text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We show, in two different ways, that the Tsallis’ partition function and its derivatives are related to thermodynamic quantities such as entropy, internal energy, etc., in the same way as in Boltzmann-Gibbs’ formalism, with the Lagrange multiplier $`\beta ^{BG}`$ replaced by its value $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$. They are obtained within the finite heat bath canonical ensemble approach. Furthermore, we discuss the meaning of the Lagrange multiplier of the generalized framework, $`\beta ^T`$, and show that the entropy found here is just the Rènyi entropy plus a definite constant.

PACs:05.20.-y, 05.70.-a

## 1 Introduction

One of the main achievements of the Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) statistics is the microscopic derivation of thermodynamical quantities of a system, e.g., internal energy.
Specifically, in the canonical ensemble approach, where we study a system in thermal equilibrium with a much larger system, called heat bath, we have a quantity which plays a central role in this derivation, the system’s partition function, $`Z_1^{BG}`$ .
A note must be said about the notation we use in this paper. In the following analysis we will have three systems: the studied, the heat bath and the composite (studied + bath). All quantities belonging to these three systems will be labeled by $`1`$, $`2`$, and $`0`$, respectively. When we deal with any function which is present in both frameworks, BG and Tsallis, we label it with a superscript, $`BG`$ or $`T`$, respectively.
The thermodynamical quantities are all given as functions of the natural logarithm of $`Z_1^{BG}`$ or as functions of its derivatives. The internal energy of the system is given by:

$$E_1=\frac{lnZ_1^{BG}}{\beta ^{BG}},$$
(1)
where $`\beta ^{BG}=\frac{1}{k_BT}`$, and $`T`$ is the equilibrium temperature set by the bath. Another quantity which has a macroscopic interpretation is the element of generalized work done on the system in a quasi-static process. It is given by:

$$dW_1=\frac{1}{\beta ^{BG}}\frac{lnZ_1^{BG}}{X_1}dX_1,$$
(2)
where $`X_1`$ is the external parameter which characterizes the studied system. A third important quantity is the entropy of the system, which is given by:

$$S_1^{BG}=k_B(lnZ_1^{BG}+\beta ^{BG}E_1).$$
(3)
The Helmholtz free energy of this system follows from (3) and is written as:

$$F_1=\frac{1}{\beta ^{BG}}lnZ_1^{BG}.$$
(4)
In 1988, Tsallis  proposed his non-extensive statistical mechanics. This formalism has been successfully applied to a variety of situations . For a regular updated list, see . Some of the fields of applications are Levy flights , turbulence , and particle physics . Interpretations for the generalization parameter $`q`$ were also proposed, and all of them relate $`q`$ with the fluctuation of other important physical property in the context applied .
We follow here the path initiated by Plastino et al.  and Almeida , which we call finite heat bath canonical ensemble. It is a natural consequence of the structure function formalism .
This particular approach to Tsallis’ statistics has been developed recently. In , the generalized statistics was derived by a scale invariance argument,  deals with the connection with the Nosé-Hoover thermostat ,  made the connection of the present picture with the dynamical derivation of Beck ,  showed that Tsallis’ entropy has an additive variant (and is connected with the entropy found here), in  the fluctuation of a system’s energy in the canonical ensemble was calculated, and in  a numerical analysis of such finite systems was performed.
We propose the same problem as in the BG description: how are the ensemble averages of a system related to the system’s partition function in Tsallis’ framework? The Tsallis’ partition function reads:

$$Z_1^T=[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1]^{\frac{1}{q_21}},$$
(5)
where $`q_2`$ is associated to the number of degrees of freedom of the heat bath, $`E_1`$ is the system’s bath and $`\beta ^{}`$ is a constant parameter. Although it looks like, this last parameter is not the Lagrange multiplier used in the optimization problem of Tsallis’ entropy, $`\beta ^T`$, as stated in . For this reason we denote it with a star. In our discussion we will see where this difference arises in the calculations. We will obtain the microscopic formulae in two different ways.
Abe  has derived thermodynamics from Tsallis’ statistics from purely macroscopic considerations which led him to modified thermodynamical laws obeyed by Tsallis’ entropy form. We will see that these changes are not necessary, although we do not have the physical temperature as the proper integrating factor in the second law of thermodynamics for Tsallis’ entropy. The Rényi entropy is the one with the physical temperature as the integrating factor in the second law, as found by Abe.
Also, we will see that no $`q`$-averages  or $`q`$-logarithms  are necessary for such a derivation to be made. This is another important feature of our work. We will use the distribution which arises from the optimization problem with the usual expectation value.
We organize this paper as follows: in section II, a description of the finite bath canonical ensemble is given. Section III contains our derivations. Section IV is reserved for a discussion of the various parameters introduced in the generalized context. Section V presents the discussion on the Tsallis’ entropy and its role in our approach. Finally, in section VI we present our conclusions.

## 2 Brief description of the finite heat bath picture

Let us consider a general system $`i`$ with hamiltonian $`H_i(q,p)<E_i`$. This system is characterized by a single external parameter $`X_i`$ (the extension of the following analysis to more parameters is immediate). The volume defined by the condition above, in the system’s phase space, is defined as:

$$V_i(E_i)=_{H_i(q,p)<E_i}𝑑V_i=C_i(X_i)E_i^{n_i},$$
(6)
where $`C_i`$ is a coefficient which we assume to bear all the dependence on $`X_i`$ of this volume, and $`n_i`$ is a quantity proportional to the degrees of freedom of the system $`i`$. Its structure function, or its density of states, is defined as the area that encloses the above quantity and is defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E_i)=\frac{d}{dE_i}V_i(E_i)=n_iC_i(X_i)E_i^{n_i1}.$$
(7)
The definition of the parameter $`\beta _i`$ is:

$$\beta _i=\frac{d}{dE_i}ln\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E_i).$$
(8)
Almeida  has shown that for a system in contact with a heat bath to present a distribution function given as a power law, the following condition must be fulfilled:

$$\frac{d}{dE_i}\left[\frac{1}{\beta _i(E_i)}\right]=q_i1.$$
(9)
It is worth to point out that this relation enables us to calculate the value of $`q`$ for any system, isolated or not, provided we know the dependence of $`V_i(E_i)`$ on $`E_i`$.
From equation (9) we have the general value of the parameter $`q_i`$:

$$q_i=\frac{n_i}{n_i1}.$$
(10)
From this relation we can rewrite equations (6) and (7) as functions of $`q_i`$:

$$V_i(E_i)=C_i(X_i)E_i^{\frac{q_i}{q_i1}},$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E_i)=\frac{q_i}{q_i1}C_i(X_i)E_i^{\frac{1}{q_i1}}.$$
(12)
It is known  that the energy distribution function of the system is given by:

$$P_1(E_1)dE_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2(E_0E_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(E_0)}dE_1.$$
(13)
With the help of equation (12) we get:

$$P_1(E_1)dE_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2(E_0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(E_0)}\left(1\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)dE_1.$$

If we identify:

$$Z_1^T=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(E_0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_2(E_0)},$$
(14)
as the partition function and:

$$\beta ^{}(q_21)=\frac{1}{E_0},$$
(15)
we arrive at the Tsallis’ power law canonical distribution:

$$P_1(E_1)=\frac{1}{Z_1^T}\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}dV_1.$$
(16)
The average value of an energy dependent property $`\lambda (E_1)`$ is defined by:

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{Z_1^T}[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\lambda 𝑑V_1,$$
(17)
Equation (15) seems to be only a convenient choice of the parameter $`\beta ^{}`$, which appears from the optimization problem of Tsallis’ entropy . But it is easy to show that this is the actual value of $`\beta ^{}`$ that gives the correct average energy $`E_1`$ as given by the energy equipartition theorem, which was shown to be valid in this context . In this reference, the authors suggested that the temperature is proportional to the energy per degree of freedom of a system:

$$k_BT=\frac{E_0}{q_0/(q_01)}=\frac{E_1}{q_1/(q_11)}=\frac{E_2}{q_2/(q_21)}.$$
(18)
This fact has already been pointed out in .
Let us calculate $`E_1`$, using (18):

$$\frac{q_1}{q_11}\frac{q_01}{q_0}E_0=\frac{1}{Z_1^T}\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1𝑑V_1.$$

This integral, and all others to come, must be evaluated bearing in mind the cut-off condition, $`E_1E_0`$ , even if $`q_21<0`$, since this is a physical requirement for any case. This calculation usually yields beta functions. Hence, we arrive at:

$$\frac{q_1}{q_11}\frac{q_01}{q_0}E_0=\left[(q_21)\beta ^{}\right]^1\frac{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11}+1,\frac{q_2}{q_21})}{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11},\frac{q_2}{q_21})},$$

which gives:

$$\beta ^{}=\frac{1}{(q_21)E_0}.$$

where $`B(a,b)`$ is the beta function of $`a`$ and $`b`$. This result was also found in .
If we note that the parameters $`q`$ are related by the extensivity of the degrees of freedom :

$$\frac{q_0}{q_01}=\frac{q_1}{q_11}+\frac{q_2}{q_21}.$$
(19)
The BG canonical ensemble can be recovered if we make the $`q_21`$ limit. This is equivalent to make the number of degrees of freedom of the heat bath, and consequently of the whole system $`\frac{q_0}{q_01}`$, infinite. That is the reason why we call this formalism finite heat bath canonical ensemble.
What we propose here is to obtain the thermodynamic functions, such as internal energy and work, from the partition function $`Z_1^T`$:

$$Z_1^T=\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{q_21}{q_2}C_1(X_1)E_0^{\frac{q_1}{q_11}}=\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{q_21}{q_2}V_1(E_0).$$
(20)
We will show that this is a simple task, and that the relations obtained are the same as those obtained from the exponential distribution.

