`$ for small $`mb`$, a situation unchanged by the replacement of $`K_n`$ by $`H_n`$ if the ( large ) self–linkage cut–off $`q`$ can no longer be proportional to $`(mb)^i`$. What this indicates is that this eikonal is totally absorptive at small $`b`$; and just as in elementary, potential–theory calculations, it is to be replaced by a sufficiently large number, $`\eta `$, such that the entire contribution to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2\sigma _{TOT}=\left(\frac{4\pi }{m^2}\right)_0^1𝑑xx\left[1e^{\eta (s,x)}\right]$$
(3.12)
is just the “ black disk ” amount: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\sigma _{TOT}=2\pi /m^2`$. In this way, the complete tower–graph contributions for ladder and crossed rung graphs again produce a slowly rising $`\sigma _{TOT}`$ with a maximum growth given by the old Cheng–Wu result. In the following Section, we choose for simplicity $`q=mb`$, so that $`K_nH_nH_{n_{max}}K_0`$; but quite similar results will follow for any other choice of $`q(mb)^i,0<i<1`$.

## 4 Summing all the Eikonal Graphs

We now turn to the second, unanswered question of the eikonal approach to high–energy scattering: what is the effect, as posed in this model, of summing over all the remaining $`Q_n,n>2`$ ?

It is certainly possible to calculate each of the remaining $`Q_n`$ from their definition, as in (2.7), but enforcing the requirement of “ connectedness ” becomes tedious. It is much simpler to expand the right hand side of (2.6) in power of $`g^2`$, to perform the needed functional operations on the $`n^{th}`$ term of that expansion, and then – if possible – to sum the results. One has

$`e^{i\chi }={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}(ig^2)^ne^{i{\displaystyle \underset{a>b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _a}D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _b}}}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle }f_I\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi _a]f_{II}\right)\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle }f_I\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi _n]f_{II}\right)|_{\pi _l0}`$ (4.1)
with the multiple factors of $`({\displaystyle f_I\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_cf_{II}})`$ occurring a total of $`n`$ times; (4.1) is the form that this $`n^{th}`$ functional approximation takes when all radiative corrections along each NVM are suppressed. The latter will, of course, be necessary, and will be introduced as needed.

For clarity, we work out the $`n=3`$ term, state the form of the $`n=4`$ term, and then infer the general result. Using the notation of the previous Section, this is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{g^2(p_1p_2)}{16\pi ^2}}\right)^3{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_a}{s_a^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_b}{s_b^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds_c}{s_c^2}}e^{i\left(s_a+s_b+s_c\right)m^2}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_ad\overline{t}_a{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_bd\overline{t}_b{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\overline{s}_cd\overline{t}_c`$ (4.2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4s_a}}(z_{12}\overline{s}_ap_1+\overline{t}_ap_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4s_b}}(z_{12}\overline{s}_bp_1+\overline{t}_bp_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4s_c}}(z_{12}\overline{s}_cp_1+\overline{t}_cp_2)^2\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{a>b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _a}D_c\frac{\delta }{\delta \pi _b}}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[iGs_a{\displaystyle _0^1}d\lambda _a\pi _a(\xi _a^{()}(\lambda _a))iGs_b{\displaystyle _0^1}d\lambda _b\pi _b(\xi _b^{()}(\lambda _b))iGs_c{\displaystyle _0^1}d\lambda _c\pi _c(\xi _c^{()}(\lambda _c))]|_{\pi _l0}`$
As before, each linkage operator – and there are here $`n(n1)/2=3`$ of them – generates a term of form

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\alpha _G\left(\frac{m^2s_as_b}{4\pi \gamma ^2}\right)\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]$$

– the result of (3.6), but without the factor of $`1`$ – while the $`𝑑\overline{s}_a\mathrm{}𝑑\overline{t}_c`$ integrations remove all non transverse $`(z_{12})^2`$ dependence, generating

$$\left(\frac{8\pi }{s}\right)^3(s_as_bs_c)e^{ib^2/4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_c}}\right)}$$

so that this $`n=3`$ contribution to $`\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$ produces

