text:
# Volume Expansion of Swiss-Cheese Universe

## I INTRODUCTION

The standard Big Bang scenario is based on an assumption of the homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter and radiation. This assumption then leads to the Robertson-Walker spacetime geometry and the Friedmann-Lemaître (FL) universe model through the Einstein equations. This model has succeeded in explaining various important observational facts: Hubble’s expansion law, the content of light elements and the isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)ref:Weinberg .

The CMBR conversely gives a strong observational basis for the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of our universe by its highly isotropic distribution together with the Copernican principle; we know that our universe was highly isotropic and homogeneous at least on the last scattering surface where CMBR comes fromref:Smoot . Hence, in the early stage of our universe, the linear perturbation analysis in the FL universe model is a powerful tool to investigate the dynamical evolution of our universeref:KS84 .

In order to perform the perturbation analysis, we need an appropriate background universe model, i.e., information of the Hubble parameter, the density parameter and further the equation of state of the matter, radiation and so on, in the real universe. To fix the background universe, we use the observational data in the neighborhood of our galaxy. Especially the Hubble parameter is determined from the data about the distance-redshift relation within $`100h^1`$Mpc except for the type Ia supernovaSchmidt:1998ys ; Perlmutter:1999np . However, the universe in a region within $`100h^1`$Mpc is highly inhomogeneous and hence there are non-trivial prescriptions to identify the present inhomogeneous universe to the homogeneous and isotropic FL universe model. If those procedure are not appropriate, we might miss finding the correct background universe.

It is often stated that the spatially averaged observational data in the vicinity of our galaxy are recognized as those of the background FL universe model. The Hubble parameter determined by the observed distance-redshift relation in our universe is regarded as the expansion rate of the volume of the region co-moving to matter. There are several researches for the effects of inhomogeneities on the volume expansion of the universeref:futamase89 ; ref:futamase97 ; ref:Tomita ; ref:Russ ; ref:Mukhanov ; ref:Abramo ; ref:Nambu ; ref:Nambu-2 ; ref:Nambu-3 ; ref:Geshnizjani . Especially, Nambu applied the renormalization group method to the second order cosmological perturbation theory and claimed that the expansion of the dust filled universe is decelerated by the inhomogeneitiesref:Nambu .

In the real universe, this back reaction effect might be very smallref:Russ . However in order to get deeper insight into the dynamics of the inhomogeneous universe, we will consider the situation in which the back reaction of the inhomogeneities seems to be effective. For this purpose, we consider the Swiss-Cheese universe model and investigate the volume expansion in it. The original Swiss-Cheese universe model is constructed by choosing non-overlapping spherical regions in the background homogeneous and isotropic dust filled universe and then replacing these regions by the Schwarzschild space-time whose mass parameter is identical with the “gravitational” mass of the dust fluid in the removed region. On the other hand, in this article, we consider a modified version; we first remove spherical regions from the homogeneous and isotropic dust filled universe and then fill these regions with spherically symmetric but inhomogeneous dust balls. A spherically symmetric inhomogeneous dust ball is described by the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solution which is an exact solution of the Einstein equations, and hence by this procedure, we obtain an exact solution of Einstein equations, which represents an inhomogeneous universe. Using this solution, we can study non-linear effects of inhomogeneities on the volume expansion of the universe without use of perturbation analysis.

In the LTB solution, shell crossing singularities are generic. Since the LTB solution is no longer valid after the occurrence of the shell crossing, we need to change the treatment if it occurs. As a crude approximation to describe the dynamics after the shell crossing, we adopt a model in which the shell crossing region is replaced by a spherical dust shell.

This article is organized as follows. In section II, we explain how to construct modified Swiss-Cheese universe models which are studied in this article. We investigate the volume expansion rate in the case of small perturbations in section III and in the highly inhomogeneous case in IV. In section IV, an alternative model is also constructed which describes the universe after the shell crossing and investigate the dynamics of this model. Finally, section V is devoted to summary and discussion.

We use the units in which $`c=G=1`$ throughout the paper.

## II MODIFIED SWISS CHEESE UNIVERSE MODEL

In this section, we give a prescription to construct MSC universe model. First we consider a Einstein-de Sitter (EdS) universe and then remove spherical regions from it; these removed regions should not overlap with each other. Next these regions filled with inhomogeneous dust balls with the same radii and the same gravitational mass as those of the removed homogeneous dust balls. In this MSC universe model, each inhomogeneous region is described by the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solution which is an exact solution of Einstein equations.

LTB solution describes the dust filled spherically symmetric spacetime. Adopting synchronous and co-moving coordinate system, the line element is written as

$`ds^2=`$ $`dt^2+\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j`$
$`=`$ $`dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(t,\chi )}{1\chi ^2k(\chi )}}d\chi ^2+Y^2(t,\chi )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),`$ (1)
where the prime  denotes the differentiation with respect to the radial coordinate $`\chi `$. In this coordinate system, components of 4-velocity $`u^a`$ of a dust fluid element are

$$u^a=(1,0,0,0).$$
(2)
The stress-energy tensor $`T_{ab}`$ is then given by

$$T_{ab}=\rho (t,\chi )\delta _a^0\delta _b^0,$$
(3)
where $`\rho (t,\chi )`$ is the rest mass density of the dust.

Einstein equations lead to the equations for the areal radius $`Y(t,\chi )`$ and the rest mass density $`\rho (t,\chi )`$ of the dust;

$`\dot{Y}^2=`$ $`\chi ^2k(\chi )+{\displaystyle \frac{2M(\chi )}{Y}},`$ (4)
$`\rho =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}(\chi )}{4\pi Y^{}Y^2}},`$ (5)
where $`k(\chi )`$ and $`M(\chi )`$ are arbitrary functions and the dot $`\dot{}`$ denotes the differentiation with respect to $`t`$.

We set $`M(\chi )`$ as

$$M(\chi )=\frac{4\pi \rho _0}{3}\chi ^3,$$
(6)
where $`\rho _0`$ is a non-negative arbitrary constant. The above choice of $`M(\chi )`$ does not loose any generality. Eqs. (1)-(5) are invariant for the rescaling of the radial coordinate $`\chi `$,

$$\chi \stackrel{~}{\chi }=\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\chi ).$$
(7)
Considering this property, we can choose above form of $`M(\chi )`$ as long as $`\rho Y^{}>0`$.