## 3 Thermodynamics relations

We propose two different ways of deriving these relations. In both of them, we will see that the logarithm of $`Z_1^T`$ naturally appears in the calculations. Then, we do not need to replace it for $`q`$-averages  or $`q`$-logarithm  in order to obtain them.

### 3.1 The first derivation

This path is motivated by the observation that the derivative of the integral form of the partition function does not have a simple form dependent on the partition function. This mathematical inconvenience can be directly viewed from the next equation. From (14), it can be shown that the system’s partition function can be written as:

$$Z_1^T=[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1.$$

Since the argument of $`Z_1^T`$ has the power $`\frac{1}{q_21}`$, any derivative of the first will give negative power of the argument, and no relation can be made with any observable quantity.
Therefore, we start with the definition of the following function:

$$G_1=[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1]^{\frac{q_2}{q_21}}𝑑V_1=\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{q_2}{q_21}}𝑑V_1.$$
(21)
This is, indeed, not a casual choice of this function. We can relate it to the geometry of the phase space with the use of equations (11) and (15). After a simple algebra, we can show that:

$$G_1=\frac{V_0(E_0)}{V_2(E_0)}=V_1(E_0),$$
(22)
which is the accessible volume of the studied system evaluated in $`E_1=E_0`$. From this result, we see that $`G_1`$ is proportional to the partition function $`Z_1^T`$:

$$G_1=\frac{q_2}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}Z_1^T.$$
(23)
It can also be directly calculated using equations (17), (15), and (18).
Let us start our analysis with the calculation of the derivative of $`G_1`$ relating to the factor $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$, using equation (22):

$$\frac{G_1}{(1/k_BT)}=\frac{q_2}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1𝑑V_1.$$

Bearing in mind the average value definition (17), we arrive at:

$$E_1=\frac{lnZ_1^T}{(1/k_BT)}.$$
(24)
This is the same relation between the internal energy of the system and its partition function, of course now we do not have $`\beta ^{BG}`$ as the important variable, since we did not extremize the BG entropy, but we still have its actual value which is $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$.
The second quantity to be determined is: $`\frac{G_1}{X_1}`$. Again, using equation (22), we have:

$$\frac{G_1}{X_1}=\frac{q_2}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{1}{k_BT}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\frac{E_1}{X_1}𝑑V_1.$$

Using (17), we have:

$$\frac{E_1}{X_1}=k_BT\frac{lnZ_1^T}{X_1}.$$
(25)
This is the generalized force applied to the system. Hence, the work done on the system can be regarded as:

$$dW=\frac{E_1}{X_1}dX_1=k_BT\frac{lnZ_1^T}{X_1}dX_1.$$
(26)
Since we have the work done on the system in a quasi-static process, let us calculate the change in the internal energy during this process:

$$dE_1dW_1=dE_1+k_BT\frac{lnZ_1^T}{X_1}dX_1.$$

Since $`lnZ_1^T`$ is a function of both $`X_1`$ and $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$, we have, using (24):

$$\frac{1}{k_BT}(dE_1dW_1)=$$

$$dlnZ_1^T+\frac{1}{k_BT}dE_1+E_1d\left(\frac{1}{k_BT}\right),$$

and we arrive at:

$$dE_1dW_1=Td\left[k_B\left(lnZ_1^T+\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)\right].$$

From the first law of thermodynamics, we identify the right hand side of this equation as the infinitesimal quantity of heat rejected to the bath in this process, $`dQ_1`$. From the second law of thermodynamics, we related this heat with the entropy change in the system during this process: $`dQ_1=TdS_1`$. Then, the entropy of this system can be written as:

$$S_1=k_B\left(lnZ_1^T+\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right).$$
(27)
The definition of the Helmholtz free energy in thermodynamics is $`F=ETS`$ for a general system, then we can readily obtain it from (27) as:

$$F_1=k_BTlnZ_1^T.$$
(28)
We notice that all four relations, (24), (26), (27), (28), have the same form as in BG statistics.

### 3.2 The second derivation

We will start this time from the direct definitions of internal energy and generalized work, and relate them with the partition function. This is the most common derivations in textbooks .
First, let us consider the internal energy, $`E_1`$, in the sense of (17):

$$E_1=\frac{1}{Z_1^T}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1𝑑V_1.$$

This is rewritten as:

$$E_1=\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{q_21}{q_2}\frac{1}{Z_1^T}\frac{}{(1/k_BT)}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{q_2}{q_21}}𝑑V_1.$$

This integral is nothing less than the function $`G_1`$ defined in the previous section. Hence, using relation (23), we arrive at:

$$E_1=\frac{lnZ_1^T}{(1/k_BT)},$$
(29)
which is the same as before.
The generalized force is calculated as:

$$\frac{E_1}{X_1}=\frac{1}{Z_1^T}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\frac{E_1}{X_1}𝑑V_1.$$

Rewriting this expression as:

$$\frac{E_1}{X_1}=\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{q_21}{q_2}\frac{k_BT}{Z_1^T}\frac{}{X_1}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{q_2}{q_21}}𝑑V_1.$$

Again, using expression (23):

$$\frac{E_1}{X_1}=k_BT\frac{lnZ_1^T}{X_1},$$
(30)
which is the same as before.
Since the work and the internal energy expression are the same, we can directly write for the entropy, following the same path before, the next relation:

$$S_1=k_B\left(lnZ_1^T+\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right).$$
(31)
It also follows the Helmholtz free energy:

$$F_1=k_BTlnZ_1^T.$$
(32)
We have obtained an entropy, (27), which is the sum of the natural logarithm of the partition function with the ratio $`\frac{E_1}{T}`$, which is equal $`k_B\frac{q_1}{q_11}`$. The first question which may be put is: which entropy is this? Since we are dealing with an approach to Tsallis’ statistics, we should have obtained, at first sight, an expression like:

$$S_1^T=k_B\frac{1P_1^{q_2}𝑑V_1}{q_21}$$
(33)
but it is clear that it is not possible to write Tsallis’ entropy as a logarithm of the partition function. Then we rewrite $`S_1`$ as:

$$S_1=k_BlnZ_1^T+k_B\frac{q_1}{q_11}.$$

Therefore, we see that it is the form of the additive variant obtained by Almeida in . Besides this remarkable fact, we can still investigate the role played by $`S_1^T`$ and $`\beta ^T`$ in thermodynamics. Before answering this question, we will discuss the roles of the several $`\beta `$ parameters and the Tsallis’ Lagrange multiplier $`\beta ^T`$, as we stated earlier.

## 4 The parameters $`\beta _i`$, $`\beta ^{}`$, and the Lagrange multiplier $`\beta ^T`$

The thermodynamic relations for the work, internal energy and entropy as functions of the system’s partition function are recovered and they do not depend explicitly on $`q`$. The parameter $`\beta ^{BG}`$, which appears in the BG relations, is now replaced by its ordinary value $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$, and we treat this factor as the important one. In this new context, $`\beta ^{}`$ has the following relation with the temperature:

$$\beta ^{}=\frac{1}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{1}{k_BT}$$
(34)
which reduces to the original form when $`q_21`$, since $`q_01`$ as well, see equation (19).
In other papers on the derivation of thermodynamics relations, $`\beta ^{}`$ is directly conncted to the physical temperature, $`T`$ . This is not correct under the finite heat bath picture. Hence, we use, now, the energy per degree of freedom as the physical temperature, and we can obtain all the previous relations.
Mathematically, $`\beta ^{BG}`$ is introduced as a parameter contained in the approximation implied by the infinite bath condition , and it accounts for the bath’s infinite energy. In information theory, it is the Lagrange multiplier associated with the mean internal energy constraint of the optimization problem of the entropy. Here, from equation (15), we see that $`\beta ^{}`$ and the parameter associated with the system, equation (9) with $`i=1`$, are different quantities. The former is a constant in equilibrium while the last ones are random quantities related to the temperature in an average way :

$$k_BT=\frac{1}{q_i}\frac{1}{\beta _i}$$
(35)
We did not mentioned the Tsallis’ Lagrange multiplier $`\beta ^T`$. In order to find its place, let us review the optimization problem . We must extremize Tsallis’ entropy $`S_1^T`$, (33), subjected to the two usual constraints, constant mean internal energy and normalization of the probability distribution $`p_1`$:

$$E_1=P_1E_1𝑑V_1$$
(36)
$$P_1𝑑V_1=1.$$
(37)
Introducing the Lagrange multipliers $`\beta ^T`$ and $`\alpha `$ for the former and the last constraints respectively, and applying the usual optimization technique, we arrive at the following equation for $`P_1`$:

$$P_1^{q_21}=\frac{q_21}{q_2}\alpha \frac{q_21}{q_2}\beta ^TE_1.$$

We rewrite this relation as follows:

$$P_1^{q_21}=\frac{q_21}{q_2}\alpha \left[1(q_21)\frac{\beta ^T}{\alpha (q_21)}E_1\right].$$