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(i\alpha _g)^3}{3!}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds_a}{s_a}\frac{ds_b}{s_b}\frac{ds_c}{s_c}e^{i\left(s_a+s_b+s_c\right)m^2+i{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_c}}\right)}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\alpha _G}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}\left(s_as_b+s_bs_c+s_cs_a\right)\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]`$
Expanding each of the $`n(n1)/2`$ factors of form $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2\alpha _G}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}\right)s_as_b\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]`$, one obtains

$$\frac{(2i\alpha _g)^3}{3!}\underset{n_{1,2,3}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _G}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{\gamma ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]}{n_1!n_2!n_3!}^{n_1+n_2+n_3}K_{n_1+n_3}(mb)K_{n_1+n_2}(mb)K_{n_2+n_3}(mb)$$
(4.3)
In contrast, for $`n=4`$, one would find $`n(n1)/2=6`$ summations over $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_6`$:

$$\frac{(2i\alpha _g)^4}{4!}\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_6=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _G}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{\gamma ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)\right]}{n_1!\mathrm{}n_6!}^{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_6}K_{N_1}(mb)K_{N_2}(mb)K_{N_3}(mb)K_{N_4}(mb)$$
(4.4)
where $`N_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}n_jn_i`$

Can one sum the series of these terms ? Again, there is a great simplification for $`\gamma =b`$, $`mb>1`$, and ( at this point, introducing the self–linkages along each $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]`$, which effectively introduce a $`q/m^2`$ cut–off into each proper–time integeral, so that, for the simplest case where $`q=mb`$, each ) $`K_n(\pi /2mb)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(mb)`$. In this way, (4.3) becomes

$$\frac{(2i\alpha _g)^3}{3!}\left(\frac{\pi }{2mb}\right)^{3/2}e^{3mb}(s/m^2)^{3\alpha _G/8\pi }$$

while (4.4) yields

$$\frac{(2i\alpha _g)^4}{4!}\left(\frac{\pi }{2mb}\right)^{4/2}e^{4mb}(s/m^2)^{6\alpha _G/8\pi }$$

and the general pattern is clear:

$`e^{i\chi }|_{mb>1}1+i\chi _1|_{mb>1}`$ (4.5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2i\alpha _g)^n}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2mb}}\right)^{n/2}e^{nmb}(s/m^2)^{\left({\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\right)\left(\alpha _G/8\pi \right)}`$
The next task is to give a meaningful value to the unusual sum of (4.5). Because of the factor $`(i)^n`$, there will be an alternation in the signs of the terms that comprise $`Re\mathrm{exp}[i\chi ]`$; and because the $`s`$–dependence has the form $`s^{an(n1)/2}`$, these alternations can be important. To see this in detail, we make use of a representation  expressed in terms of a convergent power series:

$$\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(iZ)}{n!}^nF(Z)=e^{iZ}1+iZ,Z=\frac{\overline{x}}{y}e^{2\alpha \beta }$$

and note that

$$S(\overline{x},y)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha e^{\alpha ^2}F\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{y}e^{2\alpha \beta }\right)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{i\overline{x}}{y}\right)^n\frac{1}{n!}e^{n^2\beta ^2}$$

This is the same series as that of (4.5), if the identifications

$$y=\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)^{\alpha _G/16\pi },\beta ^2=\mathrm{ln}y,\overline{x}=\alpha _g\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{mb}}e^{mb}$$

are made, and we may therefore replace (4.5) by the integral

$$e^{i\chi }|_{mb>1}1+i\chi _1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\alpha e^{\alpha ^2}\{e^{i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{y}}e^{2\alpha \beta }\right)}1+i\frac{\overline{x}}{y}e^{2\alpha \beta }\}$$
(4.6)
so that the contribution of (4.6) to $`\sigma _{TOT}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{1/m}^{\mathrm{}}d^2b_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha e^{\alpha ^2}\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\overline{x}}{y}e^{2\alpha \beta }\right)\right]$$
(4.7)
It will be convenient to make the variable change: $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\beta }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{yz}{\overline{x}}}\right)`$. Approximating $`\mathrm{ln}(\overline{x})`$ by $`mb`$, and with the additional variable change : $`mb=\beta ^2(u1)`$, and with $`x=4\beta ^2`$, one finds

