text:
# OBSERVATION OF MULTI-TeV DIFFUSE GAMMA RAYS FROM THE GALACTIC PLANE WITH THE TIBET AIR SHOWER ARRAY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Detection of diffuse gamma rays from the Galactic plane is considered to be a promising way to understand spatial distributions of cosmic-ray acceleration regions, of interstellar matter (ISM), and interstellar photon field (ISPF) densities. Experimental data in the energy region below 10 GeV with the EGRET instrument Hunter et al. (1997), are fairly well interpreted in terms of interactions of cosmic-ray hadrons and electrons with ISM and ISPF. However, a portion of the contribution of each elementary process of interaction is uncertain due to assumed intensities and spectral indices of cosmic-ray hadrons, electrons, and densities of ISM and ISPF. With experiments in the energy region above 100 GeV, only upper limits for diffuse gamma-ray intensities have been obtained, and these results provide some constraints on the parameters in the models. In order to constrain the parameter values more severely in this energy region, it is necessary to obtain more observational data.

In the early stage of cosmic-ray astrophysics, the production rate of gamma rays by Compton scattering of starlight photons by cosmic-ray electrons was calculated by Feenberg & Primakoff (1948), and gamma rays arising from neutral pions through cosmic-ray collision with ISM was studied by Hayakawa (1952). Morrison (1958) advocated gamma-ray astronomy because of the known production mechanisms and the straight trajectories from the origin. Ginzburg & Syrovatskii (1964) summarized the elementary process for gamma-ray production and discussed diffusion and propagation of cosmic rays in the Galactic disc. As a result, it is quite natural to expect gamma rays from the Galactic plane, however was twenty years after the pioneering work by Feenberg & Primakoff (1948) until the intense band of gamma-ray intensity along the Galactic plane was observed with OSO 3 Kraushaar et al. (1972) and a balloon-borne detector Fichtel et al. (1972). Advanced observations were carried out by detectors borne on SAS 2 (Fichtel et al. 1975; Hartman et al. 1979) and COS B (Mayer-Hasselwander et al. 1980, 1982). These observations revealed that the intensity profile of high-energy gamma rays is quite relevant to the structure of the Galaxy, and have stimulated much theoretical work in gamma-ray astronomy below 10 GeV (see, Bertsch et al. 1993 and references therein).

A detailed intensity distribution of high-energy gamma rays coming from the Galactic plane was given by Hunter et al. (1997) based on EGRET observations. In the energy region above 1 GeV, the gamma-ray intensity from the inner Galaxy is higher than the COS B data by a factor of about 3. It is also higher than the conventional model predictions (e.g., Hunter et al. 1997; Bertsch et al. 1993) by a factor of 1.7, where the neutral pion production is based on the calculations of Stecker (1988), assuming the power law proton spectrum with spectral index of 2.75 Dermer (1986). Mori (1997) showed that the latter discrepancy can not be attributed to a calculation with inaccurate accelerator data on neutral pion production. It can, however, be interpreted by adopting a harder proton spectral index of 2.45 for the EGRET excess within a plane thickness of $`|b|10^{}`$. Webber (1999) also showed that the EGRET excess in $`|b|5^{}`$ can be reproduced by assuming a source proton spectral index of 2.25.

Following an indication by Schlickeiser (1979) of the importance of using the Klein-Nishina cross section, Protheroe & Wolfendale (1980) showed possible dominance of inverse Compton (IC) gamma rays over neutral-pion decay gamma rays for a range of electron injection spectra. Detailed calculations of IC gamma rays above 50 MeV were made by Chi et al. (1989), which were more than 50 % of the total diffuse intensity at a medium galactic latitude of $`|b|=10^{}20^{}`$. Porter & Protheroe (1997) indicated that in such a high-energy region, cosmic-ray electrons may create a significant part of the diffuse gamma rays, depending on their injection spectral index and acceleration cutoff energy. Pohl & Esposito (1998) remarked that most of radio synchrotron spectra of SNRs are well represented by power law indices around 0.5, corresponding to an electron injection index of about 2.0 Green (1995). They argued that if this injection electron index is employed, the EGRET excess above 1 GeV can be well explained by IC scattering. They also argued that an electron injection index of 2.0 is within the expected Poisson fluctuations and is reasonable in the direction toward the Galactic center with the line of sight passing through the vicinity of many SNRs, taking into account the diffusion coefficient and the observed local electron index of around 3.0 below 1 TeV. Recently, the energy spectrum of local electrons has been obtained with balloon-borne instruments HEAT Barwick et al. (1998) and BETS Torii et al. (2001).

Some models of diffuse Galactic gamma-ray continuum radiation below 10 GeV were synthetically discussed by Strong, Moskalenko, & Reimer (2000) with respect to the injection spectra, including a harder nucleon and electron spectral indices, and also with respect to different ISM and ISPF densities. At the higher energies of the TeV-PeV region, the diffuse gamma-ray emission was calculated by Berezinsky et al. (1993) in terms of cosmic-ray interaction with ISM, and also by Ingelman & Thunman (1996) using the current models for high energy particle interaction. Broad-band diffuse gamma-ray emission, covering the MeV-PeV region, was comprehensively calculated by Aharonian & Atoyan (2001), and they discussed propagation of hadron and electron components and their injection spectra. Assuming that the hadron spectral index is 2.15 (or 2.0) in SNRs, Berezhko & V$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$lk (2000) showed that the averaged contribution to the diffuse gamma-ray flux should exceed the current model predictions (Hunter et al. 1997; Bertsch et al 1993) by a factor 5 (or 29) at 1 TeV.

Recently, several groups gave upper limits for diffuse gamma-ray fluxes (Borione et al. 1998) above 100 TeV from the outer Galactic plane, using large ground-based air shower arrays and muon detectors, and above 500 GeV LeBohec et al. (2000) and around 1 TeV Aharonian et al. (2001) from the inner Galactic plane, using imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (IACT). Using a small scintillation counter array, Tibet-I, upper limits Amenomori et al. (1997) were given at 10 TeV from the inner and outer Galactic planes. In this paper we report new upper limits from both the enlarged Tibet-II array and the high detector density array of Tibet-III.

## 2 EXPERIMENT

After three years of operation, starting in 1990, of the Tibet-I array (located at an altitude of 4300 m a.s.l. (606 gcm-2) at Yangbajing (90.53E, 30.11N) in Tibet of China), many scintillation counters were added to this array late in 1994 to improve the sensitivity to allow detection of $``$10 TeV gamma rays from a known source like the Crab Nebula, and from other possible sources as well. The Tibet-II array consists of 221 scintillation counters of 0.5 m2 each, keeping the same lattice interval of 15 m as Tibet-I. The performance of the Tibet-II array is almost same as the Tibet-I which is described elsewhere (Amenomori et al. 1992, 1993). The mode energy of all triggered air showers is estimated from simulations to be about 7 TeV and 8 TeV for proton initiated showers with a spectral index of 2.7 and gamma-ray initiated ones assuming a spectral index of 2.5, respectively. The mode energy is 10 TeV for air showers with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$ 15 m-2, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}`$/2 is the sum of the number of particles that hit all 0.5 m2 detectors. This mode energy can be calibrated by the magnitude of the westward shift of the moon shadow, and the maximum deficit position due to the geomagnetic effect (Amenomori et al. 1993, 1996). The angular resolution is determined to be 0.9 at 10 TeV, also using the deficit shape (depth and width) of the moon shadow.

The Tibet-II array covers 36,900 m2, which is 4.5 times larger than Tibet-I, except for some scattered detectors surrounding the lattice area in each array Amenomori et al. (1995) as shown in Fig. 1. The data acquisition rate is about 200 Hz with the trigger condition requiring any four detectors to have 0.80 particles per detector. The observed number of air showers is 5.44 $`\times 10^9`$ events after the pre-analysis determining the arrival direction and shower axis location, for the effective 551.2 days during the period 1997 February through 1999 September. The event rate is about 114 events per second in the Tibet-II data.

In 1999, the array was enlarged, with many more scintillation counters so as to make a high detector density array, Tibet-III, with a 7.5 m lattice interval. Fig. 1 shows the status in 2001. The Tibet-III array consists of 533 scintillation counters covering 22,050 m2. The full Tibet-III array will be completed in 2002; it will cover 36,900 m2, the same as Tibet-II, as described in Amenomori et al. (2001). The mode energy of Tibet-III is about 3 TeV for proton initiated showers and the angular resolution is 0.87 in the energy region above 3 TeV. The data acquisition rate is 680 Hz with the same trigger condition as described above for Tibet-II. The number of air showers is 1.35 $`\times 10^{10}`$ events, of which the arrival direction and shower axis location are determined for the effective 517.3 days during the period 1999 November through 2001 October. The event rate is about 302 events per second in the Tibet-III data. The performance of these arrays and the data obtained are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1

ARRAY PERFORMANCE AND OBTAINED DATA

| Air | Lattice | Inner | Trigg | Observd | Pre-analysis for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho _{\mathrm{FT}}15`$ | | | Inner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shower | Interval | Area | Rate | Period | Events | $`E_{\mathrm{mode}}`$ | Ang. res. | Events |
| Array | (m) | (m2) | (Hz) | Net days | (109) | (TeV) | (deg.) | (109) |
|  |  |  |  | 1997 Feb |  |  |  |  |
| Tibet-II | 15 | 28,350 | 200 | $``$99 Sep | 5.44 | 10 | 0.9 | 4.14 |
|  |  |  |  | 551.2 |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  | 1999 Nov |  |  |  |  |
| Tibet-III | 7.5 | 22,050 | 680 | $``$01 Oct | 13.5 | 3 | 0.87 | 6.59 |
|  |  |  |  | 517.3 |  |  |  |  |

Trigger level is any four detectors with 0.80 particles per detector.

At the status in 1999$``$2002. The inner area is increased to $``$32,500 m2 till the end of 2002.

Figure 2 shows an exposure map in galactic coordinates for air showers obtained with the Tibet-III array, with zenith angles $`\theta 50^{}`$. The shower event density increases from light gray to dark gray. The Tibet-II array data produce a quite similar map. For the on-plane data, shower events are employed in the sky regions of $`20^{}l55^{}`$ for the inner Galaxy (IG) and of $`140^{}l225^{}`$ for the outer Galaxy (OG), in $`|b|2^{}`$ or $`5^{}`$ along the Galactic plane.