Now we define $`\beta ^{}`$ as:

$$\beta ^{}=\frac{1}{(q_21)}\frac{\beta ^T}{\alpha },$$

and we arrive at:

$$P_1=\left[\frac{(q_21)\alpha }{q_2}\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}.$$
(38)
We see, as we argued before, that $`\beta ^{}`$ is not the multiplier $`\beta ^T`$, it is a function of both multipliers. Because of this fact, we can foresee that it must be related to the partition function. This last function is defined by equation (37):

$$\left[\frac{(q_21)\alpha }{q_2}\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}=\frac{1}{Z_1^T}=\frac{1}{\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}𝑑V_1}.$$

Now we can write:

$$(q_21)\alpha =\frac{q_2}{Z_{1}^{T}{}_{}{}^{q_21}},$$
(39)
and conclude that $`\beta ^{}`$ can be finally written as:

$$\beta ^{}=\frac{Z_{1}^{T}{}_{}{}^{q_21}}{q_2}\beta ^T$$
(40)
This relation is analogous to the one found in the optimization problem of $`S_1^T`$ with $`q`$ normalized average energy constraint . The relation of $`\beta ^T`$ with the temperature can be obtained using equation (34). The former is given by:

$$\beta ^Tk_BT=\frac{q_2}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{1}{Z_{1}^{T}{}_{}{}^{q_21}},$$
(41)
which is different from unity if we are not in the infinite bath limit, $`q_21`$. Recalling the generating function relation to the partition function (21), we write the following equation:

$$\beta ^Tk_BT=\frac{G_1}{Z_{1}^{T}{}_{}{}^{q_2}},$$

which is nothing less than:

$$\beta ^Tk_BT=p_1^{q_2}𝑑V_1.$$

This integral is present in Tsallis’ entropy formula. Hence, we rewrite the last as a function of the Lagrange multiplier:

$$\frac{S_1^T}{k_B}=\frac{1}{q_21}(1\beta ^Tk_BT)=\frac{1}{q_21}\left(1\frac{q_2}{q_21}\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{1}{Z_{1}^{T}{}_{}{}^{q_21}}\right).$$
(42)
We see that Tsallis’ entropy can be explicitly written in terms of the multiplier $`\beta ^T`$.

## 5 The problem of the entropy

We now pass on to the matter of answering the question posed at the end of section III.B. Suppose we have a closed system in thermal equilibrium with another one at temperature $`T`$. This studied system is characterized by the external parameter $`X_1`$. Then we know that its entropy $`S_1`$ is a function of its internal energy $`E_1`$ and this parameter $`X_1`$. Since the entropy is an exact differential, we can write the next relation:

$$dS_1=\frac{S_1}{E_1}dE_1+\frac{S_1}{X_1}dX_1.$$
(43)
We now suppose that this entropy is given by Tsallis’ one (42). Since the above relation shows derivatives of the entropy, we calculate the derivative of (33) with respect to a general quantity $`Y`$. After a simple algebra, we obtain:

$$\frac{S_1^T}{Y}=\beta ^Tk_B^2T\frac{lnZ_1^T}{Y}.$$
(44)
Now we have an interesting fact. The entropy itself is not a function of $`lnZ_1^T`$, but the derivatives of both are connected by a direct relation. We can explore this fact, together with the derivatives of $`lnZ_1^T`$.
First, we choose $`Y=E_1`$:

$$\frac{S_1^T}{E_1}=\beta ^Tk_B^2T\frac{lnZ_1^T}{E_1}$$

$$\frac{S_1^T}{E_1}=k_B\beta ^T$$
(45)
where we used equations (18) and (24). This is not a surprising result, since, as was shown in , the Legendre transform structure is valid in this context.
Now we choose $`Y=X_1`$. Then:

$$\frac{S_1^T}{X_1}=\beta ^Tk_B^2T\frac{lnZ_1^T}{X_1}.$$

By equation (25), we conclude that:

$$\frac{S_1^T}{X_1}=k_B\beta ^T\frac{E_1}{X_1}.$$
(46)
Now, we substitute these last two results in equation (43):

$$dS_1^T=k_B\beta ^TdE_1k_B\beta ^T\frac{E_1}{X_1}dX_1,$$

by the definition of the macroscopic work:

$$dS_1^T=k_B\beta ^T(dE_1dW),$$

by the first law of thermodynamics:

$$dS_1^T=k_B\beta ^TdQ,$$
(47)
and, by (42), we finally arrive at:

$$TdS_1^T=\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}\frac{S_1^T}{k_B}\right]dQ$$
(48)
At first sight, we see that Tsallis’ entropy obeys a modified second law of thermodynamics. This conclusion was also reached by macroscopic considerations . Hence, we can say that the second law is indeed affected by the non-extensive character of the entropy. But we believe that the laws of thermodynamics are above the form of the entropy, they must be valid no matter the context we are working in.
We know that the temperature is a integrating factor for the BG entropy. Obviously, we do not have $`T`$ as the integrating factor for $`S_1^T`$, from (47) we have the factor $`k_B\beta ^T`$ as the proper integrating factor for the Tsallis’ entropy. Hence, we see that no modified second law is needed. We only define a new temperature scale for $`S_1^T`$, the one set by $`k_B\beta ^T`$.
If we retain the temperature as the integrating factor for the second law as the right form of the last, what can we infer from the above relation? From (48) we have, after a simple algebra:

$$k_BTd\left[\frac{1}{q_21}ln\left[1(q_21)\frac{S_1^T}{k_BT}\right]\right]=dQ$$

The quantity in brackets is the well known Rènyi entropy, $`S_1^R`$. Hence, we conclude that:

$$d(k_BS_1^R)=\frac{dQ}{T}$$
(49)
We see that the Renyi entropy satisfies the second law of thermodynamics with the inverse temperature as the integrating factor.
From the form of $`S_1^R`$, we can relate it to the additive variant $`S_1`$ using equation (27):

$$S_1=k_BS_1^R+k_B\frac{q_1}{q_11}+k_Bln\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{\frac{1}{q_21}}$$
(50)
Recent papers  also deal with the problem of thermodynamics relations in Tsallis’ thermostatistics but using a different approach, namely the $`q`$-normalized expectation values. The authors of these references obtained equations similar to ours (24) and (45). These formulas are different from the ones found here in the fact that they depend on $`q`$-logarithms, $`ln_qZ_1^T`$, generalized mean values, $`E_1_q`$, and the Lagrange multiplier, $`\beta ^T`$. They make a direct connection of such results to the physical temperature, which seems to be unjustified. However, this $`q`$-normalized formalism is not wrong if we interpret their results as follows: all the relations are correct (which are indeed), and the temperature scale of this $`q`$-normalized thermodynamics is set by $`k_B\beta ^T`$, as proposed here in equation (45) for Tsallis’ entropy. Therefore, $`S_1^T`$ obeys thermodynamics relations of its own, with different mean values, the generalized ones, and temperature scale.
Some of them  obtained such relations with natural logarithms of the partition function, but still making use of $`q`$-averages, the assumption of Rènyi entropy or macroscopic considerations. The difference from these papers from ours is that we start from a solid physical background: the phase space geometry, where the distribution function is defined.

## 6 Conclusions

We obtained the microscopic equations for the thermodynamical quantities from the Tsallis’ formalism with ordinary mean values. The power law partition function is used and no $`q`$-logarithm is necessary to obtain such relations. The quantity $`lnZ_1^T`$ is a natural one.
We also argued that no $`q`$-expectation value is needed to obtain such relations. The issue rests on the fact that the Lagrange multiplier $`\beta ^T`$ is no longer the inverse temperature.
The thermodynamical relations here obtained are functions of the inverse temperature $`\frac{1}{k_BT}`$, which is just the multiplier’s value in BG statistics. Hence, Tsallis’ formalism can be regarded as an exact canonical ensemble approach and all thermodynamical laws are not changed in this context.
The generalized multiplier $`\beta ^T`$ depends on the partition function $`Z_1^T`$ and sets a new temperature scale for Tsallis’ entropy, $`S_1^T`$. The entropy found here $`S_1`$ is related to the Rènyi form $`S_1^R`$ and, in fact, these two have the physical temperature $`T`$, as defined by the energy equipartition theorem, as the proper integrating factor in the second law of thermodynamics.