The solutions of eq. (4) are given as follows:

In the region where $`k(\chi )>0`$,

$`Y=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho _0}{3k}}(1\mathrm{cos}\eta )\chi ,`$ (8)
$`tt_0(\chi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho _0}{3k^{3/2}}}(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta );`$ (9)
in the region where $`k(\chi )=0`$,

$$Y=\left[6\pi \rho _0\left\{tt_0(\chi )\right\}^2\right]^{1/3}\chi ;$$
(10)
in the region where $`k(\chi )<0`$,

$`Y=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho _0}{3|k|}}(\mathrm{cosh}\eta 1)\chi ,`$ (11)
$`tt_0(\chi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho _0}{3|k|^{3/2}}}(\mathrm{sinh}\eta \eta ),`$ (12)
where $`t_0(\chi )`$ is an arbitrary function. Note that $`t_0(\chi )`$ is the time when a shell focusing singularity appears, where ‘shell focusing singularity’ means $`Y=0`$ for $`\chi >0`$ and $`Y^{}=0`$ at $`\chi =0`$. In this article, we consider a region of $`t>t_0`$, and hence the time $`t=t_0`$ corresponds to the Big Bang singularity. Here, we focus on a case of $`t_0=0`$, i.e., simultaneous Big Bang. For simplicity, we consider the simplest version of MSC universe models shown in fig. 1; there is only one inhomogeneous spherical region at the center in each identical cubic region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We focus on only one cubic co-moving region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (fig. 2).

In this article, we consider a following model. Assuming $`0<\chi _1<\chi _2<\chi _3<\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$,

$$k(\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}k_0\hfill & \text{for }0\chi <\chi _1\hfill \\ \frac{k_0}{2\chi ^2}\left\{\frac{(\chi ^2\chi _2^2)^2}{\chi _1^2\chi _2^2}+\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2\right\}\hfill & \text{for }\chi _1\chi <\chi _2\text{}\hfill \\ \frac{k_0}{2\chi ^2}\left(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2\right)\hfill & \text{for }\chi _2\chi <\chi _3\text{}\hfill \\ \frac{k_0}{2\chi ^2}\left(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2\right)\left\{\left(\frac{\chi ^2\chi _3^2}{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^2\chi _3^2}\right)^21\right\}^2\hfill & \text{for }\chi _3\chi <\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}\text{}\hfill \end{array},$$
(13)
where $`k_0`$ is constant. In order to guarantee $`1\chi ^2k>0`$, the following inequality should hold,

$$\kappa :=\frac{k_0}{2}(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)<1.$$
(14)
We consider two cases; one is the case of $`k_0>0`$ and the other is the case of $`k_0<0`$. Then we investigate the volume expansion rate of a cubic co-moving region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The volume $`V`$ is defined by

$$V(t):=_\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\gamma }d^3x,$$
(15)
where $`\gamma `$ is the determinant of the spatial metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$. The volume expansion rate is defined as $`\dot{V}/V`$.

## III The Case of Small Fluctuations

In a region where

$$0<\frac{9t|k|^{3/2}}{2\pi \rho _0}1$$

is satisfied, the areal radius $`Y(t,\chi )`$ is written in the form of power series as

$$Y(t,\chi )=a(t)\chi \left(1\frac{1}{20}ϵ\frac{3}{2800}ϵ^2\right)+O(ϵ^3),$$
(16)
where

$$ϵ(t,\chi ):=\left(\frac{9t}{2\pi \rho _0}\right)^{2/3}k=\left(\frac{12t}{M(\chi )}\right)^{2/3}\chi ^2k,$$
(17)
and

$$a(t):=(6\pi \rho _0t^2)^{1/3}.$$
(18)
Further, we consider the case of $`|k|\chi ^21`$, which has been studied by Nambu by the second order perturbation analysis. The components of the metric tensor are written as

$`g_{\chi \chi }`$ $`=a^2\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{12t}}\right)^{2/3}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\chi }}(\chi ϵ)+O(ϵ^2)\right],`$ (19)
$`g_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=a^2\chi ^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}ϵ+O(ϵ^2)\right],`$ (20)
$`g_{\phi \phi }`$ $`=a^2\chi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}ϵ+O(ϵ^2)\right].`$ (21)
From the above equations, it is easily seen that in the limit $`ϵ0`$ with $`t`$ fixed, the metric tensor becomes that of EdS. Since the outside region is EdS universe, $`ϵ`$ should vanish at the boundary $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ by the continuity of the metric tensor.

To compare our result with the study by Namburef:Nambu , we impose conditions that spatial averages of the Cartesian components of the metric tensor and of the density agree with those of the background EdS universe up to the first order of $`ϵ`$.

The spatial average of a quantity $`F`$ is defined as follows:

$$F:=\left(_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3x\right)^1_\mathrm{\Omega }Fd^3x.$$
(22)
We consider a Cartesian coordinate system $`(x,y,z)`$ which is related to the spherical polar coordinate system $`(\chi ,\theta ,\phi )`$ in the ordinary manner as

$`x`$ $`=\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$
$`y`$ $`=\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,`$
$`z`$ $`=\chi \mathrm{cos}\theta .`$
Then the spatial averages of Cartesian components of the spatial metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are obtained as