## 3 DATA ANALYSIS

For the analysis in the energy range around 10 TeV, 4.14 $`\times 10^9`$ air shower events are used with zenith angles $`\theta 50^{}`$, whose axes hit the inner area of 28,350 m2 of the Tibet-II array to assure the quality of the arrival angle determination. Around 3 TeV, 6.59 $`\times 10^9`$ events are used with $`\theta 50^{}`$ whose axes hit the 7.5 m lattice area of 22,050 m2 of the Tibet-III array. The number of events that hit these inner areas are tabulated also in Table 1 in the last column. Those air shower events are assigned to the sky regions from which they arrived, of 4$`{}_{}{}^{}(10^{})`$ bin 90 (36) belts along the Galactic plane in equatorial coordinates both for the Tibet-II and Tibet-III array data. Figure 3 shows 10 bin warped belts for IG with the declination range of $`10^{}\delta 20^{}`$ and OG with $`10^{}\delta 60^{}`$. These declination ranges of the on-plane belts in the equatorial coordinates correspond to parts of a convex lens shape, with a maximum thickness of about 4 or 10 in galactic coordinates, as shown in Fig. 2. The primary reason those warped belts are employed is to detect gamma-ray signals as accurately as possible if they are emitted from the Galactic plane with greater intensity than from other sky regions. In addition, the zenith angle distribution, and hence the primary energies of detected air showers are quite similar in each warped belt. This is very important doing the estimation of the on-plane background intensity at the same energy for both the on-plane and many off-plane belts, because the gamma-ray energy spectrum is still unknown. The final reason is that the background estimate, especially for the OG, is little affected by the IG plane, because the warped belts crossing the IG plane do so diagonally, over a narrow band of longitudes.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the number of events in 4 bin warped belts. The abscissa represents the right ascension of each warped belt at the declination 30, which is the same as the latitude of the Yangbajing site. The solid lines are the curves fitted to the experimental data, ignoring the on-plane data. In this figure, the cases for (a) IG and (b) OG in the Tibet-III data at 3 TeV and (c) IG and (d) OG in the Tibet-II data at 10 TeV are shown in the 4 bin analysis. The anisotropy of cosmic-ray intensity seen in this figure, with an amplitude of less than $`\pm `$1%, is mainly due to some seasonal long suspensions of operation for construction and system calibration of the array, and partly due to weather conditions and a slight, 1 or less, inclination of the site at Yangbajing.

An excess of the on-plane data above the fitted curve would be considered to be a gamma-ray signal. The signal strength is measured by a standard deviation of the number of showers, in two or five 2 bin belts, by the formula $`(EB)/\sqrt{B}`$, where $`E`$ is the number of on-plane events and $`B`$ is the estimated number of background events in the on-plane region. $`B`$ is estimated from the solid curve which is obtained by the fitting of many 2 bin off-plane belts, ignoring the central 16 or 14 widths corresponding to the 4 bin or 10 bin belt analyses. We intend to deduce the number of on-plane background events as accurately as possible from this fitting curve of the off-plane data. The number of events shown by the solid curve in each subfigure of Fig. 4 is assumed to be due to galactic cosmic rays. In this method, an isotropic extragalactic diffuse gamma-ray component can not be distinguished from the galactic cosmic rays. We assume that the intensity of the isotropic component is negligible in comparison with the diffuse gamma rays from the Galactic plane.

Figure 5 shows the deviation distributions of the number of events from the fitted curves (the solid ones in Fig. 4) in 2 bin off-plane belts for (a) IG and (b) OG in the Tibet-III data at 3 TeV and (c) IG and (d) OG in the Tibet-II data at 10 TeV, respectively, in the case of the 4 bin analysis. Here, the abscissa represents a significance in the 2 bin off-plane belts. The solid curves are best-fit Gaussians with standard deviations of 0.998, 1.007, 0.999 and 1.000, respectively, and where data on the 12 width centered at the Galactic plane are excluded. In the case of the 10 bin analysis, almost the same distributions are obtained; their standard deviations are 1.018, 1.007, 1.013 and 1.000, respectively. Because the fluctuation of the number of events around the fitted curve in the off-plane belts is quite natural, i.e. each standard deviation is almost equal in unity, the solid curves are considered to be satisfactorily fitted to the experimental data. Thus, we can accurately estimate the number of on-plane background events.

The diffuse gamma-ray intensity from the OG plane is likely to be much lower than that from the IG plane. The well known gamma-ray point source, the Crab Nebula, is located at $`\alpha =83.^{}38^{},\delta =22.^{}01^{}`$ ($`l=184.56^{},b=5.78^{}`$) with a real angle distance of 5.78 from the central sheet of the OG plane. The Crab is in the off-plane belt adjacent to the on-plane belt in the 10 bin analysis. In the 4 bin analysis, the Crab is located between the on-plane and off-plane regions but nearer to the latter. For that reason, we omit the two 2 bin warped belts from the off-plane region. As a result, the data in the 8 warped belts, $`10^{}<b<6^{}`$, are excluded from the background estimation in the 4 bin analysis, while the 7 warped belts, $`9^{}<b<5^{}`$, are excluded in the 10 bin analysis. Thus, the real angle distance of the Crab is 4.21 from the on-plane region and 2.22 from the newly defined off-plane region in the 4 bin analysis, and 1.82 and 1.40 in the 10 bin analysis. Therefore, the Crab is located sufficiently far from both the on-plane and off-plane regions, because the angular resolutions of the Tibet-III at 3 TeV and the Tibet-II at 10 TeV are both about 0.9.

In order to see the adequacy of the fitting and on-plane excess in more detail, smaller ranges of the right ascension band of about 50 around the Galactic plane are shown in Fig. 6, where subfigures (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond to those in Fig. 4. In each subfigure, the on-plane and off-plane data are indicated by filled circles and filled triangles, respectively, and the blank squares indicate the data points excluded from the background estimation. Error bars are statistical only. It is noted that the error bars are short in the subfigure (b) because the ordinate scale is compressed by about half compared to the other subfigures.

## 4 RESULTS and DISCUSSION

The significance of an on-plane excess, $`(EB)/\sqrt{B}`$ measured in standard deviation of the number of on-plane events, is calculated for each distribution shown in Fig. 6 and the results are summarized in Table 2. In Table 2, the results thus obtained are given for the regions of IG ($`20^{}l55^{}`$) and OG ($`140^{}l225^{}`$). Mode energies 3 TeV and 10 TeV indicate the analyses of the Tibet-III and Tibet-II data, respectively. As given in this table, no significant excess is found, although an excess of +2.52 $`\sigma `$ is marginal for IG at 3 TeV in the 4 bin analysis of the Tibet-III data. We calculate the upper limits for the gamma-ray intensity using the methods given by Helene (1983) and Protheroe (1984), specifically for a small excess or deficit on the Galactic plane. In this table, $`J_\gamma /J_{\mathrm{CR}}`$ means the flux ratio at 1 $`\sigma `$ excess, which is identical to $`1/\sqrt{B}`$, of the diffuse gamma rays versus the galactic cosmic rays in the energy region above 3 TeV and above 10 TeV. A minor component of the isotropic diffuse gamma rays is included in the galactic cosmic rays because separating them is impossible in the Tibet air shower array due to the lack of any equipment to reduce the background hadron initiated air showers.

TABLE 2

LIMITS TO DIFFUSE GAMMA RAYS

| Inner or Outer |  | Mode | Signifi- | $`\frac{J_\gamma (>E)}{J_{\mathrm{CR}}(>E)}`$ at 1$`\sigma `$ | $`E^2\frac{dJ_\gamma (>E)}{dE}`$ (cm-2s-1sr-1MeV) | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Galactic Plane | Region | Energy | cance | ($`1/\sqrt{B}`$) | 90% CL | 99% CL |
| (Region of $`l`$) | of $`b`$ | (TeV) | ($`\sigma `$) | (10-4) | (10-3) | (10-3) |
|  |  | 3 | +2.52 | 1.95 | 7.6 | 9.6 |
|  | $`|b|<2^{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |
| I G |  | 10 | +1.71 | 2.43 | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| (20$`{}_{}{}^{}l55^{}`$) |  | 3 | +1.88 | 1.23 | 4.0 | 5.3 |
|  | $`|b|<5^{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | 10 | +0.81 | 1.54 | 1.4 | 2.0 |
|  |  | 3 | +0.25 | 1.16 | 2.1 | 3.3 |
|  | $`|b|<2^{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |
| O G |  | 10 | $`0.63`$ | 1.45 | 0.78 | 1.3 |
| (140$`{}_{}{}^{}l225^{}`$) |  | 3 | +1.78 | 0.737 | 2.3 | 3.1 |
|  | $`|b|<5^{}`$ |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | 10 | $`0.66`$ | 0.936 | 0.50 | 0.83 |

In Table 2, the intensity upper limits are also given as 90% and 99% confidence level (CL), calculated from the above flux ratio and assuming a differential spectral index of 2.4 for the diffuse gamma rays, and utlizing the all-particle energy spectrum of the galactic cosmic rays recently compiled by Apanasenko et al. (2001).

Figure 7 shows the 99% CL upper limits thus obtained for diffuse gamma rays from the inner Galactic plane, $`20^{}l55^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$, at energies around 3 TeV (T3 for Tibet-III) and 10 TeV (T2 for Tibet-II). In this figure the EGRET data Hunter et al. (1997), $`315^{}l45^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$, are plotted. The Cherenkov data are also plotted, including Whipple’s 99.9% CL upper limit above 500 GeV LeBohec et al. (2000) at the region of $`38.5^{}l41.5^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$, and HEGRA-IACT’s 99% CL upper limit above 1 TeV Aharonian et al. (2001) in a similar region of $`38^{}l43^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$. The theoretical curve calculated by Berezinsky et al. (1993) for $`\pi ^{}2\gamma `$ due to the collision of cosmic-ray hadrons with ISM is drawn by a solid curve (BGHS) which is for the region of $`20^{}l55^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$, deduced from their original paper which is based on the matter density distribution compiled by Fichtel & Kniffen (1984) and Bloemen et al. (1984).