## 7 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by FUNCAP and CNPq (Brazilian agencies).
We we would like to thank prof. M. P. Almeida for many valuable discussions on this matter. We would also like to thank prof. J. E. Moreira for a critical reading of this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Generalized flux-tube solution in Abelian-projected SU(𝑁) gauge theory

## I Introduction

The dual superconducting picture of the QCD vacuum provides an illuminating scenario of the quark confinement mechanism in QCD tHooft:1975pu ; Mandelstam:1974pi . For example, in this vacuum the color-electric flux associated with a quark-antiquark system is squeezed into an almost-one-dimensional object due to the dual Meissner effect, which forms the so-called color-electric flux tube. If the flux tube is long enough it acquires a constant energy per unit length which we call the string tension. A linearly rising confinement potential has naturally appeared. This picture is analytically described by the dual Ginzburg-Landau (DGL) theory Suzuki:1988yq ; Maedan:1988yi ; Suganuma:1995ps ; Sasaki:1995sa .

The DGL theory is constructed from QCD, following ’t Hooft, by performing an Abelian projection tHooft:1981ht . Two hypotheses enter this construction, Abelian dominance and monopole condensation Ezawa:1982bf ; Ezawa:1982ey . These hypotheses are numerically supported by many studies of SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theories in the maximally Abelian gauge (MAG) Kronfeld:1987vd ; Suzuki:1990gp ; Brandstater:1991sn ; Shiba:1995db ; Bali:1996dm . The importance of monopoles, of Abelian degrees of freedom in general, and the resulting dual superconducting properties have been confirmed even in full QCD in maximally Abelian gauge (MAG) Bornyakov:2001nd . In view of these observations, the dual superconductor picture seems to be realized as an universal feature of the vacuum in arbitrary SU($`N`$) gauge theory. As for $`N3`$, this could be expected since SU($`N3`$) contains SU(2) as a subgroup.

In the present paper, we elaborate on the dual superconducting scenario applied to the SU($`N`$) (with $`N>3`$) gauge theory by formulating explicitly the \[U(1)\]N-1 DGL theory under the usual assumptions of Abelian dominance and monopole condensation. Based on the Weyl symmetric formulation Koma:2000wn ; Koma:2001ut ; Koma:2000hw , we are able to simplify the DGL framework and calculate systematically the string tensions of flux tubes associated with color-electric charges in various representations of SU($`N`$). Finally, we extrapolate the behavior of the resulting string tensions to the large $`N`$ limit.

Our main interest here is to learn how the original non-Abelian SU($`N`$) gauge symmetry is reflected in the systematics of the flux-tube solutions that emerges in the \[U(1)\]N-1 DGL theory. In order to be able to work out these consequences in an analytically accessible case first, it is recommendable to start these considerations at the point separating between the type-I and the type-II dual superconducting vacuum, at the so-called Bogomol’nyi limit Bogomolny:1976de ; deVega:1976mi ; Chernodub:1999xi ; Koma:2000wn , where the flux counting rule will become manifest. The flux counting rule indicates that the string tension of the flux tube is proportional to the topological winding number of the flux, which depends on the color-electric charges attached to its ends. It is instructive to compare the resulting rule with the eigenvalues of quadratic Casimir operator in various representations, to which the different color charges of the non-Abelian gauge theory can belong. We shall make some important observations at this point.

## II The \[U(1)\]N-1 Dual Ginzburg-Landau Theory

In the SU($`N`$) case, the color-electric charges of quarks and the color-magnetic charges of monopoles can be defined by using the weight vectors and the root vectors of the SU($`N`$) algebra as $`\stackrel{}{Q}_k^{(e)}=e\stackrel{}{\omega }_k`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$), and $`\stackrel{}{Q}_{ij}^{(m)}=g\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`j=i+1,\mathrm{},N`$), where $`\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}\stackrel{}{\omega }_i\stackrel{}{\omega }_j`$. The Dirac quantization condition, $`eg=4\pi `$, is now extended to

$`\stackrel{}{Q}_{ij}^{(m)}\stackrel{}{Q}_k^{(e)}=2\pi m_{ijk},`$ (1)
where

$$m_{ijk}2\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}\stackrel{}{\omega }_k=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jk}$$
(2)
takes integer values only.

In the Cartan representation, the \[U(1)\]N-1 DGL theory has the form 111Throughout this paper, we use the notations: Latin indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote color labels, which are not to be summed over unless explicitly mentioned. Boldface letters are used for field variables which are three-dimensional spatial vectors.

$`_{\mathrm{DGL}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\mu \stackrel{}{B}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{B}_\mu e{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{\omega }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)})^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[\left|(_\mu +ig\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}\stackrel{}{B}_\mu )\chi _{ij}\right|^2\lambda \left(|\chi _{ij}|^2v^2\right)^2\right],`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{}{B}_\mu =(B_\mu ^{(3)},B_\mu ^{(8)},\mathrm{},B_\mu ^{(N^21)})`$ is the dual gauge field and $`\chi _{ij}`$ the complex-scalar monopole field which has $`N(N1)/2`$ components. For the potential of the monopole field we adopt the most simple form which is able to incorporate monopole condensation. In the presence of external color-electric charges, a color-electric Dirac string $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) appears in the dual field strength tensor, where the color-electric charge $`\stackrel{}{Q}_k^{(e)}`$ is factorized out. In the dual description, this Dirac string singularity is important to define the color-electric current $`j_{k\mu }^{(e)}`$ as a boundary term $`j_{k\mu }^{(e)}=^\nu {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$, which leads to the violation of the dual Abelian Bianchi identity. The characteristic scales are given by the masses of the monopole field $`m_\chi =2\sqrt{\lambda }v`$ and of the dual gauge field $`m_B=\sqrt{N}gv`$. The ratio between them, $`\kappa m_\chi /m_B`$, is the Ginzburg-Landau parameter which classifies the type of the vacuum: $`\kappa <1`$ (type-I) and $`\kappa >1`$ (type-II).

The dual field strength tensor $`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ appearing in (3) can be rewritten in a way lined up with the components of the Higgs field. Redefining the dual gauge field as

$$B_{ij\mu }g\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}\stackrel{}{B}_\mu ,$$
(4)
we can rewrite the dual field strength tensor as

$`{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $``$ $`_\mu \stackrel{}{B}_\nu _\nu \stackrel{}{B}_\mu e{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{\omega }_k\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}{}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{},`$ (5)
with

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{}=_\mu B_{ij\nu }_\nu B_{ij\mu }2\pi \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}m_{ijk}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)},$$
(6)
where we have used

$$\stackrel{}{B}_\mu =\frac{1}{Ng}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{\epsilon }_{ij}B_{ij\mu }.$$
(7)
Now, the dual gauge field consists of $`N(N1)/2`$ components which parallels the monopole field. Reflecting the fact that the $`N(N1)/2`$ root vectors are not all independent, the dual gauge field has to satisfy several constraints connecting different color labels. Since this redefinition allows us to write the square of the dual field strength tensor as

$$({}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{})^2=\frac{1}{Ng^2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}({}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{})^2=\frac{2}{Ng^2}\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}({}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{})^2,$$
(8)
we find that the DGL theory can be written in a manifestly Weyl symmetric form as

$`_{\mathrm{DGL}}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Ng^2}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{2}+\left|(_\mu +iB_{ij\mu })\chi _{ij}\right|^2\lambda \left(|\chi _{ij}|^2v^2\right)^2\right].`$ (9)
Clearly, this form is symmetric under the exchange of the color labels $`i`$ or $`j`$. This is the extension of our previous work Koma:2000wn  from SU(3) to SU($`N`$). Apart from the existing constraints, the action takes the form of a sum of $`N(N1)/2`$ types of U(1) dual Abelian Higgs (DAH) models. The Lagrangian density is invariant under the \[U(1)\]N(N-1)/2 transformation:

$`\chi _{ij}\chi _{ij}e^{if_{ij}},\chi _{ij}^{}\chi _{ij}^{}e^{if_{ij}},B_{ij\mu }B_{ij\mu }_\mu f_{ij},`$
$`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N\text{and}j=i+1,\mathrm{},N).`$ (10)
However, this does not imply an increase of symmetry. The remaining constraints among the dual gauge fields express the fact that the dual gauge symmetry remains \[U(1)\]N-1. The number of constraints is found to be $`N(N1)/2(N1)=(N2)(N1)/2`$. For example, in the SU($`N=3`$) case we have one constraint $`B_{12\mu }+B_{23\mu }+B_{31\mu }=0`$ Koma:2000wn .