$`\gamma _{ij}`$ $`=a^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{12t}}\right)^{2/3}ϵ\chi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\chi }}(\chi ^3ϵ)\right\}𝑑\chi \right]\delta _{ij}+O(ϵ^2)`$
$`=(6\pi \rho _0t^2)^{2/3}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}k\chi ^4𝑑\chi \right)\delta _{ij}+O(ϵ^2),`$ (23)
where we have used $`ϵ=0`$ at $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$. Therefore we should define the scale factor $`a_\text{b}(t)`$ of the background EdS universe as

$$a_\text{b}(t):=a(t)\left(1+\frac{4\pi }{3\mathrm{}^3}_0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}k\chi ^4𝑑\chi \right)^{1/2},$$
(24)
The above equation means that although the outside homogeneous region has the same geometry of EdS universe, it does not agree with the background EdS universe as long as

$$_0^{\chi _{\text{sc}}}k\chi ^4𝑑\chi 0.$$
(25)
The rest mass density $`\rho `$ of the dust is written in the form of a power series with respect to $`ϵ`$ as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{6\pi t^2}\left\{1+\frac{1}{20\chi ^2}\frac{d}{d\chi }(\chi ^3ϵ)\right\}+O(ϵ^2).$$
(26)
The spatial average of $`\rho `$ is obtained as

$$\rho =\frac{1}{6\pi t^2}+O(ϵ^2).$$
(27)
Hence the background energy density $`\rho _\text{b}`$ is defined by

$$\rho _\text{b}(t):=\frac{1}{6\pi t^2}.$$
(28)
Here note that the background Hubble equation

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}_\text{b}}{a_\text{b}}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho _\text{b},$$
(29)
holds.

By eq. (16), the 3-dimensional volume element $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$ is written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\gamma }=a^3\chi ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta [1\frac{1}{20\chi ^2}\frac{d}{d\chi }(\chi ^3ϵ)+\frac{1}{2}\chi ^2k(\chi )+\frac{1}{700\chi ^2}\frac{d}{d\chi }(\chi ^3ϵ^2)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{40}k(\chi )\frac{d}{d\chi }(\chi ^3ϵ)+\frac{3}{8}\chi ^4k^2(\chi )]+O(ϵ^3).\end{array}$$
(30)
Using the above equation, the volume $`V`$ defined by eq. (15) is obtained as

$$V(t)=a_\text{b}^3(t)\left(\mathrm{}^3+V_1+V_2t^{2/3}\right)+O(ϵ^3),$$
(31)
where

$`V_1`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}\chi ^6k^2𝑑\chi {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3\mathrm{}^6}}\left({\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}k\chi ^4𝑑\chi \right)^2,`$ (32)
$`V_2`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{20}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2\pi \rho _0}}\right)^{2/3}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}k^2\chi ^4𝑑\chi <0.`$ (33)
In eq. (31), $`a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3`$ is the 3-dimensional volume measured by background EdS geometry and extra terms come form inhomogeneities. These terms do not include first order perturbations, but come from second order perturbations.

The volume expansion rate is given by

$$\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=3\frac{\dot{a}_\text{b}}{a_\text{b}}+\frac{2V_2}{3\mathrm{}^3}t^{1/3}+O(ϵ^3).$$
(34)
The first term of the R.H.S. in the above equation corresponds to the background part. On the other hand, the second term implies that the back-reaction of inhomogeneities decelerates the volume expansion. It is worthwhile to note that this result does not depend on the detailed functional form of $`k(\chi )`$.

## IV The Case of Non-Linear Fluctuations

In this section, we study the cases where $`|k|\chi ^2`$ is not necessarily much smaller than unity. As in the case treated in the previous section, in order to specify an effect due to inhomogeneity, we need a background homogeneous cubic region to be compared with an inhomogeneous one. However the background homogeneous universe introduced in the previous section is not appropriate for the non-linear case; for example, too small $`k`$ makes the background scale factor $`a_\text{b}`$ defined in eq. (24) negative. In order to introduce an appropriate background, we consider the rest mass $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ defined by

$`M_\mathrm{R}`$ $`:={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\rho u^0\sqrt{g}d^3x`$
$`=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho Y^{}Y^2}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}}𝑑\chi +\rho _0\left(\mathrm{}^3{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^3\right)`$
$`=\rho _0\mathrm{}^3\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}}1\right)\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right\},`$ (35)
where $`g`$ is the determinant of the metric tensor of spacetime. $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ is a conserved quantity by virtue of the continuity of the rest mass density, $`_a(\rho u^a\sqrt{g})=0`$, where $`_a`$ is a partial derivative. We introduce a background as a cubic region with the same rest mass as the corresponding inhomogeneous cubic region. Note that in general, the rest mass of the dust $`M_\mathrm{R}`$ in a cubic co-moving region disagrees with that of the original EdS universe. Hence a cubic region of the original EdS universe is not background.

The rest mass density $`\rho _\text{b}`$ and scale factor $`a_\text{b}`$ of the background are introduced in the following manner,

$$\rho _\text{b}a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3:=M_\mathrm{R}.$$
(36)
Even if we specify $`M_\mathrm{R}`$, $`\rho _\text{b}`$ and $`a_\text{b}`$ are not fixed completely; we need one more condition. Here we impose a condition in which the volume $`V(t)`$ approaches to the volume $`a_\text{b}^3(t)\mathrm{}^3`$ of the background cubic region for $`t0`$. In the limit of $`t0`$, the volume $`V`$ behaves as

$`V`$ $`=a^3\mathrm{}^3+4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}Y^2}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}}a^3\chi ^2\right)𝑑\chi `$
$`a^3\mathrm{}^3\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}}1\right)\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right\}`$ (37)
Hence the background scale factor $`a_\text{b}`$ is given by

$$a_\text{b}(t):=a\left\{1+\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}^3}_0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}1\right)\chi ^2𝑑\chi \right\}^{1/3}.$$
(38)
Here note that in the case of $`\chi ^2|k|1`$, the above definition of $`a_\text{b}`$ agrees with eq. (24) up to the first order of $`\chi ^2k`$. From eqs. (35), (36) and (38), we find that the background rest mass density $`\rho _\text{b}`$ is completely the same as eq. (28). We can easily see that the background Hubble equation (29) also holds.

From eq. (5), we can easily see that if $`Y^{}`$ vanishes, the rest mass density $`\rho `$ becomes infinite and hence a singularity forms there. This is called shell crossing singularity. Hellaby and Lake showed that a necessary and sufficient condition for the appearance of a shell crossing singularity is ref:Hellaby-Lake

$`k^{}`$ $`>0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{region}k>0,`$ (39)
$`\left(\chi ^2k\right)^{}`$ $`>0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{region}k0.`$ (40)
In the case of $`k_0>0`$, the first condition does not hold and hence a shell crossing singularity does not appear. On the other hand, in the case of $`k_0<0`$, shell crossing singularities $`Y^{}=0`$ necessarily appear since $`(\chi ^2k)^{}>0`$ in the region $`\chi _3\chi <\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$.