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4m^2}x^{3/2}_{1+4/x}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u(u1)e^{xu^2/16}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\frac{(1\mathrm{cos}z)}{z^{1+u/2}}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}^2z}$$
(4.8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT}`$ is again that contribution to $`\sigma _{TOT}`$ arising from $`b>1/m`$. These integrals are real and positive definite, but cannot be evaluated analytically, so that a numerical approach is necessary. However, it is fairly easy to approximate (4.8), so that the evaluation can be done in an analytic manner, and for this, one first rewrites the $`z`$ integral of (4.8) as $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}[f(z)][1\mathrm{cos}z]`$, where $`f(z)=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\mathrm{ln}^2z+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}})\mathrm{ln}z]`$, and where a typical graph of $`\mathrm{exp}[f(z)]`$, for $`u=x=2`$, is displayed in Fig.4.

The peak of that curve occurs at a value $`z_0<1`$, and its peak height is $`\mathrm{exp}[f(z_0)]`$. For $`z>z_0`$, the curve has a rough, Gaussian appearance, but for $`z`$ values less than $`z_0`$ this is not the case, for the curve vanishes rapidly as $`z0`$. However, $`\mathrm{exp}[f(z)]`$ is multiplied by $`2\mathrm{sin}^2(z/2)`$, which vanishes as $`z0`$; and therefore it is not too inaccurate to replace $`\mathrm{exp}[f(z)]`$ by a simpler Gaussian form about $`z_0`$, since the contributions for $`z<z_0`$ are going to be very small; and we will therefore write $`f(z)f(z_0)+(1/2)(zz_0)^2f^{\prime \prime }(z_0)`$, with $`z_0`$ determined by the condition $`f^{}(z_0)=0:z_0=\mathrm{exp}[(x/2)(1+u/2)]`$. The argument of this exponential factor is, following from the lower limit of the $`u`$ integral, always more negative than $`(1+x/2)`$, so that $`z_0`$ is always small, especially for large values of $`x`$. If no further approximation is used, the $`𝑑z`$ would be given in terms of probability integrals, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$.

But the smallness of $`z_0`$, especially in a region where the vanishing of $`(1\mathrm{cos}z)`$ removes most of the error, now suggests an additional approximation : replace $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z`$ by $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z`$, so that the integral can be evaluated immediately as

$$\frac{1}{2}e^{f\left(z_0\right)}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{f^{\prime \prime }(z_0)}}\left[1e^{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^{\prime \prime }(z_0)}}}\mathrm{cos}z_0\right]$$
(4.9)
which generates a convergent integrand for large $`u`$. Further, since $`z_0<1`$, expansion of the $`\mathrm{cos}z_0`$ of (4.9) will give corrections to the result obtained by setting $`z_00`$, which are smaller by exponential dependence on $`x`$; and hence it is legitimate to replace $`\mathrm{cos}z_0`$ in (4.9) by unity.

Although the resulting integrand is reminiscent of that of (2.5), the techniques used for the approximate evaluation of the latter will not work here; rather, because $`u_{min}=1+4/x`$, and $`x>0`$, $`h(u,x)=(x/4)\mathrm{exp}[x(1+u/2)]`$ is $`<1`$ for any value of $`x`$, and the terms of (4.9) may be expanded in powers of $`h(u,x)`$, with the linear term in $`h`$ generating

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT\left(s\right)}\left(\frac{2\pi }{m^2e^2}\right)xe^{{\displaystyle \frac{7x}{4}}},x=\left(\frac{\alpha _G}{4\pi }\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s}{m^2}\right)$$
(4.10)
and with corrections which are smaller by exponential factors of $`x`$.

The graph of (4.10) in Fig.5 tells the entire story. As $`x`$ increases from zero, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT}`$ rises linearly with $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$, peaks at $`x=4/7`$, and then falls off exponentially. There are therefore, as suspected, sufficient cancellations within this model to remove the rising total cross section of the tower graphs. The details of the calculation are certainly subject to correction; but the result of (4.10) does suggest serious cancellations away from the tower graph result. If, for example, one imagines that scattering at $`s1TeV^2`$ corresponds to values of $`x.3`$, then the peak of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\sigma _{TOT}`$should appear at $`x.6`$, corresponding to a doubling of the value of $`\mathrm{ln}s`$. Such an energy is probably higher than that of the so–called “ cosmic ray point ”, and if so there is little poss ibility of its ever being measured directly.