For inverse Compton gamma rays induced by energetic electrons, the calculation by Porter & Protheroe (1996) is shown by dashed curves for source electron spectral indices of 2.0 (PP2.0) and 2.4 (PP2.4) in the direction $`l=0^{}`$ and $`b=0^{}`$, the Galactic center. Similar theoretical curves calculated by Tateyama & Nishimura (2001) are shown by dot-dashed lines with source spectral indices of 2.0 (TN2.0) and 2.4 (TN2.4) in the direction $`l=0^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$. The density distribution of ISPF in their calculations is based on the compilations by Bloemen (1985) and Mathis et al. (1983). The curves from Tateyama & Nishimura (2001) are consistent with the estimations by Porter & Protheroe (1996) considering the different region of $`|b|`$. The present Tibet data, especially at 10 TeV, together with the HEGRA-IACT data, give the most stringent upper limit for the IC model, although these data can not clearly rule out the IC model with a source electron spectral index of 2.0.

Figure 8 shows the present results as 99% CL upper limits (upper bars of T3 and T2) for diffuse gamma rays from the outer part of the Galactic plane, $`140^{}l225^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$, for the energy ranges around 3 TeV (T3 for Tibet-III) and 10 TeV (T2 for Tibet-II). In this figure, the 90% CL upper limits (lower bars) are compared with the CASA-MIA 90% CL upper limits, which are based upon muon-poor air showers Borione et al. (1998) at about 140 TeV-1.3 PeV, from the OG plane of $`50^{}l200^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$. The CASA-MIA data can rule out the IC model with index 2.0 without acceleration energy cutoff, but can not rule out the case with an energy cutoff at 100 TeV. In this figure, the theoretical curve by Berezinsky et al. (1993) is also shown for $`\pi ^{}2\gamma `$ component (BGHS) in the region of $`140^{}l225^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$. The IC gamma rays calculated by Porter & Protheroe (1996) for the region $`50^{}l200^{}`$ and $`|b|10^{}`$ for source spectral indices of 2.0 (PP2.0) and 2.4 (PP2.4) are shown, as well as the ones by Tateyama & Nishimura (2001) in the region of $`l=180^{}`$ and $`|b|2^{}`$ for source spectral indices of 2.0 (TN2.0) and 2.4 (TN2.4). The present data are also not sufficient to rule out the IC model with a spectral index of 2.0.

Next we discuss some considerations regarding our method of data analysis and its results. First, a difference of the average shower size between gamma-ray and proton initiated showers with the same energy at the Yangbajing site (606 gcm-2) will produce different initial proton and gamma-ray energies for the same observed shower size. By employing the subroutine package GENAS of Kasahara & Torii (1991), the average incident gamma-ray energy is roughly estimated to be lower by 18% at 3 TeV and lower by 23% at 10 TeV than that for protons of the same shower size, taking the median zenith angle 24.1 (atmospheric depth 664 gcm-2) into account for generally observed shower events. The median zenith angles are 27.2 and 22.8 (681 gcm-2 and 657 gcm-2) for the showers arriving from the inner and outer Galactic plane, respectively. Thus, the energy decline rate in gamma-initiated showers is somewhat reduced for the IG plane and magnified a little for the OG plane. On the other hand, the spectral index of the diffuse gamma rays is probably smaller than the 2.7 of the galactic cosmic rays at energies around 10 TeV. This produces an opposite offset of the observed gamma-ray energy. which shifts to a higher value, depending on the spectral index. If the gamma-ray spectral index is 2.4, as assumed in the derivation of the intensity upper limit in Table 2, gamma-ray energy goes up about 10% or more. The effects just described act to offset each other. Thus we use the observed energies, 3 TeV for the Tibet-III and 10 TeV for the Tibet-II, for the primary energies determined for the generally observed air showers at Yangbajing site.

Second, the sky regions searched for Galactic diffuse gamma rays have a shape like a convex lens along the Galactic plane as shown in Fig. 2. Such a lens shaped region is inevitable in our method, employing the warped belts along the Galactic plane in equatorial coordinates. The maximum thickness of the lens is 3.6 or 8.9, but the simple mean of the range used is 3.5 or 8.7 for IG and 2.7 or 6.8 for OG in the 4 bin and 10 bin analyses, respectively. Taking the number density of events into account, the weighted mean thickness becomes 3.5 or 8.7 for IG and 2.9 or 7.2 for OG, respectively. As already described, the data in the two 2 bin belts has been excluded from the off-plane region for OG in order to minimize the influence of the Crab Nebula. Other strong gamma-ray sources, Geminga ($`l=195.03^{},b=4.83^{}`$) and IC443 ($`l=188.83^{},b=3.07^{}`$) are involved in the on-plane region of the OG plane in the 10 bin analysis. No TeV gamma-ray signal has, however, been obtained from these candidate sources by any surface air shower arrays or Cherenkov telescopes. Therefore, no correction for the influence of these candidates is necessary.

Third, according to the EGRET data Hunter et al. (1997) with $`|b|2^{}`$, gamma-ray intensity shows a decline in the galactic longitude region from $`l=25^{}`$ to $`65^{}`$ in IG for every energy ranges, 30-100 MeV, 100-300 MeV, 300-1000 MeV and above 1000 MeV. This tendency is also seen in SAS-2 and COS-B data (see Bertsch et al. 1993). The intensity shows a rather flat top in the central range, $`330^{}l25^{}`$. In our analysis, the inner Galactic region is located just at this region of declining intensity. The Whipple LeBohec et al. (2000) and HEGRA Aharonian et al. (2001) data also lie partially in this region, at around $`l=40^{}`$. If the intensity decline around 1 GeV is caused by the density distribution of ISPF, it is expected that the gamma-ray intensity shows similar behavior in the TeV region. We should compare the experimental data with the reduced intensity of about 80 % of the theoretical curves, which have been calculated for the central flat top region. This is the reason that the experimental data are not sufficient to rule out the inverse Compton model with a source spectral index of 2.0.

Theoretical calculations give an indication that, if the source electron spectral index in the 10 GeV to 10 TeV energy region is smaller than 2.4, the diffuse gamma rays in the TeV region are mainly generated by IC scattering. In that case, it is essential to fix the diffuse gamma-ray intensity to determine the source electron spectrum in the Galactic plane. This can suggest the strength of shock acceleration, and clarifies the electron propagation process in the Galactic disc through a comparison with the direct observation of local electrons, and also gives an estimate of average magnetic field in the source region by examining the consistency with the radio synchrotron intensity.

The extension of the Tibet-III array is expected to be completed by the end of 2002; its effective inner area will become about 1.5 times larger than at present, and 1.15 times larger than the Tibet-II inner area. If the new Tibet-III array continues for running three years without long suspension, statistics will increase to 4-5 times the present data at both 3 TeV and 10 TeV. The resulting statistical reduction in the upper limits, by a factor of 2 or more, will be more closely comparable with theoretical models, and can also give a significant upper limit at even higher energies, e.g., at 20 TeV, where the upper limit is relatively more sensitive to the acceleration energy cutoff in the IC model.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan and from the Committee of the Natural Science Foundation and the Academy of Sciences in China.


format: text

text:
# Introduction: Pythagoreanism

## Introduction: Pythagoreanism

11. … za nerazumnye pomyshleniya ih nepravdy, po kotorym oni sluzhili besslovesnym presmykayuwimsya i prezrennym chudoviwam, Ty v nakazanie poslal na nih mnozhestvo besslovesnyh zhivotnyh, chtoby oni poznali, chto chem kto sogreshit, tem i nakazyvaetsya … i bez ﬀtogo oni mogli pogibnut~ ot odnogo dunoveniya, presleduemye pravosudiem i rasseivaemye duhom sily tvoeæ; no

Ty vse raspolozhil meroyu, chislom i vesom.

Kniga premudrosti Solomona

Once upon a time the great russian physicist-theorist and mathematician Bogoljubov said that the last line in the above written fragment from the Book of Proverbs which is a part of the Bible (non-canonical though!) “…; but You did all arrange by measure, number and weight” represents the definition of the Physics . Probably this – “…; but You did all arrange by measure, number and weight” – was an earliest evidence of the principle that All in the World have to be in harmony with each other.

In fact, the word harmony (Syn: music: accord, concord, consonance) has the Greek origin from $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }\rho \mu \stackrel{´}{o}\nu \stackrel{´}{\iota }\alpha `$ which means orderliness (symmetry) of the whole, commensurability (proportionality) of its parts. The idea of harmony has intensively been elaborated by Pythagoras, the Greek philosopher and mathematician and founder of the Pythagorean school . Originally from Samos, Pythagoras founded a society which was at once a religious community and a scientific school flourished at Kroton in Southern Italy about the year 530 B.C. Pythagoras was the first genius of western culture. He had a multifaceted magnetic personality – an intelligent mathematician and a religious thinker, both co-existed in him. His main contributions are in geometry, numbers, music, cosmology, astronomy, philosophy and religion. Pythagoras must have been one of the world’s greatest men, but he wrote nothing though numerous works are attributed to him, and it is hard to say how much of the doctrine one knows as Pythagorean is due to the founder of the society and how much is later development. It is also hard to say how much of what we are told about the life of Pythagoras is trustworthy. For a mass of legend gathered around his name: Sometimes he is represented as a man of science, and sometimes as a preacher of mystic doctrines, and we might be tempted to regard one or other of those characters as alone historical. Certainly, it’s true that there is no need to reject either of the traditional views.

Even though many wonderful things related to Pythagoras, belong to legend, and seem to have no historical foundation, similarly the description of the learned works which he wrote is not attested by reliable historians and also belongs to the region of fable, nevertheless it is no doubt however, that he founded a school, or, rather, a religious philosophical society, which exerted great influence on the intellectual development of human civilization and had a fundamental importance all the time. Of great influence were the Pythagorean doctrines that numbers were the basis of all things and possessed a mystic significance, in particular the idea that the cosmos is a mathematically ordered whole. Aristotle wrote: “Pythagorean having been brought up in the study of mathematics, thought that things could be represented by numbers … and that the whole cosmos consists of a scale and a number”. Briefly stated, the doctrine of Pythagoras was that all things are numbers. Pythagoras was led to this conception by his discovery that the notes sounded by stringed instrument are related to the length of the strings. He conducted remarkable investigation in “music” as he was a musician. Harmonies correspond to most beautiful mathematical ratio, he stated. Melodious musical tunes could be produced on a stringed instrument by plucking the string at particular points, which correspond to mathematical ratios. Such beautiful mathematical ratios are $`1:2`$ (an octave), $`2:3`$ (a fifth), and $`3:4`$ (a fourth). Pythagoras recognized that first four numbers $`1,2,3,4`$ known as “tetractys”, whose sum equals Ten ($`1+2+3+4=10`$), contained all basic musical intervals: the octave, the fifth and the fourth. In fact, all the major consonances, that is, the octave, the fifth and the fourth are produced by vibrating strings whose lengths stand to one another in the ratios of $`1:2`$, $`2:3`$ and $`3:4`$ respectively. Recent major scale in according to Pythagoras tune looks like

$$1;\frac{8}{9};\frac{64}{81};\frac{3}{4};\frac{2}{3};\frac{16}{27};\frac{128}{243};\frac{1}{2},$$

where $`\frac{8}{9}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{2}{3}2`$ is major second (fifth of fifth with octave lowering); $`\frac{16}{27}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{8}{9}`$ is major sixth (fifth of major second); $`\frac{64}{81}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{16}{27}2`$ is major third (fifth of sixth with octave lowering); $`\frac{128}{243}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{64}{81}`$ is major seventh (fifth of third).