### IV.1 The Case of $`k_0>0`$

To estimate the volume $`V`$, we rewrite it in the form,

$$V=a^3\left(\mathrm{}^3\frac{4\pi }{3}\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^3\right)+4\pi _0^{Y_{\mathrm{sc}}}\frac{Y^2dY}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}},$$
(41)
where $`Y_{\mathrm{sc}}:=a(t)\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$. From eq. (8), we can see that $`Y`$ vanishes at $`\eta =2\pi `$ by gravitational collapse, and hence by substituting $`\eta =2\pi `$ into eq. (9), the singularity formation time $`t=t_{\mathrm{sg}}(\chi )`$ is obtained as

$$t=t_{\mathrm{sg}}(\chi )=\frac{8\pi ^2\rho _0}{3k^{3/2}}.$$
(42)
Denoting the inverse function of $`t_{\mathrm{sg}}(\chi )`$ by $`\chi _{\mathrm{sg}}(t)`$, the region of $`0\chi \chi _{\mathrm{sg}}(t)<\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ has already collapsed at time $`t`$ larger than $`8\pi ^2\rho _0/3k_0^{3/2}`$. $`\chi _{\mathrm{sg}}(t)`$ approaches to $`\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$ asymptotically. Here note that in the integrand of eq. (41), $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sg}}(t)`$ at $`Y=0`$ and $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ at $`Y=Y_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. Since $`\chi ^2k(\chi )`$ is decreasing function with respect to $`\chi `$ in the region $`\chi _3<\chi <\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$ and vanishes just at $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$, we find that $`0<\chi ^2k(\chi )\chi _{\mathrm{sg}}^2k(\chi _{\mathrm{sg}})`$ holds in the integrand at sufficiently large $`t`$. This means that $`\chi ^2k(\chi )`$ also approaches to zero asymptotically, since $`\chi _{\mathrm{sg}}^2k(\chi _{\mathrm{sg}})\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^2k(\chi _{\mathrm{sc}})=0`$ for $`t\mathrm{}`$, and thus

$$Va^3\left(\mathrm{}^3\frac{4\pi }{3}\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^3\right)+4\pi _0^{Y_{\mathrm{sc}}}Y^2𝑑Y=a^3\mathrm{}^3.$$
(43)
This equation means that the volume expansion rate approaches to the background value asymptotically, i.e.,

$$\frac{\dot{V}}{V}3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=3\frac{\dot{a}_\text{b}}{a_\text{b}}\text{ for }t\mathrm{}.$$
(44)
However the volume itself may approach to much different value from the background one $`a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3`$. $`\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}`$ can be made arbitrarily smaller than unity in the region $`\chi _2\chi <\chi _3`$; in the limit of $`\kappa 1`$, $`\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}0`$ in this region (see eqs. (13) and (14)). Thus, if we set $`\kappa `$ to be very close to unity, we obtain

$$a_\text{b}a\left(\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{}^3}_0^{\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}}\frac{\chi ^2d\chi }{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}}\right)^{1/3}a.$$
(45)
In this case, the volume $`V`$ approaches to the value much smaller than the background one, asymptotically. The volume expansion is also much different from that of the background in the intermediate stage (see fig. 3).

### IV.2 The Case of $`k_0<0`$

As mentioned in the above, shell crossing singularities $`Y^{}=0`$ necessarily appear in this model. Before it, the volume expansion is shown in fig. 4. For $`k(\chi )<0`$, background scale factor $`a_\text{b}`$ cannot differ from original one very much. We plot the ratio of the volume $`V(t)`$ to $`a^3\mathrm{}^3`$ and $`a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3`$. We find that the inhomogeneities decelerate the volume expansion before shell crossing singularity appears.

Here, we investigate the volume expansion rate after the appearance of this shell crossing singularity. The structure formed by the shell crossing depends on what is approximated by the dust matter. In case that the dust matter is extremely cold fluid, a shock wave will form after the shell crossing. If the dust matter consists of collisionless particles, a spherical wall will form. When the width of the shock wave or of the wall is much smaller than the radius of it, we can treat the shock front or the wall as a timelike singular hypersurface, where ‘timelike’ means that the unit normal vector $`n^a`$ to the hypersurface is spacelike, i.e., $`n^an_a=1`$.

A timelike singular hypersurface is characterized by its surface-stress-energy tensor defined by

$$S_{ab}:=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_\epsilon ^\epsilon T_{cd}h_a^ch_b^d𝑑x$$
(46)
where $`x`$ is a Gaussian coordinate ($`x=0`$ on the hypersurface) in the direction of the normal vector $`n^a`$, and $`h_a^c:=\delta _a^cn_an^c`$ is a projection operator. A timelike singular hypersurface with a surface-stress-energy tensor of the form

$$S_{ab}=\sigma v_av_b,$$
(47)
is called a world sheet generated by a trajectory of a dust shell, where $`\sigma `$ is the surface-energy density and $`v_a`$ is the 4-velocity of an infinitesimal surface element of the dust shell. Hereafter we focus on this case.

In order to get an insight into the dynamics after shell crossing, we study the volume expansion of a cubic region with a spherically symmetric dust shell. In the case of $`k_0<0`$, $`k(\chi )`$ is negative in the LTB region; $`(\chi ^2k)^{}0`$ in the inner region $`0\chi \chi _3`$, while $`(\chi ^2k)^{}>0`$ in the outer region $`\chi _3<\chi <\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$. In accordance with eq. (40), shell crossing necessarily occur in the outer region and we assume that this region collapses into a dust shell. Hence we focus on a situation in which $`(\chi ^2k)^{}<0`$ holds inside the dust shell. The model is constructed by enclosing the interior LTB region by a spherically symmetric timelike singular hypersurface (see fig. 5).