## III The Generalized Flux-Tube Solutions

We are interested in the flux-tube solution to be obtained in this framework which is associated with external color-electric charges belonging to some particular representation of SU($`N`$). The solution is provided by solving the classical field equations derived from the Lagrangian density for each pair $`i<j`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_m^2}}^\mu {}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{}=i\left(\chi _{ij}^{}_\nu \chi _{ij}\chi _{ij}_\nu \chi _{ij}^{}\right)+2B_{ij\nu }\chi _{ij}^{}\chi _{ij}=k_{ij\nu },`$ (11)
$`\left(_\mu +iB_{ij\mu }\right)^2\chi _{ij}=2\lambda \chi _{ij}(\chi _{ij}^{}\chi _{ij}v^2).`$ (12)
Here we have defined an “effective” dual gauge coupling

$`g_m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}}g.`$ (13)
Written in terms of the coupling $`g_m`$, each pair of the replicated field equations has exactly the same form as in the U(1) DGL theory for SU($`N=2`$). This is one of the advantages of this formulation. The flux-tube solution is induced by the Dirac string singularity, where the field profiles have to behave so as to make the energy of the system finite. In order to realize this feature more explicitly, it is useful to parametrize the dual gauge field by two parts as

$`B_{ij\mu }B_{ij\mu }^{\mathrm{reg}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}m_{ijk}B_{k\mu }^{\mathrm{sing}},`$ (14)
where the second term, the singular part of the dual gauge field, is determined by the relation

$`_\mu B_{k\nu }^{\mathrm{sing}}_\nu B_{k\mu }^{\mathrm{sing}}2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}=2\pi C_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$ (15)
with the Coulombic field tensor

$`C_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|xy|^2}}{}_{}{}^{}(j_k^{(e)}(y))_{\mu \nu }^{}.`$ (16)
Note that the square of this field tensor leads to the interaction Lagrangian between the color-electric currents via the Coulomb propagator. It means that this term gives the Coulomb potential for the static quark-antiquark system 222However, this does not mean that the total non-confining potential of the flux-tube becomes the Coulomb potential, since there are other boundary contributions from remaining terms. In the London limit, the sum of all boundary contributions finally leads to the Yukawa potential Koma:2001pz ; Koma:2002rw .. Inserting Eqs. (14) and (15) into Eq. (6), the dual field strength tensor is written as

$`{}_{}{}^{}F_{ij\mu \nu }^{}=_\mu B_{ij\nu }^{\mathrm{reg}}_\nu B_{ij\mu }^{\mathrm{reg}}+2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}m_{ijk}C_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}.`$ (17)
Here both the regular part of the dual gauge field $`B_{ij\mu }^{\mathrm{reg}}`$ and the Coulomb term $`C_{k\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$ does not contain any string singularity, so that the dual field strength tensor does not either. All the information concerning the string, for instance its position or length, is now described by the singular part $`B_{k\mu }^{\mathrm{sing}}`$, which is not a part of the gauge field any more. Since $`B_{k\mu }^{\mathrm{sing}}`$ directly couples to the monopole field $`\chi _{ij}`$, one can find the general boundary conditions; on the string the modulus of the monopole field should vanish $`|\chi _{ij}|=0`$, while it takes the value of condensate $`|\chi _{ij}|v`$ at a distance from the string. Simultaneously, the dual gauge field should behave as $`B_{ij\nu }^{\mathrm{reg}}_{k=1}^Nm_{ijk}B_{k\mu }^{\mathrm{sing}}`$.

Let us consider the infinitely long flux-tube system with cylindrical and translational symmetry along $`z`$ axis, in other words, we put a quark at $`x=y=0`$ and $`z=\mathrm{}`$ and an antiquark at $`x=y=0`$ and $`z=\mathrm{}`$. In this case we can neglect the Coulomb term $`C_{j\mu \nu }^{(e)}`$. All fields are now described as a function only of the radial coordinate $`r`$ :

$`\chi _{ij}=\varphi _{ij}(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\eta _{ij}),`$ (18)
and

$`𝑩_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}(r)=B_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}(r)𝒆_\phi {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}(r)}{r}}𝒆_\phi ,`$ (19)
where $`\phi `$ denotes the azimuthal angle around the $`z`$ axis. It is useful to note that, when the open flux-tube system is considered, the phase of the monopole field $`\eta _{ij}`$ is single-valued, which can be absorbed in the regular part of the dual gauge field by the redefinition as $`B_{ij\mu }^{\mathrm{reg}}+_\mu \eta _{ij}B_{ij\mu }^{\mathrm{reg}}`$. The solution of Eq. (15) is found to be

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}m_{ijk}𝑩_k^{\mathrm{sing}}(r)={\displaystyle \frac{n_{ij}^{(m)}}{r}}𝒆_\phi ,`$ (20)
where

$$n_{ij}^{(m)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}m_{ijk}n_k^{(e)}=n_i^{(e)}n_j^{(e)}$$
(21)
is the winding number of the flux tube. The set of integer values $`\{n_1^{(e)},n_2^{(e)},\mathrm{},n_N^{(e)}\}`$ depends on the representation to which the color-electric charges placed at the ends of the flux tube belong 333Thanks to the Weyl symmetric formulation, it is not necessary to pay attention to the order of winding numbers. For example, the bracket $`\{A,B\}`$ represents not only $`(A,B)`$ but also $`(B,A)`$ (all possible permutation can be taken).. Paying attention to the highest weight of a $`D`$-dimensional representation of the SU($`N`$) algebra, being specified by Dynkin indices as $`[p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_{N1}]`$, we find the simple relation

$$\{n_1^{(e)},n_2^{(e)},\mathrm{},n_N^{(e)}\}=\{p_1,p_2,(p_2+p_3),\mathrm{},\underset{i=2}{\overset{N1}{}}p_i,0\}.$$
(22)
Note that since only $`N1`$ of the weight vectors are independent due to $`_{j=1}^N\stackrel{}{w}_j=0`$, we can choose $`n_N^{(e)}=0`$ without loss of generality.

The field equations (11) and (12) are now reduced to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}}{dr^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}}{dr}}2g_\mathrm{m}^2\left(\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}n_{ij}^{(m)}\right)\varphi _{ij}^2=0,`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\varphi _{ij}}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}n_{ij}^{(m)}}{r}}\right)^2\varphi _{ij}2\lambda \varphi _{ij}(\varphi _{ij}^2v^2)=0.`$ (24)
Here we can write the boundary conditions for the fields explicitly as

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}=0,\varphi _{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& (n_{ij}^{(m)}0)\\ v& (n_{ij}^{(m)}=0)\end{array}\mathrm{as}r0,`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}=n_{ij}^{(m)},\varphi _{ij}=v\mathrm{as}r\mathrm{}.`$ (28)
In order to obtain a flux-tube solution, some of the winding numbers must take non-zero integer values, $`n_{ij}^{(m)}0`$. In other words, if $`n_{ij}^{(m)}=0`$ for all combinations of $`i`$ and $`j`$, the field equations have only a trivial solution: $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}=0`$, $`\varphi _{ij}=v`$ everywhere.

## IV The generalized string tension

The energy of the system is, in general, given by the spatial integration of the energy-momentum tensor. Starting from this, we can specify the string tension as the energy of the flux tube per unit length. In the system with cylindrical symmetry we have

$`\sigma _D=2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_\mathrm{m}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}}{dr}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dr}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}n_{ij}^{(m)}}{r}}\right)^2\varphi _{ij}^2+\lambda (\varphi _{ij}^2v^2)^2\right].`$ (29)
Remarkably, in this system, the boundary conditions of the field profile (28) allow to write the string tension as

$`\sigma _D`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi v^2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}\left|n_{ij}^{(m)}\right|+2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}rdr[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_\mathrm{m}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}}{dr}}\pm g_\mathrm{m}^2(\varphi _{ij}^2v^2))^2`$ (30)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dr}}\pm (\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}n_{ij}^{(m)}){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{ij}}{r}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\lambda g_\mathrm{m}^2)(\varphi _{ij}^2v^2)^2].`$
From this expression one finds that the so-called Bogomol’nyi limit,

$`g_\mathrm{m}^2=2\lambda ,\mathrm{or}Ng^2=4\lambda ,`$ (31)
leads to a considerable simplification in the evaluation on the string tension. Note that these relations correspond to taking $`m_B=m_\chi `$ ($`\kappa =m_\chi /m_B=1`$). In this case, the field equations turn into first order differential equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}}{dr}}\pm g_\mathrm{m}^2(\varphi _{ij}^2v^2)=0,`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{ij}}{dr}}\pm \left(\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{\mathrm{reg}}n_{ij}^{(m)}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{ij}}{r}}=0.`$ (33)
If they are satisfied, the string tension acquires the simple form

$$\sigma _D=2\pi v^2\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\left|n_{ij}^{(m)}\right|=2\pi v^2\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\left|n_i^{(e)}n_j^{(e)}\right|=2\pi v^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}k(Nk)p_k,$$
(34)
where the final equality holds in view of the relation between the winding numbers and the Dynkin index (22). This is the main result of this paper. The string tension in the fundamental representation $`\sigma _F`$ is given by $`\sigma _F=2\pi v^2(N1)`$ since $`p_1=1`$, $`p_{i=2,\mathrm{},N1}=0`$. For the adjoint representation, $`\sigma _A=4\pi v^2(N1)`$, where $`p_1=p_{N1}=1`$, $`p_{i=2,\mathrm{},N2}=0`$. It is interesting to note that $`\sigma _A/\sigma _F=2`$ for arbitrary gauge group SU($`N`$). We find that the string tension is proportional to the number of color-electric Dirac strings inside the flux-tube, $`n_{ij}^{(m)}`$. It means that the flux counting rule for the string tension is realized. This is a good starting point for considerations in the type-I ($`\kappa <1`$) or type-II ($`\kappa >1`$) dual superconducting vacuum, where the string tension deviates from the flux counting rule, due to the manifest interaction between the dual gauge field and the monopole field, in the sense that the corrections will be under control.