The resemblance which Pythagoras perceived between the orderliness of music, as expressed in the ratios which he had discovered and the idea that cosmos is an orderly whole, made up of parts harmoniously related to one another, led him to conceive of the cosmos too as mathematically ordered. Pythagoras compared the eight planets (there were seven planets known the Babylonians: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn), including the Earth, with the musical octave and the seven planets, excluding the Earth, as seven strings of the musical instrument Lair. The planets situated at different distances and moving at different speed correspond to different notes on musical octave. The planets moving with higher speed produce higher notes and those with lower speed produce lower notes. The celestial harmony of moving planets produces heavenly music (“the music of the spheres”) analogous to different notes of musical octave.

According to Pythagoras, the sphere was the most beautiful solid and the circle the most beautiful shape. Thus, a spherical planet moving in circular orbit would form a harmonious constellation. Pythagoras worked out the distances of the planets from the Earth. He arranged the planets in order of increasing distances of the planets from the Earth. The order given by him was the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Some Pythagoreans believed that the Earth moved round a central fire. The Earth did not always face the central fire. This accounted for day and night on the Earth. They also believed that the Moon as well as the Sun shone because they reflected light from their surfaces received from the central fire. Perhaps the idea of central fire later on led to the heliocentric (Sun at the centre of the Solar system) configuration of Solar system. Pythagoras observation of heavens suggested to him that the motion of the heavenly bodies was cyclic and that the heavenly bodies returned to the place from which they had started. From this, Pythagoras concluded that there must be a cycle of cycles, a greater year and on its completion the heavenly bodies returned to the original position and the same heavenly constellation would be observed again and again. He called this the eternal recurrence.

Pythagoras doctrine that mathematics contains the key to all philosophical knowledge, an idea, which was by his followers afterwards developed into an elegant number-theory. The Pythagorean philosophy in its later elaboration is dominated by the number-theory. Being the first, apparently, to observe that natural phenomena, especially the phenomena of the astronomical world, may be expressed in mathematical formulas, the Pythagoreans held that numbers are not only the symbols of reality, but the very substance of real things. Pythagoras associated numbers with geometrical notions and numerical ratios with shapes. He associated number one with a point, too with a line, three with a triangle (the surface) and four with a tetrahedron (the solid). Thus, one point generates dimensions, two points generate a line of one dimension, three points generate a surface of two dimensions, and four points generate three-dimensional solid figures. In geometry, numbers represent lengths, their squares represent areas, their cubes represent volumes. Starting from numbers, numerical ratios and their powers, one can construct geometrical figures of different shapes and geometrical solids of different sizes. Using distance the arrangement of planets, their motion, their orbital path, their distances from the center and their interrelations with each other can be worked out. Thus, according to Pythagoras all relations could be reduced to number relations and hence, the whole cosmos is a scale and a number based phenomenon.

According to Pythagoras, Ten is the perfect number, because it is the sum of one, two, three, and four – the point, the line, the surface, and the solid. There are the second type of perfect numbers : According to Pythagoras the second type of perfect numbers are those were the numbers equal to sum of their factors. For instance 28 has factors 1, 2, 4, 7, 14 and $`1+2+4+7+14=28`$.

From perfect numbers, Pythagoras was led to amicable numbers like 220 and 284. Amicable numbers form a pair of numbers where each number is equal to the sum of the factors of the other numbers. For instance 220 has factors 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 22, 44, 55, 110. The sum of these factors is $`1+2+4+5+10+11+20+22+44+55+110=284`$. Moreover, 284 has factors 1, 2, 4, 71 , 142 . The sum of these factors is $`1+2+4+71+142=220`$.

Triangular numbers have been introduced by Pythagoras: Pythagoras called numbers 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55, 66 as triangular numbers because these numbers can be arranged so as to form triangles.

If $`a,b,c`$ are sides of a right-angled triangle and $`c`$ is the hypotenuse then according to Pythagoras theorem $`c^2=a^2+b^2`$. The triad of positive integers $`(a,b,c)`$ satisfying the relation $`c^2=a^2+b^2`$ is called the Pythagorean triad of numbers. About fifteen such triads were previously known like (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (7,24,25), (9,12,15), (15,36,39). The Pythagorean triads in which the numbers $`a,b,c`$ do not have a common factor are called primitive Pythagorean triads. For example (3,4,5), (5,12,13), (7,24,25) etc. are primitive Pythagorean triads. But (9,12,15), (15,36,39) are not primitive triads. It is believed that Pythagoras himself discovered the formula for determining triads of numbers satisfying the relation $`c^2=a^2+b^2`$. In fact, all Pythagorean triads can be expressed via formulae

$$a=m^2n^2,b=2mn,c=m^2+n^2,$$
(1)
where $`m,n`$ are any positive integers $`(m>n>0)`$.

From his observations in music, mathematics and astronomy, Pythagoras generalized that everything could be expressed in terms of numbers and numerical ratios. Numbers are not only symbols of reality, but also substances of real things. Hence, he claimed - All is number. The importance of this conception is very great, for example, it is the ultimate source of Galileo’s belief “Il libro della natura é scritto in lingua matematica” that the book of nature is written in mathematical symbols and hence the ultimate source of modern physics in the form in which it came to us from Galileo.

It may be taken as certain that the union of mathematical genius and mysticism is common enough111One up-to-date outstanding mathematician contended that all scientists, working in the number-theory, have a conversation with the God.. Pythagoras himself discovered the numerical ratios which determine the concordant intervals of the musical scale. Similar to musical intervals, in medicine there are opposites, such as the hot and the cold, the wet and the dry, and it is the business of the physician to produce a proper “blend” of these in the human body. The Pythagoreans contended that the opposites are found everywhere in Nature, and the union of them constitutes the harmony of the real world. They also argued for the notion that virtue is a harmony, and may be cultivated not only by contemplation and meditation but also by the practice of gymnastics and music.

Pythagoras held the theory that what gives form to the Unlimited is the Limit. That is the great contribution of Pythagoras to philosophy, and we must try to understand it. It was natural for Pythagoras to look for something of the same kind in the world at large. Musical tuning and health are alike means arising from the application of Limit to the Unlimited.

In their psychology and their ethics the Pythagoreans used the idea of harmony and the notion of number as the explanation of the mind and its states, and also of virtue and its various kinds. Pythagoras argued that there are three kinds of men, just as there are three classes of strangers who come to the Olympic Games. The lowest consists of those who come to buy and sell, and next above them are those who come to compete. Best of all are those who simply come to look on. Men may be classified accordingly as lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, and lovers of gain. That seems to imply the doctrine of the tripartite soul, which is also attributed to the early Pythagoreans on good authority.

The Pythagoreans were religiously and ethically inclined, and strove to bring philosophy into relation with life as well as with knowledge. The Pythagoreans believed also in reincarnation or transmigration (doctrine of Rebirth), that is, the soul, after death, passes into another living thing, which presupposes the ability of the soul to survive the death of the body, and hence some sort of belief in its immortality.

The above detailed introduction is made so as to show in the next sections that the great ancient Pythagorean ideas have found themselves in the latest researches in high energy elementary particle and nuclear physics. In this respect we will concern and discuss the mathematical, physical and geometrical aspects of the famous Froissart theorem and in this way we will easily establish a link of this theorem to the mathematics and ideas elaborated in the Pythagorean school. In other words, we would like to show a harmony of the Froissart theorem just in the Pythagoreans sense.

## 1 Froissart theorem: mathematical, physical and geometrical aspects

In the year 1961 french physicist Marcel Froissart discovered and proved a remarkable theorem, which stated that two-body reaction $`a+bc+d`$ amplitude, satisfying Mandelstam representation, is bounded by expressions of the form $`Cs\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ at the forward and backward angles, and $`Cs^{\frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{ln}^{\frac{3}{2}}s`$ at any fixed angle in the physical region, $`C`$ being a constant, $`s`$ being the total squared c.m. energy (one of the Mandelstam invariant variables $`s,t,u`$). This corresponds to the total cross sections increasing at most like $`\mathrm{ln}^2s`$ . A little bit later it was shown that the analytical properties of two-particle scattering amplitude, which may be established strictly in the framework of axiomatic Quantum Field Theory, bring us to the Froissart statements as well. Up-to-date derivation of the Froissart theorem can be realized in a few steps, and we briefly sketch out it here.