The analysis by using the dust shell model works only before the dust shell reaches the boundary of the cubic co-moving region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. When the dust shell reaches the boundary, it collides with other dust shells centered in surrounding cubic regions. In this article, we do not consider the dynamics after collisions of the dust shells and assume that there is enough time before collisions of dust shells.

The interior region of the dust shell is described by the LTB solution with a line element,

$$ds_{}^2=dt_{}^2+\frac{Y_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(t_{},\chi _{})}{1\chi _{}^2k(\chi _{})}d\chi _{}^2+Y^2(t_{},\chi _{})\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right),$$
(48)
where the prime  means the derivative with respect to $`\chi _{}`$. The equation for the areal radius $`Y`$ is given by the same equation as eq. (4), i.e.,

$$\dot{Y}^2=\chi _{}^2k(\chi _{})+\frac{2M(\chi _{})}{Y},$$
(49)
where the dot $`\dot{}`$ means the derivative with respect to $`t_{}`$. Here we focus on the late time behavior of the volume expansion. In this case, since $`Y`$ is monotonically increasing with respect to $`t_{}`$, the “gravitational potential” $`2M(\chi _{})/Y`$ becomes much smaller than $`\chi _{}^2k(\chi _{})`$ and hence we ignore this potential term in eq. (49). This approximation corresponds to an assumption in which the interior region of the dust shell is described by Minkowski geometry. Then the solution for $`Y`$ is easily obtained as

$$Y(t_{},\chi _{})=\left\{\chi _{}^2k(\chi _{})\right\}^{1/2}t_{}.$$
(50)
The line element of the outer region is written as

$$ds_+^2=dt_+^2+a^2(t_+)\left\{d\chi _+^2+\chi _+^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)\right\},$$
(51)
and Einstein equations reduce to the Hubble equation as

$$(\dot{a}\chi _+)^2=\frac{M_+(\chi _+)}{a\chi _+},$$
(52)
where $`M_+(\chi _+)`$ is related to the rest mass density $`\rho _+`$ of the outer region as

$$M_+(\chi _+)=\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _+a^3\chi _+^3.$$
(53)
Note that by virtue of the spherical symmetry, angular coordinates, $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$, are common for both interior and exterior regions of the dust shell.

A physically and geometrically clear prescription to treat a timelike singular hypersurface has been presented by Israelref:Israel . In his prescription, junction conditions on metric tensor across the singular hypersurface lead to equations to determine the singular hypersurface itself, i.e., the equation of motion of a dust shell in our case. Using his prescription, dynamics of a vacuum void surrounded by a spherical dust shell in expanding universe has been analyzed by Maeda and Satoref:Maeda . We can use their results since the situation considered here is completely the same as theirs.

By virtue of the spherical symmetry of the system considered here, the trajectory of the dust shell is given by

$$t_{}=t_\mathrm{s}(t_+),\chi _\pm =\chi _{\mathrm{s}\pm }(t_+),\theta =\mathrm{constant}\mathrm{and}\phi =\mathrm{constant},$$
(54)
where the time coordinate $`t_+`$ in the exterior region has been adopted as an independent temporal variable. The areal radius $`R`$ of the dust shell is then given by

$$R(t_+):=a\left(t_+\right)\chi _{\mathrm{s}+}=Y_{}(t_\mathrm{s},\chi _\mathrm{s})$$
(55)
Maeda and Sato derived a differential equation for the areal radius $`R`$ of the dust shell asref:Maeda

$$\frac{d^2R}{dt_+^2}=\frac{1}{2R}\left\{\left(1+VV_H+2V^2+V_H^2\right)+(14V^2)(1+2VV_H+V_H^2)^{1/2}\right\},$$
(56)
where

$`H`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}(t_+)}{a(t_+)}},`$ (57)
$`V_H`$ $`:=HR,`$ (58)
$`V`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt_+}}V_H.`$ (59)
Using a solution of eq. (56), the coordinate radius $`\chi _{\mathrm{s}+}`$ of the dust shell in the outer region is given by

$$\chi _{\mathrm{s}+}=\frac{R}{a(t_+)}.$$
(60)
Equations for $`t_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ on the dust shell are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_\mathrm{s}}{dt_+}}=`$ $`\left\{1\chi _\mathrm{s}^2k(\chi _\mathrm{s})\right\}^{1/2}\left\{1a^2(t_+)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\chi _{\mathrm{s}+}}{dt_+}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt_+}}\right)^2\right\}^{1/2}`$
$`\left\{\chi _\mathrm{s}^2k(\chi _\mathrm{s})\right\}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt_+}},`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi _\mathrm{s}}{dt_+}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Y_{}^{}(t_\mathrm{s},\chi _\mathrm{s})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt_+}}\dot{Y}_{}(t_\mathrm{s},\chi _\mathrm{s}){\displaystyle \frac{dt_\mathrm{s}}{dt_+}}\right),`$ (62)
where the dot $`\dot{}`$ and the prime  are derivatives with respect to $`t_{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$, respectively. The volume $`V_{\mathrm{in}}`$ inside the dust shell is written as

$`V_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\chi _\mathrm{s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^{}Y^2}{\sqrt{1\chi ^2k(\chi )}}}𝑑\chi =4\pi {\displaystyle _0^R}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^2}{\sqrt{1+Y^2/t_\mathrm{s}^2}}}𝑑Y`$
$`=2\pi t_\mathrm{s}^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}}\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}}\right)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}}+\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}}\right)^2}\right\}\right],`$ (63)
where we have used eq. (50) in the second equality to estimate $`\chi ^2k(\chi )`$ in the integrand. We consider a normalized volume $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ by the volume of the removed homogeneous dust ball in the original EdS universe,

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{in}}:=\frac{V_{\mathrm{in}}}{4\pi R^3/3}=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{t_\mathrm{s}}{R}\right)^3\left[\frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}\right)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{R}{t_\mathrm{s}}\right)^2}\right\}\right].$$
(64)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is monotonically decreasing function of $`R/t_\mathrm{s}`$; it approaches to unity in the limit of $`R/t_\mathrm{s}0`$, while it vanishes in the limit $`R/t_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}`$ (see fig. 6). In order to see temporal behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{in}}`$, we need to solve eqs. (56) and (61).