Without any further calculation, one expects the $`mb<1`$ contributions to reduce ( as for the tower graphs, but more quickly ) to the same value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\sigma _{TOT}=2\pi /m^2`$, which result has no real bearing on the question of $`\sigma _{TOT}`$ at asymptotic energies.

Could this model possibly apply to QCD ? Not directly, for scalar pions are neither gluons nor closed quark–loops. But if one’s imagination is allowed free rein, and if scalar pions are repleceable by gluons ( as the basic elements of gluonic jets ), then one might imagine that timelike renormalization effects of the asymptotically free QCD could decrease $`\alpha _G`$ by a factor of $`\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$, so that $`x=(\alpha _G/4\pi )\mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)`$ can never increase significantly past a constant amount, say $`x_{max}`$; and hence that $`\sigma _{TOT}`$ would become a non zero constant, larger than $`2\pi /m^2`$, at $`x_{max}`$, and would stay at that value for larger values of $`s`$. Of course, this is rampant speculation, and one does not yet know the answer for real QCD. Modulo questions of mathematical rigor, the arguments of this Section suggests that, at truly asymptotic energies, and if no further fields with higher mass quanta appear, total cross sections could become constants, either large constants if timelike asymptotic freedom holds, or smaller constants if it does not; but they need not continue to grow in the form of the Froissart bound.

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank Profs. A. Thomas and T. Williams for their kind hospitality, and O. Leitner for technical (electronic) assistance, at CSSM, Adelaide University SA, where this work was completed.

## Appendix A: The Cheng–Wu eikonal

It will be useful to illustrate how the ladder–graph tower–eikonals generates their $`\sigma _{TOT}(s)`$, and for this we shall consider the simplest case of all, that of the original Cheng–Wu eikonal, for which one may write $`i\chi =\rho (s,b)`$, $`\rho (s,b)=as^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\mu b)`$. Eq. (2.3) may then be written as

$$\sigma _{TOT}(s)=2d^2b\left[1e^{\rho (s,b)}\right]$$
(A.1)
and to evaluate the form of the resulting $`s`$ dependence it is convenient to define a quantity $`b_0(s)`$ by the relation: $`1=\rho (s,b_0(s))`$; that is, $`b_0(s)(\alpha /\mu )\mathrm{ln}\left(s/m^2\right)`$ is that value of impact parameter where any increase of $`\rho `$ with increasing $`s`$ is just counterbalanced by the damping with respect to $`b`$. One sees from (A.1) that for $`b<b_0`$, $`\rho `$ is large and the $`\mathrm{exp}(\rho )`$ is small, so that this contribution gives essentially

$$2_0^{b_0}d^2b[1]2\pi b_0^2(s)\mathrm{ln}^2(s/m^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(A.2)
In contrast, for $`b>b_0`$, $`\rho `$ is small, and the exponential of (A.1) may be expanded, and that portion of the integral approximated by

$$2_0^{\mathrm{}}d^2b\rho \mathrm{ln}(s/m^2)+\mathrm{}$$
(A.3)
which is down by one factor of $`\mathrm{ln}(s)`$ compared to the leading $`s`$ dependence of $`\sigma _{TOT}`$, which arises from large $`b\mathrm{ln}(s)`$.

## Appendix B: The “ scalar ” laser solution for $`𝐆_𝐜[𝐀]`$

The word “ laser ” used in this discussion is really a misnomer, for it should properly be replaced by “ electromagnetic plane wave ” ( epw ); but we ask the reader’s indulgence for this simple idealization, which is reasonable as long as the perpendicular dimensions of the laser beams under question are much larger than the dimensions of the charged particle on which they are acting, or on the transverse distances over which the particle is to move.

The simplest, idealized, plane wave “ laser ” solution occurs for the scalar $`G_c[A]`$ with scalar interaction $`A(x)A(kx)`$, where the functional form of $`A`$ is arbitrary, but $`k^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2k_0^2=0`$; although less complicated than the full laser solution of QED, the essential features of solubility are the same.