In Fig. 1 we show the systematic behavior of the ratio between string tensions,

$`d_D={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _D}{\sigma _F}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k(Nk)}{N1}}p_k,`$ (35)
for the gauge groups SU(2), SU(3), SU(4), and SU(6). In comparison, we also plot the corresponding ratio between the eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operator associated with the representations $`D`$ and $`F`$, $`C^{(2)}(D)/C^{(2)}(F)`$ (see, Appendix A). At glance, one finds that the ratio $`d_D`$ tends to approach the Casimir ratio in the large $`N`$ limit. This will become clearer in the Appendix A, where we observe that the leading contribution to the ratio of eigenvalues of Casimir operator for lower dimensional representations is given by

$$C^{(2)}(D)/C^{(2)}(F)\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\frac{k(Nk)}{N1}p_k,$$
(36)
which coincides with Eq. (35).

It is amusing to note that if one evaluates the eigenvalues of quadratic Casimir operator only from off-diagonal generators, neglecting the original diagonal ones $`T_3`$, $`T_8`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ , $`T_{N^21}`$, one gets

$$C_{\mathrm{offdiag}}^{(2)}(D)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}k(Nk)p_k.$$
(37)
Here only induced diagonal generators, appearing through the commutation relations among off-diagonal generators are taken into account. Then, the ratio $`C_{\mathrm{offdiag}}^{(2)}(D)/C_{\mathrm{offdiag}}^{(2)}(F)`$ exactly reproduces Eq. (35). Since the DGL theory is based on the Abelian projection scheme, where the non-diagonal part of the non-Abelian gauge field is absent, one might be misled to expect that the string tension of the flux tube in this approach scales exclusively with the square of the original diagonal generators. The result shows, however, that this consideration is too naive. The flux tube energy is mainly controlled by induced diagonal generators. This clear result manifestly emerges in the Bogomol’nyi limit.

## V Summary

We have formulated the \[U(1)\]N-1 dual Ginzburg-Landau (DGL) theory as a low-energy effective theory of Abelian-projected SU($`N`$) gauge theory within a manifestly Weyl symmetric procedure. This leads to a Lagrangian density which corresponds to the sum of $`N(N1)/2`$ types of U(1) dual Abelian Higgs models with $`(N2)(N1)/2`$ constraints among the dual gauge fields. We have calculated the string tensions of the flux-tube solution associated with static charges in various $`D`$-dimensional representations for SU($`N`$). This is analytically possible at the transition point from a type-I to type-II superconducting vacuum, also known as the Bogomol’nyi limit ($`\kappa =1`$). We have shown that the string tensions satisfy the flux counting rule. By comparing the ratio of string tensions, $`d_D\sigma _D/\sigma _F`$, with the ratio of eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operators, we have found that the flux-tube in the DGL theory mainly carries the information of induced diagonal generators rather than that of the original diagonal ones. This feature leads to the tendency, that $`d_DC^{(2)}(D)/C^{(2)}(F)`$ in the large $`N`$ limit.

In this paper we have concentrated on the Bogomol’nyi limit. The actual type of the dual superconducting vacuum is not determined yet, which is one of the longstanding problems in this scenario. Of course, finally it should be determined directly from the non-Abelian gauge theory. The investigation of monopole dynamics based on lattice simulations is a promising way for this purpose. In fact, such efforts for the SU(2) and the SU(3) cases are in progress Suzuki:2001tp . Once the vacuum parameters are found, it becomes interesting to compare the ratio of the string tension of the flux tubes for arbitrary sources in the DGL theory, with observed lattice data Deldar:1999vi ; Bali:2000un ; Lucini:2001nv ; DelDebbio:2001kz ; DelDebbio:2001sj  in the non-Abelian theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to M. Koma, T. Suzuki and E.-M. Ilgenfritz for fruitful discussions. This work is partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan, Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (B), 14740161, 2002.

## Appendix A Eigenvalue of quadratic Casimir operator

The eigenvalue of quadratic Casimir operator $`C^{(2)}[D]`$ for arbitrary dimensional representations in SU($`N`$) can be expressed in terms of the Dynkin indices $`[p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_{N1}]`$. For SU(2), SU(3), SU(4), and SU(6) cases:

$`\text{SU(2):}C^{(2)}[D]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{2}}\right)^2,`$ (38)
$`\text{SU(3):}C^{(2)}[D]`$ $`=`$ $`p_1+p_2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2}{2}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1p_2}{2\sqrt{3}}}\right)^2,`$ (39)
$`\text{SU(4):}C^{(2)}[D]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(p_1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}p_2+p_3)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2+p_3}{2}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2p_3}{2\sqrt{3}}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_12p_2p_3}{2\sqrt{6}}}\right)^2,`$ (40)
$`\text{SU(6):}C^{(2)}[D]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}(p_1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}p_2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}p_3+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}p_4+p_5)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5}{2}}\right)^2`$ (41)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4p_5}{2\sqrt{3}}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_2+p_32p_4p_5}{2\sqrt{6}}}\right)^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1+p_23p_32p_4p_5}{2\sqrt{10}}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_14p_23p_32p_4p_5}{2\sqrt{15}}}\right)^2.`$
These formulae can be obtained by paying attention to the highest weight state of the representation. As an example, it is instructive to learn the derivation from the SU(2) case. Let the state which belongs to $`D`$-dimensional representation be $`|D`$ and its highest weight state $`|D_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where the latter state is defined so as to satisfy $`E_+|D_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$ with raising operator $`E_+T_1+iT_2`$. Operating $`T_3`$ on the highest weight, we get an eigenvalue $`p_1/2`$ with the Dynkin index $`[p_1]`$:

$$T_3|D_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{p_1}{2}|D_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(42)
Then the eigenvalue of the quadratic Casimir operator is calculated as

$$C^{(2)}[D]=D|\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}T_aT_a|D=D_{\mathrm{max}}|E_{}E_++T_3+T_3^2|D_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{p_1}{2}+\left(\frac{p_1}{2}\right)^2.$$
(43)
This derivation is extended straightforwardly to the SU(3), SU(4), and SU(6) cases, which provides the above expressions. The dimension $`D_N`$ for the representation $`[p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_{N1}]`$ is

$`D_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!\mathrm{}(N1)!}}(p_1+1)(p_1+p_2+2)\mathrm{}(p_1+\mathrm{}+p_{N1}+N1)`$ (44)
$`\times (p_2+1)(p_2+p_3+2)\mathrm{}(p_2+\mathrm{}+p_{N1}+N2)`$
$`\times \mathrm{}`$
$`\times (p_{N2}+p_{N1}+2)`$
$`\times (p_{N1}+1).`$
Explicitly, this means for our cases

$`\text{SU(2):}D_2`$ $`=`$ $`p_1+1,`$ (45)
$`\text{SU(3):}D_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(p_1+1)(p_1+p_2+2)`$ (46)
$`\times (p_2+1),`$
$`\text{SU(4):}D_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!3!}}(p_1+1)(p_1+p_2+2)(p_1+p_2+p_3+3)`$ (47)
$`\times (p_2+1)(p_2+p_3+2)`$
$`\times (p_3+1),`$
$`\text{SU(6):}D_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!3!4!5!}}(p_1+1)(p_1+p_2+2)(p_1+p_2+p_3+3)(p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+4)(p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5+5)`$ (48)
$`\times (p_2+1)(p_2+p_3+2)(p_2+p_3+p_4+3)(p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5+4)`$
$`\times (p_3+1)(p_3+p_4+2)(p_3+p_4+p_5+3)`$
$`\times (p_4+1)(p_4+p_5+2)`$
$`\times (p_5+1).`$


text:
# Multi-Quark Hadrons and S=-2 Hypernuclei.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

One very interesting question which arises in our search for examples of quark-gluon matter is the apparent absence, or at least the paucity of examples of elementary hadrons possessing more than three quarks. There is perhaps one good candidate for an exotic meson consisting of two quarks combined with two anti-quarks: viz the $`\pi _1`$ 1410 thought to be an $`I^G(J^{PC}=1^{}(1^+)`$ state taatables , but there is not likely an equally good candidate for a $`gg+ggg+\mathrm{}`$ state or glueball. The perhaps more distinguishable H-dibaryon Jaffe  has also not yet shown up on its own in any experimental search and it has proved to be equally elusive in theoretical analysis. Surely, however, strange matter must be present at the heart of virtually all gravitationally collapsed objects BCK . Nothing new is offered here with respect to the mesonic possibilities: but the presence of more than a single strange quark in dibaryons and light nuclei is explored in more detail.