For sufficiently large $`t_+`$, the areal radius $`R`$ of the dust shell becomes much smaller than the cosmological horizon scale $`H^1`$. In this case, the the motion of the dust shell is well described by the Newtonian approximation. Maeda and Sato showed that for sufficiently large $`t_+`$, $`R`$ behaves asref:Maeda

$$R(t_+)t_+{}_{}{}^{(15+\sqrt{17})/24}t_+{}_{}{}^{0.797}t_\mathrm{s}{}_{}{}^{0.797}.$$
(65)
Hence we find that $`R/t_\mathrm{s}t_\mathrm{s}{}_{}{}^{0.203}0`$ for $`t_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}`$. Using this result and eq. (64), we find $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{in}}1`$ for $`t_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}`$, and hence for $`t_+\mathrm{}`$,

$$Va^3(t_+)\mathrm{}^3.$$
(66)
This equation means that the volume expansion rate approaches to the background value asymptotically, i.e.,

$$\frac{\dot{V}}{V}3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=3\frac{\dot{a}_\text{b}}{a_\text{b}}\text{ for }t\mathrm{}.$$
(67)
The effect of inhomogeneities on the volume expansion rate vanishes after the dust shell becomes much smaller than the horizon scale $`H^1`$ (see fig. 7). However, as in the case of $`k_0>0`$, the volume itself is different from the background value $`a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3`$. By eq. (38), we find that the asymptotic value of $`V`$ is larger than the background value $`a_\text{b}^3\mathrm{}^3`$.

However it should be noted that there is an upper limit on the asymptotic value of $`V`$. Since $`k`$ can be arbitrarily small in this model, $`\sqrt{1\chi ^2k}`$ can be made arbitrarily larger than unity except at $`\chi =0`$ and $`\chi =\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}`$. Hence we obtain

$$a_\text{b}(t_+)>a(t_+)\left(1\frac{4\pi }{3\mathrm{}^3}\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}^3\right)^{1/3}>a(t_+)\left(1\frac{\pi }{6}\right)^{1/3},$$
(68)
where the last inequality is obtained by setting $`\chi _{\mathrm{sc}}=\mathrm{}/2`$. Using this inequality, we obtain

$$a_\text{b}^3(t_+)\mathrm{}^3<a^3(t_+)\mathrm{}^3<\left(1\frac{\pi }{6}\right)^1a_\text{b}^3(t_+)\mathrm{}^32.10\times a_\text{b}^3(t_+)\mathrm{}^3.$$
(69)
In contrast with the case of $`k_0>0`$, the volume itself can not be so different from the background value.

## V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

We have investigated an effect of inhomogeneities on the volume expansion in modified Swiss-Cheese universe model. We considered two cases; the inhomogeneities collapse into black holes ($`k_0>0`$), while inhomogeneities expands faster than the background volume expansion ($`k_0<0`$). When inhomogeneities can be treated as perturbations of Einstein-de Sitter universe, the volume expansion is decelerated due to the second order contribution of the perturbations in both models. This result agrees with Nambu’s second order perturbation analysis.

Although the choice of background homogeneous universe is straightforward in the case of $`|k|\chi ^21`$, it is not in the case of non-linear situation. We introduced the background homogeneous universe in order to satisfy the conditions; the cubic region in the background homogeneous universe with the same rest mass have the same evolution of the volume as that of corresponding region in the modified Swiss-Cheese universe in the limit of $`t0`$.

In the case of non-linear fluctuation with $`k_0>0`$, we find that the volume expansion rate approaches to that of background universe asymptotically. Since the modified Swiss-Cheese model is an exact solution of Einstein equation, we can obtain the precise behavior of the volume expansion. We set it so that for $`t0`$, the temporal evolution agrees with background one. Then we found that for $`t\mathrm{}`$, the temporal evolution agrees with that of outer EdS universe. We can see these asymptotic behaviors analytically but we have to rely only on the numerical method to obtain the behavior of the intermediate stages. From the result of the numerical calculation (fig. 3), we found that volume expansion is decelerated by the inhomogeneities. This behavior coincides with a result obtained by Nambu. We note that his result is based on the perturbation theory but our result is not. In our highly non-linear example, the volume expansion rate becomes negative at the intermediate stage. This result may be the characteristics of the effect of non-linear fluctuations which can not be treated by the perturbation method.

In the case of $`k_0<0`$, the shell crossing singularity appears in the inhomogeneous region. In this article, we assumed that a spherical dust shell forms after the shell crossing singularity appears. We find that the inhomogeneities decelerate the volume expansion before it appears (fig. 4). This is consistent with the previous results by Nambu but the inhomogeneities cannot be treated as the perturbation of homogeneous universe. After a spherical dust shell forms, the volume expansion rate approaches to that of the background universe asymptotically. Our dust shell universe model (fig. 5) is a crude approximation. Therefore the behavior of the volume expansion obtained (fig. 7), especially at the early stage after the shell crossing, contains the influences of this crudeness. But the asymptotic behavior ($`t\mathrm{}`$) might be free from this approximation.

We fixed the form of $`k(\chi )`$. Temporal evolution of the volume depends on the form of $`k(\chi )`$ but the asymptotic behavior may be independent of the form of $`k(\chi )`$;

$`V`$ $`a^3\mathrm{}^3\text{ for }t\mathrm{}.`$
Acknowledgements

We are grateful to colleagues in Department of Physics, Osaka City University for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Improvement of experimental data via consistency conditions

## I Introduction

All spectra, representing projections of the same density, must be interdependent. This so-called consistency condition (CC) has been considered for reconstructing densities $`\rho (𝐩)`$ from their line projections \[1-3\]. In the case of angular correlation of annihilation radiation ($`ACAR`$) spectra or Compton profiles (CP) measurements this condition is satisfied if spectra are measured up to such a momentum $`p_{max}`$ above which $`\rho (𝐩)`$ is isotropic and all projections have the same values.