For simplicity we consider a reaction of elastic scattering $`a+ba+b`$ for two scalar particles. The scattering amplitude of the two-body reaction may be considered as a function of the invariant variable $`s=(p_a+p_b)^2`$ and two unit vectors $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐧^{}`$ on two-dimensional sphere $`S_2`$, which characterise the initial and final states of two-particle system: $`_2(s;p_a^{}p_b^{},p_ap_b)=_2(s;𝐧^{},𝐧),𝐧=𝐪/|𝐪|`$, $`𝐪`$ is c.m. momentum of particles in an initial state

$$𝐪=\stackrel{}{𝐩}_a=\stackrel{}{𝐩}_b,\stackrel{}{𝐩}_{a,b}=\stackrel{}{L^1(P_{ab})p_{a,b}},P_{ab}=p_a+p_b,$$

$`L(P)`$ is Lorentz boost, and the same with the primes in a final state. In the first step we wright the partial wave expansion

$$_2(s;𝐧^{},𝐧)=_2(s;𝐧^{}𝐧)=_2(s;\mathrm{cos}\theta )=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\pi A_2(s)}\underset{lm}{}Y_{lm}(𝐧^{})f_l(s)\underset{lm}{\overset{}{Y}}(𝐧)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}\underset{l}{}(2l+1)f_l(s)P_l(𝐧^{}𝐧),$$
(2)
where $`A_2(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)/S_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)`$ is two-particle phase space volume, $`S_2`$ is a surface of two-dimensional unit sphere, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =𝐧^{}𝐧`$, and an addition theorem for the spherical harmonics in second line of Eq. (2) has been used. The second invariant Mandelstam variable $`t`$ (momentum transfer) is related to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ by the following Equation

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =1+\frac{t}{2𝐪^2}.$$
(3)
A remarkable analytic properties of scattering amplitudes as functions of momentum transfer have been discovered in the year 1958 by Harry Lehmann  using Jost-Lehman-Dyson representation especially Dyson’s theorem for a representation of causal commutators in local Quantum Field Theory . Lehmann proved that imaginary part of two-body interaction amplitude is analytic function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, regular inside an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane with center at the origin and with semi-major axis

$$z_0(s)=1+ϵ_L(s),ϵ_L(s)=\frac{2(m_1^2m_a^2)(m_2^2m_b^2)}{𝐪^2[s(m_1m_2)^2]},$$
(4)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ define the support of spectral function in the JLD representation by the requirements of spectral condition or spectrality. Actually, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the lowest mass values of the physical states for which the following matrix elements are not equal to zero

$$<0|J_a(0)|m_1>0,<0|J_b(0)|m_2>0,$$

where $`J_a(x)`$ and $`J_b(x)`$ are local Heisenberg’s currents of particles $`a`$ and $`b`$. He also shown that two-body interaction amplitude, as itself, is analytic function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, regular inside an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane with center at the origin and with semi-major axis $`x_0(s)`$ which is related to $`z_0(s)`$ by the Equation

$$x_0(s)=\sqrt{\frac{z_0(s)+1}{2}}.$$
(5)
Afterwards the fundamental results of Harry Lehmann were improved by Martin  and Sommer : it was shown that imaginary part of two-body interaction amplitude is analytic function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, regular inside an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane with semi-major axis

$$z_0(s)=1+ϵ_M(s),ϵ_M(s)=\frac{t_0}{2𝐪^2},t_0=4m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(6)
$$𝐪^2=\frac{\lambda (s,m_a^2,m_b^2)}{4s}=\frac{[s(m_a+m_b)^2][s(m_am_b)^2]}{4s},$$
(7)
where $`m_\pi `$ is pion mass. Correspondingly two-body interaction amplitude, as itself, appears as analytic function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, regular inside an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane with semi-major axis $`x_0(s)`$ which is related to $`z_0(s)`$ by Eq. (5).

The fundamental results derived by Lehmann and improved by his followers are of great importance because it has been shown that the partial wave expansions (2) which define physical scattering amplitudes continue to converge for complex values of the scattering angle, and define uniquely the amplitudes appearing in the unphysical region of non-forward dispersion relations. In fact, expansions converge for all values of momentum transfer for which dispersion relations have been proved. The proved analyticity of two-body interaction amplitudes as functions of two complex Mandelstam variables $`s`$ and $`t`$ in a topological product of cut $`s`$-plane with the cuts ($`s_{thr}s\mathrm{},u_{thr}u\mathrm{}`$) except for possible fixed poles and circle $`|t|t_0`$ in $`t`$-plane allowed in a more general case to save the fundamental Froissart results previously obtained at a more restricted Mandelstam analyticity. Really, let us wright Cauchy representation for imaginary part of two-body interaction amplitude

$$Im_2(s;\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C𝑑z\frac{Im_2(s;z)}{z\mathrm{cos}\theta },$$

where contour $`C`$ is a boundary of an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane with semi-major axis given by Eq. (6). Using Heine formula

$$\frac{1}{z\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)Q_l(z)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$

we obtain

$$Imf_l(s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}{2i}_C𝑑zIm_2(s;z)Q_l(z).$$
(8)
From Eq. (8) it follows

$$Imf_l(s)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)\underset{zC}{\mathrm{max}}|Im_2(s;z)|\underset{zC}{\mathrm{max}}|Q_l(z)|(C),$$
(9)
where $`(C)`$ is a length of contour $`C`$. Representation (8) where estimate (9) followed from is a good tool to study an asymptotic behaviour of partial waves at large orbital momentum. Using asymptotic properties of the Legendre functions $`Q_l`$

$$Q_l(z)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2l}}(z^21)^{\frac{1}{4}}(z+\sqrt{z^21})^{l\frac{1}{2}},|l|\mathrm{},|\mathrm{arg}l|<\pi ,zC$$

and polynomial boundedness

$$\underset{zC}{\mathrm{max}}|Im_2(s;z)|P_2(s),$$

$`P_2(s)`$ is some polynomial in $`s`$, we find

$$Imf_l(s)\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{l}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)P_2(s)\left(\frac{z_0(s)+\sqrt{z_0^2(s)1}}{\sqrt{z_0^2(s)1}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}[z_0(s)+\sqrt{z_0^2(s)1}]^l,|l|\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
If we put $`z_0(s)=1+ϵ(s)`$, $`ϵ(s)<<1,s\mathrm{}`$ then estimate (10) at large values of $`s`$ may be rewritten in the form

$$Imf_l(s)\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{\sqrt{l}}\mathrm{exp}\left(l\sqrt{2ϵ(s)}\right),s\mathrm{},$$
(11)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)=\left(\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{2ϵ(s)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)P_2(s).$$
(12)
Thus we have obtained a very important result: analyticity of two-body interaction amplitudes as functions of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, regular inside an ellipse in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$-plane, results in exponential decrease of partial waves as functions of orbital momentum $`l`$ at large values of $`l`$. This means that the significant contribution to the partial wave expansion (2) is determined by partial waves for which the orbital momentum does not exceed the quantity

$$L=\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{\sqrt{2ϵ(s)}}\right].$$
(13)
The contribution of partial waves with $`l>L`$ to the partial wave expansion will be exponentially small. Let us decompose the partial wave expansion in two terms

$$Im_2(s;\mathrm{cos}\theta =1)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{L1}{}}(2l+1)Imf_l(s)+Im_2^L(s),$$
(14)
where the second term in Eq. (14) contains the contribution of partial waves with $`lL`$. Now we would like to take advantage of unitarity condition which can be written for the partial waves as the following sequence of inequalities

$$0|f_l(s)|^2Imf_l(s)|f_l(s)|1.$$
(15)
Taking into account the unitarity condition we get for the first term in Eq. (14) an estimate in the form

$$\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{L1}{}}(2l+1)Imf_l(s)\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{L1}{}}(2l+1)=\frac{L^2}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{2\pi ϵ(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)},$$
(16)
where expression (13) for the quantity $`L`$ has been used.

Froissart has shown that the second term in Eq. (11) is asymptotically small compared to the first one at large values of $`s`$, so that we finally get

$$Im_2(s;\mathrm{cos}\theta =1)<\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{2\pi ϵ(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)}.$$
(17)
The optical theorem relates a total cross section of two-body interaction with imaginary part of two-body forward elastic scattering amplitude

$$\sigma _{ab}^{tot}(s)=\frac{(2\pi )^3}{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_a^2,m_b^2)}Im_2(s;\mathrm{cos}\theta =1),$$

$`\lambda `$-function is defined by Eq. (7). Hence from estimate (17) it follows an upper bound for the total cross section of two-body interaction

$$\sigma _{ab}^{tot}(s)<\frac{S_2\mathrm{ln}^2\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{32sϵ(s)A_2^2(s)}.$$
(18)
where, as it was mentioned above,

$$A_2(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)/S_2=\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_a^2,m_b^2)}{8s}.$$

Here is just the place to introduce the physical notion of the effective radius of two-body forces . Let us define the effective radius $`R_2(s)`$ of two-body forces by the following equation

$$R_2(s)\stackrel{def}{=}\frac{L}{|𝐪|}=\frac{2\sqrt{s}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{\sqrt{2ϵ(s)\lambda (s,m_a^2,m_b^2)}},$$
(19)
where the definition (13) of the quantity $`L`$ and expression (7) for $`𝐪`$ have been used. Now upper bound (18) in terms of such defined quantity $`R_2(s)`$ takes the form

$$\sigma _{ab}^{tot}(s)<4\pi R_2^2(s).$$
(20)
This form of the upper bound for experimentally measured quantity $`\sigma _{ab}^{tot}(s)`$ has a quite transparent physical and clear geometrical meanings: it means that the total cross section of two-body interaction is bounded by the area of a surface of two-dimensional sphere whose radius is defined by the effective radius of two-body forces. A remarkable property of upper bound (20) consist in the fact that here all information about analytic properties of two-body interaction amplitudes is hidden in the physically tangible quantity (19) which is the effective radius of two-body forces. If we put $`ϵ(s)`$ equal to $`ϵ_M(s)`$ given by Eq. (6) then from Eqs. (16) and (12) it follows that

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)\stackrel{~}{c}_2s^{9/4},s\mathrm{}.$$

In that case for the the effective radius of two-body forces we find from Eq. (19)

$$R_2(s)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{P}_2(s)}{\sqrt{t_0}}\frac{9}{4\sqrt{t_0}}\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0)=\frac{9}{8m_\pi }\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0),s\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
In the article Froissart gave an excellent semiclassical explanation corroborating his theorem. We would like to present here a remarkable fragment from section II of the Froissart paper . He wrote: “To get intuitive idea why the amplitude is bounded in the physical region, let us consider a classical problem: Two particles interact by means of absorptive Yukawa potential $`ge^{\kappa r}/r`$. If $`a`$ is the impact parameter, the total interaction seen by a particle for large $`a`$ is likely to be approximately $`ge^{\kappa a}`$. If this is small compared to one, there will be practically no scattering. If $`|ge^{\kappa a}|`$ is large compared to one, there will be practically complete scattering, so that the cross section will be essentially determined by the value $`a=(1/\kappa )\mathrm{ln}|g|`$ where $`|ge^{\kappa a}|=1`$. It is $`\sigma (\pi /\kappa ^2)\mathrm{ln}^2|g|`$. If we now assume that $`g`$ is a function of the energy, and increases like a power of the energy, then $`\sigma `$ will vary at most like the squared logarithm of the energy.” In fact, Froissart anticipated here a running coupling and quasi-potential character of strong forces. Later on it was shown  that the hypothesis about validity of the dispersion relations in the momentum transfer leads, for any value of the energy $`s`$, to a potential which is a superposition of Yukawa potentials with energy dependent intensities. This fact together with a theorem on single-time reduction in Quantum Field Theory  provides a strong basis for semiclassical consideration given by Froissart. However, it should be stressed that upper bound (20) has a quite different geometrical sense compared to semiclassical consideration given by Froissart: Eq. (20) shows that the total cross section of two-body interaction is bounded by the area of a surface of the sphere with the radius equal to the effective radius of two-body forces but not by the area of a disk with the same radius.