During this presentation, we wish to cover two apparently disparate subjects: (1) the production of the H-dibaryon in both elementary and heavy ion induced reactions, and (2) the generation of very light to moderately light $`S=2`$ hypernuclei. Both subjects concern $`S=2`$ systems and they are quite possibly tied together by the possible presence within finite systems of a hybrid H, possibly constructed both from dibaryon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and from $`6`$-quark bag like ($`uuddss`$) components, viz:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }+\beta |q^6$$
(1)
with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ being amplitudes for the two-body and $`6`$-quark components of the hybrid state. The purely Jaffe-like H state Jaffe  corresponds to $`\beta =1`$. Our later coalescence calculation for the formation of an $`H`$ is independent of this parameter. The procedure we follow to estimate the effect of a repulsive core on entry from a doorway $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ state into the final H is applicable to either the pure bag or hybrid cases.

We begin by indicating that the seeming absence of the H in existing searches is perhaps attributable to repulsive (soft-core) forces in the baryon-baryon system, which prevent penetration to short range of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pair during any mechanism for formation of the dihyperon structure. However, one might anticipate to the contrary, that within a finite nucleus two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s could be held together for sufficient time to permit a short range structure to develop.

Since the first of these subjects, H-suppression, has been described elsewhere hardcore , it will only be briefly dealt with here. To our knowledge all theoretical estimates of production rates hlight ; KahanaDover , irrespective of mechanism, have overlooked the possibility of a repulsive core in the baryon-baryon interaction at short distances. As we show, under reasonable assumptions the core can lead to an appreciable diminution of H yield. We introduce this device in the context of heavy ion collisions where a previous calculation KahanaDover  suggested a high formation probability, $`0.07`$ per central Au + Au collision. The AGS experiment E896 Crawford  is presently analysing some 100 million central Au + Au events and could, in the light of this previous estimate, have provided a definitive search for the H. In Reference hardcore  we presented an estimate of the extent to which a repulsive core might interfere with this hope.

We put forward first the simplest possible theoretical description of the multi-quark systems; then we consider the, successful or otherwise, experimental searches for such objects. This is followed by a description of the related attempts to produce multi-strange nuclei.

## 2 Bag Model Analysis of Multi-Quark States

Soon after the introduction of the MIT bag model bag , used to consider the normal hadrons, mesons constructed from a single quark-antiquark pair and baryons containing three quarks, Jaffe Jaffe  proposed the insertion into the bag of extra valence quarks could produce more exotic systems. For meson states these additional components could be quarks only $`(q\overline{q})^2`$ or could be hybrids of quarks and glue $`(q\overline{q},g)`$. Glueball states, $`(gg+ggg+\mathrm{})`$, were already on the table. Jaffe also suggested the existence of the H-Dibaryon which could be described as a $`6`$-quark bag (uu,dd,ss) Jaffe . Of course, the easiest meson candidates to identify would be the so-called exotics, i. e. those with quantum numbers which cannot arise from ($`q\overline{q}`$) alone. Examples of exotic quantum numbers are states characterised by $`J^{PC}=0^{},0^+,1^+,2^+`$.

The basic theory covering all these states in the bag model is essentially the same. The total energy for N quarks in a bag of radius R may be written Jaffe :

$$E(N)=E_Q+E_V+E_0+E_G$$
(2)
with a quark kinetic energy

$$E_Q=\frac{1}{R}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[k(m_iR)^2+(m_iR)^2],$$
(3)
where $`k`$ is a wave number, and

$$E_G=\frac{g^2}{2}\underset{i<j}{}\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}d^3x\left(\overline{B}_i^a\overline{B}_j^a\right)=\frac{\alpha _c}{R}\underset{i<j}{}\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}M(m_iR,m_jR)[\overline{\sigma }_i\overline{\sigma }_j](\lambda _i^a\lambda _j^a).$$
(4)
Here $`M(m_iR,m_jR)`$, is the color magnetic energy of one-gluon exchange from quark to quark. The other terms $`E_V=BV`$ and $`E_0=z_0/R`$ are the volume bag pressure and the bag zero point energy respectively. The bag parameters suggested by analysis of the normal hadron spectrum involve a rather large gluon exchange coupling $`\alpha _c=(g^2/4\pi )=0.55`$, a bag constant $`B^{1/4}=146`$ MeV, vacuum energy $`z_0/R=1.84`$, and finally a rather large mass for the strange quark, $`m_s=279`$ MeV. The matrix element, $`M(m_iR,m_jR)`$, obtained in the bag for the color-magnetic operators is approximated by a diagonal matrix for strange quarks; $`M=M((n_s/N)m_sR,(n_s/N)m_sR)`$ with $`n_s`$ the number of strange quarks.

To proceed, one constructs anti-symmetric wave functions in color, spin and flavour, diagonalises the energy exploiting the existing $`SU(6)=SU_c(3)XSU_S(2)`$ symmetry and then minimises the whole with respect to bag radius. The general range found for the masses of $`(q\overline{q})^2`$ states is from $`1460`$ MeV ($`S=0`$) to $`2140`$ ($`S=4`$) MeV. A reasonably good candidate for such an exotic is the $`\pi _1(1400)`$, referred to above taatables , identified in $`\pi ^{}N`$ scattering. In particular Thompson et al. taatables  find a resonant final state $`(\eta ,\pi ^{})`$ component to which they assign a mass of $`1370\pm 10_{30}^{+50})`$ MeV and a width of $`385\pm 40_{105}^{+65}`$ MeV. No state of similar status has been isolated for other quark hybrids or glueballs.

The $`S=2`$ H-dibaryon, considered more extensively hereafter, is found by Jaffe, through reasoning similar to that above, to be some $`80`$ MeV bound.

## 3 H-Dibaryon

This highly symmetric object is in principle more likely to exist than its meson-like compatriots. The H possesses conserved baryon and strangeness numbers, viz $`B=2,S=2`$. If it were a purely hadronic state its wave function would appear as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_H=\sqrt{\frac{1}{8}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\sqrt{\frac{4}{8}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{\Xi }N}.$$
(5)
More recent estimates of the mass of the H have differed from Jaffe’s original estimate and from each other. Indeeed, there is no consensus among theorists that the H is in fact a bound object. There is, however, general agreement on the results of the many searches which have been made for this state: it is not yet found.

Conventional hypernuclear studies hlight  exploit the elementary processes $`p(K^{},K^+)\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, $`p(\mathrm{\Xi }^{},\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ The first produces an effective $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ beam, incident on another nucleus in the target and thus generates a di-lambda. The latter pair may or may not form the putative H. The same experimental approach could of course yield doubly strange hypernuclei. An advantageous target for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ beam is the deuteron, resulting hopefully in an H plus a monoenergetic neutron. The latter is relatively easily identified.

Another approach, used in the BNL experiment E896 Crawford  exploits the large numbers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s, some $`30`$ per event, generated in relativistic $`Au+Au`$ collisions. Here again the results have been so far negative.

One good reason for the lack of success of these experiments lies in the nature of the production of a bound di-lambda state. For two strange baryons to coalesce into a bag they must first penetrate the mutually repulsive core of the potential. Suppression of the yield for a spatially very extended object like the deuteron is minimal. This is not so for the H, which consists of six quarks in a bag comparable in size to that of a single baryon, so that short range repulsion, found in $`NN`$ interactions and expected to exist for strange baryon-baryon interactions as well, could play a considerable role. H formation from two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s can be viewed as proceeding in two steps: merging into a broad deuteron-like state followed by barrier penetration into the bag. The overall rate is then proportional to the product of the probability of coalescence dekcoal  with a prefactor giving the penetration probability. Of course there are unknowns, one the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ separation $`a`$ at which the two bags would dissolve into a single bag, the other the nature of the short range forces after dissolution. The first, $`a`$, we treated as a parameter; the second we took from the Bonn potential Bonn , limiting our considerations to the shortest ranged $`\omega `$ and $`\sigma `$ components. Since the exchange of a $`\varphi `$ meson between $`s`$ quarks very nearly matches that of an $`\omega `$ between ordinary quarks, the Bonn interaction needs little readjustment for strange-strange interaction. Thus we take the short range force, appropriate to the penetration of the core and depicted in Fig. 1, to be of the form

$$V(r)=V_\omega (r)+V_\sigma (r),$$
(6)
where

$$V_i(r)=\frac{g_i}{r}\mathrm{exp}(m_ir).$$
(7)
The strong short range $`\sigma `$ attraction reduces the effect of the hard core, while the longer range parts of the force are assumed to play a negligible role. The two baryons approach to some outer radius $`a`$, in fact a turning point, before being faced with the strong repulsion. The calculation is especially sensitive to this separation $`a`$. Although our final results on barrier penetration are consequently somewhat uncertain, it will become apparent that the one thing one cannot do is to ignore them.

Barrier penetration in an effective two body model can the quantified in the transmission coefficient Messiah  at relative energy $`E`$:

$$T(E)=4\mathrm{exp}(2\tau ),$$
(8)
where

$$\tau =_a^b𝑑r\sqrt{2m(V(r)E}.$$
(9)
The chief results, as they relate to coalescence into di-baryons in Au + Au collisions, are presented in Fig. 2, indicating the variation of H-dibaryon yield with $`a`$. This latter parameter must not be thought of as an effective hard core radius for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ interaction. The underlying quark-quark forces may be viewed as possessing a repulsive short range component due to the exchange of vector mesons kahanaripka . Even with complete overlap of the parent baryons the average interquark separation for a uniform spatial distribution is comparable to the parent radius $`R0.8`$ fermis, i. e. considerably greater than any conceivable fixed hard core. We have concentrated on baryon centers between $`0.25`$ and $`0.40`$ fermis apart as a reasonable range.