The CC is automatically imposed on the experimental data via the reconstruction of $`\rho (𝐩)`$. However, it can be utilised for checking (before the reconstruction) if data were measured and next corrected (to remove various experimental imperfections) properly. Moreover, this condition can be also profitable for an improvement of such experimental data for which $`\rho (𝐩)`$ is not reconstructed. For this purpose one should estimate interdependences between projections what is a subject of this paper.

In the next Section we discuss the consistency condition in its general form, i.e. for the Radon transform in N-dimensional space. Next, some relations between line (Sec. II.A) and plane projections (Sec. II.B) are derived from both the CC and a symmetry of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ (electronic densisty in the momentum space) for various crystallographical structures. A fulfilment of these relations, proved for various model and experimental spectra, is discussed in Sec. III.

## II Theory

The Radon transform  represents integrals of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ (defined in $`N`$-dimensional space, $`^N`$) over $`(N1)`$-dimensional hyperplanes:

$$\widehat{R}\rho (𝐩)=g(t,𝜻)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\rho (𝐩)\delta (t𝜻𝐩)𝑑𝐩,$$
(1)
where $`𝜻`$ is a unit vector in $`^N`$ along $`t`$ and $`t`$ is a perpendicular distance of the hyperplane from the origin of the coordinate system. The equation $`t=𝜻𝐩`$ defines the hyperplane. In the same coordinate system the vector $`𝐩`$ is described by $`p=|𝐩|`$ and $`𝝎`$ (e.g. Dean ).

Both functions, $`g`$ and $`\rho `$, can be expanded into spherical harmonics of degree $`l`$:

$$g(t,𝜻)=\underset{l\nu }{}g_{l\nu }(t)S_{l\nu }(𝜻),$$
(2)
$$\rho (p,𝝎)=\underset{l\nu }{}\rho _{l\nu }(p)S_{l\nu }(𝝎),$$
(3)
where index $`\nu `$ distinguishes harmonics of the same order $`l`$. In order to make our formuale clearer, henceforth index $`\nu `$ will be omitted, keeping in mind that for the same $`l`$ a few harmonics can be used. According to Dean ,

$$\rho _l(p)=\frac{c}{p}_p^{\mathrm{}}g_l^{(2\mu +1)}(t)C_l^\mu (t/p)[(t/p)^21]^{\mu 1/2}𝑑t,$$
(4)
where $`c=(1)^{2\mu +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu )/(2\pi ^{\mu +1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+2\mu ))`$. Here $`g^{(n)}`$ denotes the $`n^{th}`$ derivative of $`g`$ ; $`C_l^\mu `$ are Gegenbauer polynomials and $`\mu =N/21`$. The equation (4) can be solved analitically if either

$$g_l(t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{lk}(1t^2)^{\lambda 1/2}C_{l+2k}^\lambda (t),$$
(5)
with $`\lambda >N/21`$, or

$$g_l(t)=e^{t^2}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{lk}H_{l+2k}(t),$$
(6)
where $`H_m`$ are the Hermite polynomials. Because in $`\rho _l(p)`$ all terms $`t^n`$ with $`0n<l`$ are equal to zero, the lowest term in $`g_l`$ is of order $`l`$. This property, called CC, follows from the fact that functions $`g_l`$ (Eq. (2)) are a linear combination of $`g(t,𝜻)`$ which in turn are interdependent being projections of the same density. Generally, one can write

$$g_l(t)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{lk}W_{l+2k}(t),$$
(7)
where $`W_n`$ denotes an arbitrary orthogonal polynomial. Below, considering the cases $`N=2`$ (line projections) and $`N=3`$ (plane projections), we show that due to this property of $`g_l(t)`$ (its minimal number of zeros) we can get some interdependences between projections $`g(t,𝜻)`$. For that it is necessary to expand them into a series of the same (as in Eq. (7)) polynomials:

$$g(t,𝜻)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_k(\zeta )W_{2k}(t).$$
(8)
By combining Eqs. (2), (7) and (8) we can obtain some relations between $`c_k(\zeta )`$ as a function of $`𝜻`$. In the paper, for calculating the coefficients $`c_k`$, the Chebyshev polynomials and the Gaussian quadrature formulae were applied.

### II.1 Line projections

In the case of reconstructing $`\rho (𝐩)`$ from its line projections $`g(x,y)`$ (measured in the apparatus systems $`(x,y,z)`$), the reconstruction of the three–dimensional ($`3D`$) density can be reduced to a set of reconstructions of $`2D`$ densities (the Radon transform for $`N=2`$) performed, independently, on succeeding planes $`y=const.`$, parallel each other. In order to describe all projections in the same coordinate system (in which the symmetry of both $`\rho (𝐩)`$ and measured spectra is defined) the function $`g`$ can be characterized in the polar system where $`g(x,y)g(t,\alpha )`$. Here $`t`$ and $`\alpha `$ denote the distance of the integration line from the origin of the coordinate system and its angle with respect to a chosen axis, respectively.

For the planes $`y=const.`$, perpendicular to the axis of the crystal rotation of the order $`|G|`$, Eq. (2) reduces to the $`cosine`$ series :

$$g(t,\alpha )=\underset{l}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_l(t)\mathrm{cos}(l\alpha ),$$
(9)
with $`l=i|G|`$ ($`l=0`$, $`|G|`$, $`2|G|`$, etc.). Here the angle $`\alpha `$, describing nonequivalent directions, is changing between $`0\alpha \alpha _G=\pi /|G|`$. Of course, to use the symmetry most profitably, a sensible choice is to select the planes perpendicular to the main axis of the crystal rotation ($`|G|=4`$ or $`6`$ for cubic and tetragonal or hexagonal structures, respectively) where $`\alpha _G`$ is minimal, i.e. the number of equivalent directions is maximal.

Knowing that $`l/2`$ first coefficients $`c_{lk}`$ are equal to zero (Eq. (7)), the equations (8) and (9) give the following dependences between $`c_k(\alpha )`$

$`c_k(\alpha )=c_{0k}`$, i.e. $`|G|/2`$ first coefficients $`c_k(\alpha )`$ are the same for all projections.