Unitarity bound (20) states that the total probability (per unit volume per unit time in fraction of particles density flux) of all possible (elastic and inelastic) two-particle interactions, which take place in a limited volume $`V`$ during a limited interval of time $`T`$, is limited by the area of a surface of the sphere which is, actually, a boundary of the volume $`V`$. This means that widely discussed in the recent literature concerning some physical problems at Planck scale the holographic principle  has been incorporated in the general scheme of axiomatic Quantum Field Theory and resulted from the general principles of local Quantum Field Theory.

## 2 Generalized Froissart theorem

In our works  it was shown that there is a quite natural geometrical generalization of the Froissart theorem to the case of multiparticle interaction. In this respect it should be noted that the problem of finding such generalization is non-trivial because at least the known singularities of multiparticle scattering amplitudes related to disconnected parts by cluster structure of the amplitudes point to the fact that for the total amplitude of $`n`$-particle scattering ($`n3`$) there is no such generalization. Connected part of $`n`$-particle ($`n3`$) scattering amplitudes contains singular rescattering terms as well. Therefore, the first problem which arises in this case is to define a suitable object connected with the $`nn`$ reaction amplitude which would permit a correct formulation of the problem. It turns out there is a wide class of many-particle reaction amplitudes for which such a problem would be quite meaningful. We have shown that these amplitudes should be understood as amplitudes of true $`n`$-particle interaction or $`n`$-body forces amplitudes; see details in . Here we reproduce our results taking a line stated in previous section.

The scattering amplitude of the $`n`$-body reaction may be considered as a function of the invariant variable $`s=(p_1+p_2+\mathrm{}+p_n)^2`$ and two unit vectors $`𝐞`$ and $`𝐞^{}`$ on $`(D1)`$-dimensional sphere $`S_{D1}`$, which characterise the initial and final states of $`n`$-particle system:

$$_n(s;p_1^{}p_2^{}\mathrm{}p_n^{},p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_n)=_n(s;𝐞^{},𝐞).$$

Dimensionality $`D`$ of multidimensional space is related to the number of particles $`n`$ by the equation $`D=3n3`$. There are many ways to introduce the spherical coordinates in multidimensional space. Moreover, there are some peculiarities related to a parametrization of relativistic $`n`$-particle system. However, we will not concern this subject here because it does not play any role for our main goal. For the details we refer to  and references therein.

As above we may wright the partial wave expansion

$$_n(s;𝐞^{},𝐞)=_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega )=$$

$$=\frac{1}{\pi A_n(s)}\underset{lm}{}Y_{lm}(𝐞^{})f_l(s)\underset{lm}{\overset{}{Y}}(𝐞)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}\underset{l}{}(\frac{l}{\nu }+1)f_l(s)C_l^\nu (\mathrm{cos}\omega ),$$
(22)
where $`A_n(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)/S_{D1}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)`$ is $`n`$-particle phase space volume, $`S_{D1}=2\pi ^{D/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)`$ is a surface of $`(D1)`$-dimensional unit sphere, $`\mathrm{cos}\omega =𝐞^{}𝐞`$, and we have used in second line of Eq. (22) an addition theorem for the (hyper)spherical harmonics in multidimensional space

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{M(l,\nu )}{}}Y_{lm}(𝐞^{})\underset{lm}{\overset{}{Y}}(𝐞)=\left(\frac{l}{\nu }+1\right)S_{D1}^1C_l^\nu (𝐞^{}𝐞),$$

$$\nu =\frac{D}{2}1,M(l,\nu )=\frac{(2l+2\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu +1)},$$

where $`C_l^\nu (z)`$ is Gegenbauer polynomial. Here we contented ourself with a special class of $`n`$-body forces scattering amplitudes which are invariant under rotation in multidimensional space (so called $`O(D)`$-invariant amplitudes).

We will assume that for physical values of the variable $`s`$ imaginary part of $`n`$-body forces scattering amplitude is analytic function of $`\mathrm{cos}\omega `$, regular inside an ellipse $`E_n(s)`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\omega `$-plane with center at the origin and with semi-major axis

$$z_n(s)=1+ϵ_n(s),ϵ_n(s)=\frac{M_n^2}{2𝐐^2},$$
(23)
and for any $`\mathrm{cos}\omega E_n(s)`$ is polynomially bounded in the variable $`s`$, $`M_n`$ is some constant of mass dimensionality independent of $`s`$, Q is global momentum (dependent of $`s`$) of $`n`$-particle system which will be defined later on. Such analyticity of $`n`$-body forces scattering amplitudes was called global . If it is so, one can wright Cauchy representation for imaginary part of $`n`$-body interaction amplitude

$$Im_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_n}𝑑z\frac{Im_n(s;z)}{z\mathrm{cos}\omega },$$

where contour $`C_n`$ is a boundary of an ellipse $`E_n(s)`$ in $`\mathrm{cos}\omega `$-plane with semi-major axis given by Eq. (23). There is a standard generalization of Heine’s expansion of the Cauchy denominator

$$\frac{1}{zt}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \nu )2^{2\nu }[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )]^2(z^21)^{\nu 1/2}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l+\nu )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\nu )}D_l^\nu (z)C_l^\nu (t),$$
(24)
which converges absolutely for

$$|[t+(t^21)^{1/2}]/[z+(z^21)^{1/2}]|<1.$$
(25)
In Eq. (24) $`D_l^\nu (z)`$ is a second solution to Gegenbauer’s equation. The restriction (25) requires that the point $`t`$ lie within that ellipse in the complex $`t`$-plane with foci at $`\pm 1`$ which passes through the point $`t=z`$. In particular from Eq. (24) it follows

$$D_l^\nu (z)=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \nu )(z^21)^{\nu +1/2}\frac{1}{2\pi }_1^1𝑑t\frac{(1t^2)^{\nu 1/2}C_n^\nu (t)}{zt}.$$

As a result we obtain

$$Imf_l(s)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \nu )\nu 2^{2\nu }[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\nu )}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}{2i}_{C_n}𝑑z(z^21)^{\nu 1/2}D_l^\nu (z)Im_n(s;z).$$
(26)
Representation (26) is very useful to study an asymptotic behaviour of partial waves at large global orbital momentum. Taking into account asymptotic properties of the Gegenbauer functions $`D_l^\nu `$

$$D_l^\nu (z)\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \nu )l^{\nu 1}}{2^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}(z^21)^{\nu /2}(z+\sqrt{z^21})^{l\nu },|l|\mathrm{},|\mathrm{arg}l|<\pi ,zC_n,$$

and polynomial boundedness

$$\underset{zC_n}{\mathrm{max}}|Im_n(s;z)|P_n(s),$$

$`P_n(s)`$ is some polynomial in $`s`$, we find

$$Imf_l(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)P_n(s)\frac{l^{\nu 1}\nu 2^{\nu +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\nu )}\times $$

$$\left(\frac{z_n(s)+\sqrt{z_n^2(s)1}}{\sqrt{z_n^2(s)1}}\right)^{1\nu }\left(z_n(s)+\sqrt{z_n^2(s)1}\right)^l,|l|\mathrm{}.$$
(27)
Finally if we put $`z_n(s)=1+ϵ_n(s)`$, $`ϵ_n(s)<<1,s\mathrm{}`$ then we get at large values of $`s`$

$$Imf_l(s)\frac{P_n(s,\nu )}{l^\nu }\mathrm{exp}\left(l\sqrt{2ϵ_n(s)}\right),s\mathrm{},$$
(28)
where

$$P_n(s,\nu )=\nu 2^{\nu +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )[2ϵ_n(s)]^{(\nu 1)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)P_n(s).$$
(29)
Estimate (29) shows that partial waves as functions of global orbital momentum $`l`$ exponentially decrease at large values of $`l`$, i.e. the significant contribution to the partial wave expansion (22) is resulted from partial waves for which the global orbital momentum does not exceed the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}P_n(s,\nu )}{\sqrt{2ϵ_n(s)}}\right].$$
(30)
The contribution of partial waves with $`l>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the partial wave expansion will be exponentially small. So, we decompose the partial wave expansion in two terms

$$Im_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega =1)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}(\frac{l}{\nu }+1)Imf_l(s)C_l^\nu (1)+Im_n^\mathrm{\Lambda }(s),$$
(31)
where the second term in Eq. (31) contains the contribution of partial waves with $`l>\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Taking into account the unitarity condition (15) for the partial waves we get for the first term in Eq. (31) an estimate

$$\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}(\frac{l}{\nu }+1)Imf_l(s)C_l^\nu (1)\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}(\frac{l}{\nu }+1)C_l^\nu (1)=$$

$$\frac{(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\nu +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\nu +1)}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu +2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }+1)}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\nu +1}}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu +2)}\left(1+O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right),$$
(32)
where we inserted $`C_l^\nu (1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\nu )/[\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\nu )\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)]`$. It can easily be seen that the second term in Eq. (27) is asymptotically small compared to the first one at large values of $`s`$, so that we finally get

$$Im_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega =1)<\frac{2\left[\mathrm{ln}P_n(s,\nu )\right]^{D1}}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(D)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)[2ϵ_n(s)]^{(D1)/2}}.$$
(33)
where we have used expression (30) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and relation $`2\nu =D2`$. By analogy with Eq. (19) let us introduce the effective radius $`R_n(s)`$ of $`n`$-body forces

$$R_n(s)\stackrel{def}{=}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|𝐐|}=\frac{1}{M_n}\mathrm{ln}P_n(s,\nu ),$$
(34)
where the definition (30) of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and expression (23) for $`ϵ_n(s)`$ have been used. Now upper bound (33) in terms of such defined quantity $`R_n(s)`$ takes the form