At the largest $`a`$ suppression from the repulsive forces is not inconsiderable, but for the smallest $`a`$-values observation of the H, should it exist, becomes difficult. Early analysis of the actual experimental setup using the heavy ion simulation ARC arc ; Judd , suggested a neutral background comparable with the initial estimate of $`0.07`$ $`H`$’s per central collision. For baryon separations of $`0.25`$ to $`0.35`$ fermis one would have to achieve a tracking sensitivity of $`10^4`$ to $`10^2`$ relative to background. Even in the worst case scenario one is still left with perhaps a few thousand sample dibaryons, from the very large number of central Au + Au events, but they are immersed in what may prove to be a daunting background.

We conclude that short range repulsion between strange baryons can profoundly hinder coalescence into objects whose very existence depends on the presence of important bag-like structure. This lesson applies even more to the many H-searches initiated in $`(K^{},K^+)`$ reactions hlight , since these generally involve even lower relative energies $`E`$. Unfortunately the very same repulsive forces which made coalescence into a bound state difficult, may also, at the quark level, destroy the existence of any such state.

## 4 Doubly Strange Hypernuclei

There is perhaps one way to circumvent this frustrating barrier to the discovery of the lightest of all possible strangelets. In the event a pair of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s is attached, through a $`(K^{},K^+)`$ reaction, to a light nucleus, a hybrid H may form, i. e. the H described above containing both dibaryon and six quark bag components. In a light nucleus, for example $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H, the extra nucleons in this four particle system keep the captured hyperons together for some $`100`$ picoseconds, far more than enough time for penetration of the rather modest $`12`$ GeV barrier between them. In any case the search for $`S=2`$ hypernuclei, the only strangelets we are certain exist, is highly interesting in its own right. An ongoing AGS experiment, E906 E906prl , focuses on these nuclei and as we indicate may have already provided evidence for their existence E906prl .

In E906 E906prl  the ($`K^{},K^+`$) reaction on a 9Be target is employed to produce a tagged beam of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$s. The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ in turn may convert into a pair of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s by interaction with a proton, either in the nucleus in which it was produced or by subsequent interaction with another 9Be nucleus. It is in an emulsion experiment at KEK Aoki  that one such hypernuclei was found with perhaps other examples from Prowse Prowse  and Danysz et al Danysz . Indeed, all three of these candidates for double hypernuclei were interpreted as possessing a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}4.5`$ MeV Millener  . Such a high value is unexpected from existing, albeit theoretical, knowledge of hyperon-hyperon forces. It was then possible to surmise interesting activity in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system at short range separation.

Given the $`K^{}`$ beam energy of $`1.8`$ GeV, the tagged $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$s initially possess considerable kinetic energy, $`140`$ MeV, and are more likely than not to escape the nucleus in which they are produced. A guiding principle we employ in qualitatively understanding the broad aspects of the data, is that final states containing the very stable 4He are favoured. This picture is also mindful of an oft used cluster model for 9Be as two $`\alpha `$-particles joined together by a weakly bound neutron. The 9Be target is useful in slowing down the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, but the observed reactions are for the most part initiated essentially on an $`\alpha `$.

Further, in the present experiment which observes $`S=2`$ final states by their decay into two momentum-correlated $`\pi ^{}`$’s, the heaviest $`A=9,8,7,\mathrm{}`$ systems will decay weakly predominantly through non-mesonic channels. Thus the lightest systems are probably doubly favoured in our data, through both their production and their decay dynamics.

## 5 Analysis of the E906 Data

The measurements which contain evidence for possible $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclei are highlighted in Fig. 3. Displayed are the two-dimensional, Dalitz plot for the total sample of correlated two $`\pi ^{}`$ decays recorded in the CDS detector E906prl , and the projections of this data on the $`P_L`$ and $`P_H`$ axes. These denote the low and high momenta for the $`\pi _L`$ and $`\pi _H`$ pair detected in an event. The circled feature in the 2-D plot is of principle interest, giving rise to the prominent peaks near $`P_H=114`$ MeV/c in insert I and a correlated peak at $`P_H104`$ MeV/c in II. The experiment is searching for pairs of pion momenta unexplained from previous knowledge of hypernucleon lines. The expected spectrum close to the region of interest in E906 are shown in Fig. 4, with single hypernuclear lines indicated vertically and doubly strange candidates diagonally. The slope in the latter denotes the dependence of the $`S=2`$ energy as a function of the important pairing energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

The higher momentum structure in I near $`137`$ MeV/c is understood as the decay in flight of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ hyperons, but the width of the lower peak is too broad to be due to a single component line. The very prominent peak in II is completely unexpected. The high momentum $`\pi ^{}`$ peak in I arises in part from the decay of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H yielding a meson line at $`114.3`$ MeV/c, but considering the experimental resolution of $`2.5`$ MeV, this $`\pi _H`$ prominence at $`114`$ MeV must contain more structure.

The projection in II is constructed from a reverse cut $`106MeV/ck^\pi ^{}120`$ MeV/c, i. e. under the first compound peak in II, and thus should reveal the low momentum $`\pi _L^{}`$ correlated with the $`114`$ MeV/c peak in I. The most striking feature in II is the narrow prominence near $`104`$ GeV/c, which cannot for example be accounted for by single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay in a $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}}\mathrm{H}`$ \+ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final state, or for that matter by any other known line. Adding even a small kinetic energy to the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ initiating the reaction leading to the final $`S=2`$ state would broaden the single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ decay well beyond that measured for the the dominant peak in this reverse cut. The correlation of this peak in II with the excessively broad dominant peak in Fig. 3 I is strong evidence for the presence of a light double-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ species in the data.

Fig. 4, Yamamoto , indicates where known single $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hypernuclear lines are expected as well as where $`S=2`$ lines are anticipated as a function of the pairing energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Reiterating, the most interesting feature in the present data, centered at $`112114`$ MeV/c, could only result from the production of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H and/or $`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H.

$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H has two generic modes of decay:

$${}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\mathrm{He}+\pi _2^{},$$
(10)
or

$${}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^3\mathrm{H}+p+\pi _1^{}.$$
(11)
The two body decay in the first mode yields the high energy $`\pi _H^{}`$ from which the $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can in principle be estimated, and is followed by a three body decay producing the correlated $`\pi _L`$.

The very narrowness of the $`\pi _L^{}`$ peak in II suggests that the decay mode in Equation 7 is not strictly three body in character. We offer as a candidate a resonance in $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He, arrived at by decay from the clearly spatially extended $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{H}`$ and thus not favoured in production from $`K^{}+^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{H}`$. The first, lower, $`\pi _1^{}`$ momentum from the initial decay would then be sensitive to the sum $`E_R+\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Preliminary theoretical calculations K2DJM  indicate that indeed a narrow $`p`$-wave resonance can be placed near $`E_R=0.51.5`$ MeV in the p + $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H system , using a potential consistent with the rather extended geometry of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}3}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H and constrained by the known proton binding in the ground state of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He.

## 6 Comments and Conclusions

There is little to add to the above discussion of multi-quark elementary systems. The search for the H is certainly complicated by our analysis of the mechanism of its formation. The discovery and study of $`S=2`$ hypernuclei will, however, continue either at the AGS or at the anticipated Japanese Hadron Facility.

For E906 there were $`1040`$ events in the total two prong sample, some $`70`$ above background in the first feature in Fig. 3 I. The reverse cut in II can be used to isolate the three body decays of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}\mathrm{H}`$ and from the simulation an estimate of the two body, resonant, decays can also be made. We conclude then a lower limit of $`40+20`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}4}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$H have been produced in these two modes respectively. Unfortunately, the important di-lambda pairing energy is not well determined in the present experiment. A simulation of Fig. 3 I suggests $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}12`$ MeV while that in Fig. 3 II involving the combination with $`E_R`$ is perhaps described by a value closer to $`0.51.0`$ MeV. More recent emulsion experiments newkek  have definitively identified the species $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}6}}{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}`$He and agree with the lower values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, finding something less than $`1`$ MeV. The motivation for a hybrid H living within some light nucleus then recedes.

Clearly, better statistics and an improvement in resolution are required to determine the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairing energy definitively, and more importantly to establish the actual presence of the large numbers of light doubly strange hypernuclei suggested by E906. The principal issues to be settled, presumably in a follow on experiment, are the existence or not of more than one contribution to the broad lower peak in the higher momentum $`\pi _L^{}`$ spectrum and the very exciting possibility that more than one species of double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ resides in the data. Significantly higher counting rate should allow cuts to be placed on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ kinetic energy and determine the nature of the reaction mechanism producing individual doubly strange species.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This manuscript has been authored under US DOE contracts and DE-AC02-98CH10886.