Here, one uses the functional, Fradkin solution

$`G_c(x,y|A)=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{ism^2}e^{i{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta v_\mu ^2(s^{})}}}`$
(B.1)
$`\times \delta (xy+{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}v(s^{}))e^{ig{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}A\left(y{\displaystyle _0^s^{}}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }v\left(s^{\prime \prime }\right)\right)}`$
and inserts an expression for unity under the integrals of (B.1) with the express purpose of extracting the $`v`$ dependence that appears in the argument of $`A`$,

$`G_c(x,y|A)=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{ism^2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip\left(xy\right)}N^{}d[u]d[\mathrm{\Omega }]e^{i{\displaystyle _0^s}u\mathrm{\Omega }}[u]}`$
(B.2)
$`\times e^{i{\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta v^2}}}e^{i{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}v_\mu \left(s^{}\right)\left[p_\mu {\displaystyle _s^{}^s}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }k_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\left(s^{\prime \prime }\right)\right]}|_{v0}`$
where $`[u]=\mathrm{exp}[ig{\displaystyle _0^s}ds^{}A((kyu(s^{}))]`$, and Abel’s replacement of $`{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(s^{}){\displaystyle _0^s^{}}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }v_\mu (s^{\prime \prime })`$ by $`{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}v_\mu (s^{}){\displaystyle _s^{}^s}𝑑s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }(s^{\prime \prime })`$ has been used. The Fradkin functional operation of the second line of (B.2) is now immediate, and yields

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[i_0^s𝑑s^{}\left[p_\mu k_\mu _s^{}^s𝑑s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }(s^{\prime \prime })\right]^2\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left[isp^2+2ipk_0^s𝑑s^{}s^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(s^{})\right]$$
(B.3)
where the inverse of Abel’s trick has been used. The essential feature which guarantees solubility is then apparent: because $`k^2=0`$, there is no quadratic $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ dependence, and its functional integral yields the simple delta functional: $`\delta \left[u(s^{})+2s^{}pk\right]`$. Then, $`d[u]`$ is immediate, replacing $`[u]`$ by $`[2s^{}pk]`$,

$`G_c(x,y|A)=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{ism^2}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip\left(xy\right)isp^2}}`$
(B.4)
$`\times e^{ig{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}A\left(ky+2s^{}pk\right)}`$
Eq. (B.4) can be further simplified. In essence, with $`z=xy`$, one requires the integral

$$\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ipzisp^2}Q(pk)$$
(B.5)
where $`Q`$ may be read off directly from (B.4). One proceeds in a manner analogous to that used above by introducing under the integrals of (B.5) a factor of unity,

$$1=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega \left(ukp\right)}$$

from which one obtains

$`G_c(x,y|A)=i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{ism^2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ue^{ig{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑s^{}A\left(ky+2s^{}u\right)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}e^{i\omega u}`$
(B.6)
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{isp^2+ip\left(zk\omega \right)}`$
The last line of (B.6) is a simple Gaussian, yielding

$$\left(\frac{i}{16\pi ^2s^2}\right)e^{i\left(zk\omega \right)^2/4s}$$

and one notes that because $`k^2=0`$, the $`\omega ^2`$ term in the expansion of the exponential factor is missing, so that the $`\omega `$ integration generates $`\delta (ukz/2s)`$ permitting the $`u`$ integral to be performed. With the variable change $`\lambda =s^{}/s`$, one obtains

$$G_c(x,y|A)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s^2}e^{is\left[m^2+g{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\lambda A\left(k\xi \left(\lambda \right)\right)\right]+i\left(xy\right)^2/4s}$$
(B.7)
where $`\xi _\mu (\lambda )=\lambda x_\mu +(1\lambda )y_\mu `$ represents the straight–line path between the points $`y_\mu `$ and $`x_\mu `$. Finally, one realizes that (B.7) is just the ordinary, scalar, causal, “ free particle ” boson propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(xy,m^2)`$, but with its mass $`m^2`$ replaced by a position–dependent mass2: $`m^2M^2=m^2+g_0^1𝑑\lambda A(k\xi (\lambda ))`$. If one now replaces $`k_\mu `$ by $`k_\mu /\omega `$, and $`A(x)`$ by $`\pi (x)`$, one obtains the model Green’s function $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_c[\pi ]`$ used ion the text.