$$Im_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega =1)<\frac{2\left[R_n(s)\right]^{D1}}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(D)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)[2ϵ_n(s)/M_n^2]^{(D1)/2}}=J_n(s)S_{D1}[R_n(s)]^{D1},$$
(35)
where

$$J_n(s)=\frac{2}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(D)S_{D1}^2A_n(s)[2ϵ_n(s)/M_n^2]^{(D1)/2}}=\frac{2|𝐐|^{D1}}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(D)S_{D1}^2A_n(s)}.$$
(36)
With account of the generalized optical theorem relating a total cross section of $`n`$-body interaction with imaginary part of $`n`$-body forces forward scattering amplitude

$$\sigma _n^{tot}(s)=\frac{1}{J_n(s)}Im_n(s;\mathrm{cos}\omega =1),$$

from estimate (35) we obtain an upper bound for the total cross section of $`n`$-body interaction

$$\sigma _n^{tot}(s)<S_{D1}[R_n(s)]^{D1}.$$
(37)
Here again, as it should be, upper bound (37) has a quite clear geometrical meaning: the total cross section of $`n`$-body interaction is bounded by the area of a surface of $`(D1)`$-dimensional sphere whose radius is defined by the effective radius of $`n`$-body forces. Again all information about global analyticity of $`n`$-body interaction amplitudes is hidden in the physical quantity (34) which is the effective radius of $`n`$-body forces. From Eqs. (29) and (33) it follows that

$$P_n(s,\nu )c_ns^{(3n+3)/4},s\mathrm{}.$$

For the the effective radius of $`n`$-body forces we find from Eq. (34) in that case

$$R_n(s)\frac{r_n}{M_n}\mathrm{ln}(s/s_0),r_n=\frac{3n+3}{4},s\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
Upper bounds (35,37) are a direct consequence of global analyticity of $`n`$-body forces scattering amplitudes which, in one’s turn, is a direct geometrical generalization of analytic properties of two-body scattering amplitude strictly proved in axiomatic Quantum Field Theory. At present we do not know to what extend global analyticity of $`n`$-particle scattering amplitudes $`(n3)`$ is a consequence of general principles of local Quantum Field Theory. The validity of such an assumption is obvious to us if we rely on the physical nature of $`n`$-body forces: our intuition tells us that true $`n`$-body interactions should manifest themselves only in the case when all the $`n`$ particles are in a sufficiently limited volume. On the other hand, from the beginning one may, by definition, consider the $`n`$-body forces scattering amplitude to be a globally analytic part of the total $`S`$-matrix which may always be singled out from it .

At last, we have to give the definition of global momentum $`|𝐐|`$ for the relativistic $`n`$-particle system. In this respect, first of all, note that momentum $`𝐪`$ for two-particle system has been defined in a relativistic covariant way. Under any Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the restricted Lorentz group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{}`$ momentum $`𝐪`$ is transforming by Wigner rotation:

$$𝐪𝐪^{}=R_W𝐪,R_W=L^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }P_{ab})\mathrm{\Lambda }L(P_{ab}),$$

$`L(P_{ab})`$ is Lorentz boost. This means that $`|𝐪|`$ defined by Eq. (7) is a Lorentz invariant quantity. Moreover, we would like to emphasize the following asymptotic properties

$$𝐪^2\frac{1}{4}s,s\mathrm{};𝐪^22\mu _2(\sqrt{s}M_2),\sqrt{s}M_2,M_2=m_a+m_b,\mu _2=\frac{m_am_b}{M_2}.$$
(39)
The expression of $`𝐪^2`$ given by Eq. 7 can be rewritten in the form

$$𝐪^2=16s\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(s)/S_2\right)^2=16sA_2^2(s).$$
(40)
The definition of global momentum for the relativistic $`n`$-particle system should be given such as to save the asymptotic properties shown by Eqs. (39). Such generalization for any number of particles looks like

$$𝐐^2=\gamma _ns^{(n1)/(3n5)}A_n^{2/(3n5)},$$
(41)
where $`\gamma _n`$ is dimensionless constant

$$\gamma _n=2^{2n/(3n5)}\left(\frac{\mu _n}{M_n}\right)^{(2n4)/(3n5)},\mu _n=\left(\frac{_{i=1}^nm_i}{M_n}\right)^{1/(n1)},M_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_i.$$
(42)
From the definition (41) we have the following asymptotic properties:

$$𝐐^2a_n^2s,s\mathrm{},$$
(43)
where $`a_n`$ is dimensionless constant

$$a_n^2=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3n/23/2)}{\pi ^{(n1)/2}(n1)!(n2)!}\right)^{2/(3n5)}\left(\frac{\mu _n}{M_n}\right)^{(2n4)/(3n5)},$$
(44)
for example

$$a_2^2=\frac{1}{4},a_3^2=\left(\frac{\mu _3}{\pi M_3}\right)^{1/2},a_3^1(m_1=m_2=m_3)=2.0100\mathrm{},$$

and

$$𝐐^22\mu _n(\sqrt{s}M_n),\sqrt{s}M_n.$$
(45)
## 3 Physical applications and discussion

Let us come back to Eq. (16) and remind an ancient Pythagoras theorem stated that the sum of first $`N`$ odd numbers beginning from unity is equal exactly to the square of $`N`$ i.e.

$$\underset{N}{\underset{}{1+3+5+7+\mathrm{}}}=N^2.$$
(46)
This Pythagoras theorem can easily be proved with the help of the formula for an arithmetical progression. However, Pythagoras theorem can be proved without a knowledge of the formula for an arithmetical progression but using only some remarkable observations in a game with the numbers. We will not touch here the simplest proof, we would only like to stress a deep link between the Froissart bound and this Pythagoras theorem. Of course, to take advantage of this link we have to learn apart from differential calculus and integral calculus that:

* Symmetry properties of the space-time continuum are described by inhomogeneous Lorentz group or Poincaré group. We had also to know how to construct the unitary representations of this group as well, as it was made in the fundamental paper of Wigner .
* There is a very deep connexion between general physical principles such as causality, spectrality, unitarity and analytic properties of physical scattering amplitudes. The very essence of this connexion is expressed by brilliant Jost-Lehmann-Dyson representation which provided the fundamental results of Lehmann.
* It takes many other attainments and the knowledge acquisitions as well.

There is a generalization of Pythagoras theorem (46). Really, let us consider any polynomial $`P_n(x)`$ degree of $`n`$

$$P_n(x)=c_0(P)+c_1(P)x+c_2(P)x^2+\mathrm{}+c_n(P)x^n,$$

let $`S(N)`$ be a sum of the polynomial values when the argument $`x`$ takes an integer value

$$S(N)\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}P_n(k),$$

then it can be proved that $`S(N)`$ is also a polynomial $`Q_{n+1}(N)`$ in $`N`$ degree of $`(n+1)`$

$$S(N)=Q_{n+1}(N),Q_{n+1}(x)=c_0(Q)+c_1(Q)x+c_2(Q)x^2+\mathrm{}+c_{n+1}(Q)x^{n+1},$$
(47)
and there is correspondence between $`c_n(P)`$ and $`c_n(Q)`$: $`c_{n+1}(Q)=c_n(P)/(n+1),\mathrm{}.`$ For example, if $`P_4(x)`$ is polynomial of fourth degree then we have

$`c_5(Q)=c_4(P)/5,`$
$`c_4(Q)=c_3(P)/4+c_4(P)/2,`$
$`c_3(Q)=c_2(P)/3+c_3(P)/2+c_4(P)/3,`$
$`c_2(Q)=c_1(P)/2+c_2(P)/2+c_3(P)/4,`$
$`c_1(Q)=c_0(P)+c_1(P)/2+c_2(P)/6c_4(P)/30.`$
$`c_0(Q)=c_0(P).`$ (48)
We will call that statement as a generalized Pythagoras theorem. It can easily be seen that usual Pythagoras theorem (46) corresponds to $`P_1(x)=2x+1`$. From Eq. (32) it’s clear that the generalized Froissart theorem is related to the generalized Pythagoras theorem where $`P_{D2}(x)`$ is being used.

In according with the theory held by Pythagoras the unitarity bounds (20) and (37) give form to the Unlimited and therefore they are Limit; see Introduction.

Recently  a simple theoretical formula describing the global structure of $`pp`$ and $`p\overline{p}`$ total cross-sections in the whole range of energies available up today has been derived by an application of single-time formalism in QFT and general theorems a là Froissart. The fit to the experimental data with the formula was made, and it was shown that there is a very good correspondence of the theoretical formula to the existing experimental data obtained at the accelerators. Moreover, it turned out there is a very good correspondence of the theory to all existing cosmic ray experimental data as well . The predicted values for $`\sigma _{pp}^{tot}`$ obtained from theoretical description of all existing accelerators data are completely compatible with the values obtained from cosmic ray experiments. The global structure of (anti)proton-proton total cross section is shown in Figs. 1-2 extracted from papers .

The theoretical formula describing the global structure of (anti)proton-proton total cross section has the following structure

$$\sigma _{(\overline{p})pp}^{tot}(s)=\sigma _{asmpt}^{tot}(s)\left[1+\chi _{(\overline{p})pp}(s)\right],$$
(49)
where

$$\sigma _{asmpt}^{tot}(s)=2\pi \left[B_{el}(s)+(1\beta )R_3^2(s)\right]=\left[42.0479+1.7548\mathrm{ln}^2(\sqrt{s}/20.74)\right](mb),$$
(50)
$$B_{el}(s)=R_2^2(s)/2=[11.92+0.3036\mathrm{ln}^2(\sqrt{s}/20.74](GeV^2),$$

$$R_3^2(s)|_{\beta <<1}=\left[0.40874044\sigma _{asmpt}^{tot}(s)(mb)B_{el}(s)\right](GeV^2)=$$

$$=\left[5.267+0.4137\mathrm{ln}^2\sqrt{s}/20.74\right](GeV^2),$$
(51)
$$\beta =\frac{x_{inel}^2}{4(1+x_{inel}^2)},x_{inel}^2=\frac{R_3^2(s)}{R_d^2}=\frac{2B_{sd}}{R_d^2},$$

$`B_{el}(s)`$ is the slope of nucleon-nucleon differential elastic scattering cross section, $`R_2(s)`$ is the effective radius of two-nucleon forces, $`R_3(s)`$ is the effective radius of three-nucleon forces, $`R_d`$ characterizes the internucleon distance in a deuteron, the functions $`\chi _{(\overline{p})pp}(s)`$ describe low-energy parts of (anti)proton-proton total cross sections and asymptotically tend to zero at $`s\mathrm{}`$ (see details in the original paper ). The mathematical structure of the formula (49) is very simple and physically transparent: the total cross section is represented in a factorized form. One factor describes high energy asymptotics of total cross section and it has the universal energy dependence predicted by the general Froissart theorem in local Quantum Field Theory. The other factor is responsible for the behaviour of total cross section at low energies and it has a complicated resonance structure. However this factor has also the universal asymptotics at elastic threshold. It is a remarkable fact that the low energy part of total cross section has been derived by application of the generalized Froissart theorem for a three-body forces scattering amplitude.

Eq. (50) shows that geometrical scaling in a naive form $`\sigma _{asmpt}^{tot}(s)=\text{Const}B_{el}(s)`$ is not valid. However, from Eq. (50) it follows the generalized geometrical scaling which looks like

$$\sigma _{asmpt}^{tot}(s)=2\pi B_{el}(s)[1+2\gamma (1\beta )],$$
(52)
where $`\beta `$ is defined above and

$$\gamma =\frac{R_3^2(s)}{2B_{el}(s)}=\frac{R_3^2(s)}{R_2^2(s)}.$$

Here, we would like to point out some remarkable features of the global structure in the (anti)proton-proton total cross sections. First of all, the (anti)proton-proton total cross sections have a minimum at $`s=s_0`$, and the question is what this minimum corresponds to. It turns out that the effective radius of three-nucleon forces at the point $`s=s_0`$ satisfys the following harmonic ratio

$$\overline{)R_3(s_0):r_p^{ch}=1:2},$$
(53)
where $`r_p^{ch}=0.88fm`$ is the proton charge radius. In other words, at the minimum $`s=s_0`$ it takes place the “octave consonance” of the three-nucleon forces with the proton charge distribution.

Going further on, we have applied our approach to study a shadow dynamics in scattering from deuteron in some details. In this way a new simple formula for the shadow corrections to the total cross-section in scattering from deuteron has been derived and new scaling characteristics with a clear physical interpretation have been established. We shall briefly sketch the basic results of our analysis of high-energy particle scattering from deuteron. As has been shown in , the total cross-section in the scattering from deuteron can be expressed by the formula

$$\sigma _{hd}^{tot}(s)=\sigma _{hp}^{tot}(\widehat{s})+\sigma _{hn}^{tot}(\widehat{s})\delta \sigma (s),$$

where $`\sigma _{hd},\sigma _{hp},\sigma _{hn}`$ are the total cross-sections in scattering from deuteron, proton and neutron,

$$\delta \sigma (s)=\delta \sigma ^{el}(s)+\delta \sigma ^{inel}(s)=2\sigma ^{el}(s)a^{el}(x_{el})+2\sigma _{sd}^{ex}(s)a^{inel}(x_{inel}),$$
(54)
$$\sigma ^{el}(s)\frac{\sigma _{hN}^{tot\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s)}{16\pi B_{el}(s)},a^{el}(x_{el})=\frac{x_{el}^2}{1+x_{el}^2},x_{el}^2\frac{2B_{el}(s)}{R_d^2}=\frac{R_2^2(s)}{R_d^2},$$

$$a^{inel}(x_{inel})=\frac{x_{inel}^2}{(1+x_{inel}^2)^{3/2}},x_{inel}^2\frac{R_3^2(s)}{R_d^2}=\frac{2B_{sd}(s)}{R_d^2},$$

the total single diffractive dissociation cross-section $`\sigma _{sd}^{ex}(s)`$ is defined by the following equation

$$\sigma _{sd}^\epsilon (s)=\pi _{M_{min}^2}^{\epsilon s}\frac{dM_X^2}{s}_{t_{}(M_X^2)}^{t_+(M_X^2)}𝑑t\frac{d\sigma }{dtdM_X^2},$$
(55)
where

$$\epsilon =\epsilon ^{ex}=\sqrt{2\pi }/2M_NR_d,$$
(56)
and we supposed that $`\sigma _{hp}^{tot}=\sigma _{hn}^{tot}=\sigma _{hN}^{tot}`$ and $`B_{el}^{hp}=B_{el}^{hn}=B_{el}`$ at high energies. The first term in the R.H.S. of Eq. (54) generalizes the known Glauber correction

$$\delta \sigma ^{el}(s)=\delta \sigma _G(s)=\frac{\sigma _{hN}^{tot\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(s)}{4\pi R_d^2},x_{el}^2<<1,$$

but the second term in the R.H.S. of Eq. (54) is totally new and comes from the contribution of the three-body forces to the hadron-deuteron total cross section.

The expressions for the shadow corrections have quite a transparent physical meaning, both the elastic $`a^{el}`$ and inelastic $`a^{inel}`$ scaling functions have a clear physical interpretation . The function $`a^{el}`$ measures out a portion of elastic rescattering events among of all the events during the interaction of an incident particle with a deuteron as a whole, and this function attached to the total probability of elastic interaction of an incident particle with a separate nucleon in a deuteron. Correspondingly, the function $`a^{inel}`$ measures out a portion of inelastic events of inclusive type among of all the events during the interaction of an incident particle with a deuteron as a whole, and this function attached to the total probability of single diffraction dissociation of an incident particle on a separate nucleon in a deuteron. The scaling variables $`x_{el}`$ and $`x_{inel}`$ have quite a clear physical meaning too. The dimensionless quantity $`x_{el}`$ characterizes the effective distances measured in the units of “fundamental length”, which the deuteron size is, in elastic interactions, but the similar quantity $`x_{inel}`$ characterizes the effective distances measured in the units of the same “fundamental length” during inelastic interactions.

The functions $`a^{el}`$ and $`a^{inel}`$ have a different behaviour: $`a^{el}`$ is a monotonic function while $`a^{inel}`$ has the maximum at the point $`x_{inel}^{max}=\sqrt{2}`$ where $`a^{inel}(x_{inel}^{max})=2/3\sqrt{3}`$. The existence of the maximum in the function $`a^{inel}`$ results an interesting physical effect of weakening the inelastic eclipsing (screening) at superhigh energies. The energy $`s_m`$ at the maximum of $`a^{inel}`$ can easily be calculated from the equation $`R_3^2(s_m)=2R_d^2`$ and here we faced with the harmonic ratio (in square)

$$\overline{)R_3^2(s_m):R_d^2=2:1}.$$
(57)
Using the above mentioned global structure for the (anti)proton-proton total cross sections, we have made a preliminary comparison of the new structure for the shadow corrections in elastic scattering from deuteron with the existing experimental data on proton-deuteron and antiproton-deuteron total cross sections. The results of this comparison are shown in Figs. 3-4

We would like to emphasize that in the fit to the data on antiproton-deuteron total cross sections $`R_d^2`$ was considered as a single free fit parameter. After that a comparison with the data on proton-deuteron total cross sections has been made without any free parameters: $`R_d^2`$ was fixed by the previous fit to the data on antiproton-deuteron total cross sections, and our fit yielded $`R_d^2=66.61\pm 1.16GeV^2`$. If we take into account the latest experimental value for the deuteron matter radius $`r_{d,m}=1.963(4)fm`$  then we can find that the fitted value for the $`R_d^2`$ satisfies with a good accuracy the equality

$$R_d^2=\frac{2}{3}r_{d,m}^2,(r_{d,m}^2=3.853fm^2=98.96GeV^2).$$
(58)
So, we have established a harmonic “consonance” between the internucleon distance in a deuteron and the deuteron matter distribution

$$\overline{)R_d^2:r_{d,m}^2=2:3}.$$
(59)
Now, let us come back to Eq. (50). Taking into account that $`0\beta 1/4`$, from the Froissart bound (20) and Eq. (50) we have the following bound

$$\overline{)R_3^2(s)<2R_2^2(s)}.$$
(60)
On the other hand for the effective radii of $`n`$-body forces we have obtained an asymptotic behaviour given by Eq. (38) where it follows from

$$\frac{R_3(s)}{R_2(s)}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{M_2}{M_3},s\mathrm{}.$$
(61)
Bound (60) with account of Eq. (61) gives

$$M_3>\frac{4}{3\sqrt{2}}M_2=\frac{8m_\pi }{3\sqrt{2}},(M_2=2m_\pi ).$$
(62)
However, if we conjecture that $`M_n=nm_\pi `$ which is fulfilled for $`n=2`$ then

$$\frac{R_3(s)}{R_2(s)}=\frac{8}{9},s\mathrm{}.$$
(63)
The ratio given by Eq. (63) corresponds to the harmonic ratio for the major second in the major scale in according to Pythagoras tune; see Introduction. We would like especially to emphasize that the ratio (63) is compatible with the global structure of (anti)proton-proton(deuteron) total cross sections described above.

## 4 Conclusion

In this minireview we have tried in the spirit of the Pythagorean school to show the mathematical, physical and geometrical beauty of the Froissart theorem. No doubt, we were enchanted with the aesthetic aspects of the Froissart theorem: there were heard the new notes of the music of the spheres produced by the Froissart theorem in the fundamental dynamics of particles and nuclei. Starting from abstract mathematical structures of axiomatic Quantum Field Theory by applying the general theorems, a physically transparent intuitively clear and visual picture of particles and nuclei interactions was arisen before our eyes. We found a very simple relations between physically tangible quantities which looked like Pythagoras harmonic ratios mentioned above and hence might be considered as a “hadronic symphony” in the fundamental dynamics. In fact, we came back to the great Pythagorean ideas reformulated in terms of the objects living in the microcosmos.

It appears that the study of fundamental processes in high energy elementary particle physics makes it possible to establish a missing link between cosmos and microcosmos, between the great ancient ideas and recent investigations in particle and nuclear physics and to confirm the unity of physical picture of the World. Anyway, we believe in it.

At last, in our previous papers we repeatedly criticized the so called supercritical pomeron phenomenology in hadronic physics. In our opinion this phenomenology might be compared with a “cacophony” in particle physics. Certainly, someone likes cacophony in the music. However, we prefer a symphony in the music and a harmony in the fundamental dynamics as well.

## Acknowledgements

It is a great pleasure to thank Professor O.A. Khrustalev who initiated, encouraged and supported my scientific flame and research in the youth and Professor V.I. Savrin for friendly and successfully collaboration in the middle of seventieth.