$`2c_k(\alpha _G/2)=c_k(\alpha )+c_k(\alpha _G\alpha )`$ for $`k|G|`$.

$`2\{c_k(\alpha _G/4)+c_k(3\alpha _G/4)\}=c_k(\alpha )+c_k(\alpha _G/2\alpha )+c_k(\alpha _G/2+\alpha )+c_k(\alpha _G\alpha )`$ for $`k2|G|`$.

All these conditions have been proved for both various models of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ and for $`|G|=2`$, $`4`$ and $`6`$.

### II.2 Plane projections

Due to the symmetry of $`\rho (𝐩)`$, in the case of $`N=3`$, $`g(t,𝜻)g(t,\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$ can be expanded into the lattice harmonics $`F_l(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$ which form an orthogonal set of linear combinations of the spherical harmonics $`K_l^m=c(l,m)P_l^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })(e^{im\phi }+e^{im\phi })`$. $`c(l,m)`$ is the normalization constant and $`P_l^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta })`$ denotes the associated Legendre polynomial. Angles $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$ describe the azimuthal and the polar angles of the $`𝜻`$-axis with respect to the reciprocal lattice system.

In the case of the hexagonal structure $`F_l=K_l^m`$ with $`l=0`$ $`mod`$ $`2`$ and $`m=0`$ $`mod`$ $`6`$ ($`K_0^0=1`$, $`K_2^0`$, $`K_4^0`$, $`K_6^0`$, $`K_6^6`$, $`K_8^0`$, $`K_8^6`$, etc.), for the tetragonal structure $`F_l=K_l^m`$ with $`l=0`$ $`mod`$ $`2`$ and $`m=0`$ $`mod`$ $`4`$ and for the cubic structures $`F_l`$ are the linear combinations of $`K_l^m`$, where the first three are equal to :

$`F_0=1`$,

$`F_4=0.76376261K_4^0+0.64549722K_4^4`$,

$`F_6=0.35355338K_6^00.9354134K_6^4`$.

So, for the hexagonal and tetragonal structures a few first lattice harmonics do not depend on $`\phi `$. Moreover, very often, for some paticular sets of measured spectra, we cannot calculate functions $`g_l(t)`$ (the matrix in Eq. (2) is singular). For example: if for the hexagonal structure we have only three projections with $`𝜻`$ along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ symmetry directions (Fig. 1), the angles $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$ are equal to: $`(\pi /2,\pi /6)`$, $`(\pi /2,0)`$ and $`(0,0)`$, respectively. Thus, the first three lattice harmonics have the same values for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }K`$ directions and there is no a possibility to evaluate functions $`g_l(t)`$. Next, if e.g. $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )=(0,0)`$, $`(\pi /4,0)`$, $`(\pi /2,0)`$, $`(\pi /4,\pi /6)`$, $`(\pi /2,\pi /6)`$, the set of equations for $`g_l`$ does not have a solution in spite of the fact that the first five harmonics distinguish here all directions $`𝜻`$. Due to these reasons we propose to treat plane projections of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ as line projections of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L`$ and to use the consistency and symmetry conditions derived in Sec. II.A.

We consider only those spectra $`g(t,𝜻)`$ for which $`𝜻`$ is changed on the plane perpendicular to the axis of the crystal rotation of the order $`|G|`$. In such a case $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_L`$ denotes the line integral of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ along lines $`L`$ parallel to this axis and $`g(t,𝜻)`$ can be described by Eq.(9). Now all relations obtained for the line projections are valid with $`c_k(\alpha )`$ being replaced by $`c_k(𝜻)c_k(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$ where either $`\alpha =\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$ (for the planes perpendicular to the main axis of the crystal rotation) or $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\phi =const.`$ (for the planes with $`|G|=2`$, perpendicular to the previous ones).

For example, for three spectra having the hexagonal symmetry and with $`𝜻`$ along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }A`$ symmetry directions (denoted here by $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }M)`$, $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)`$ and $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)`$) we have the following relations: $`c_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }M)=c_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)`$ for $`k=0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$ (here $`|G|=6`$) and $`c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)=c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }M)=c_0(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)`$ ($`|G|=2`$), where $`c_0`$ denotes the norm of the spectrum. So, to get more information about $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)`$ we should have at least one additional spectrum $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }I)`$ (for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$ and e.g. $`\phi =0`$) on the plane with $`|G|=2`$ where $`2c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }I)=c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)+c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)`$ (see Fig. 1). This equality is satisfied for $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$ and any $`\phi (0,\pi /6)`$, i.e. $`2c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }I^{\prime \prime })=c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }A)+c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)`$, where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }I^{\prime \prime }`$ directions are defined by the same $`\phi `$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$, respectively. Knowing that $`c_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)=c_1`$ (does not depend on $`\phi `$) we obtain that $`c_1(\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4,\phi )`$ has the same value for each spectrum $`g(𝜻)`$ with $`𝜻`$ described by $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$ and any $`\phi `$. This is derived by treating $`g(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)`$ simultaneously as the line projection of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{|6|}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{|2|}`$ with the symmetry $`|G|=6`$ and $`|G|=2`$, respectively. Here $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{|6|}`$ represents the line projection of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ along the main axis of the rotation, while $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{|2|}`$ along any line perpendicular to this axis. This last dependence is particularly interesting because it gives interdependence between line projections of different densities, while all consistency conditions for the line projections are for the same $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.

All dependencies, shown here on the example of the hexagonal structure, are valid for the cubic and tetragonal structures where $`|G|=6`$ is replaced by $`|G|=4`$. However, for the cubic structures, where three axes of the fourth order exist, one can get some additional rules. Because directions $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )=(0,0)`$ and $`(\pi /2,0)`$ are equivalent, we obtain that not only $`c_0`$ but also $`c_1`$ must be the same for all projections. Some of these results can be also derived from Eq. (2) because for the cubic structures all lattice harmonics (except for $`F_0`$) depend on $`(\mathrm{\Theta },\phi )`$. Taking as an example directions $`[00h]`$, $`[kl0]`$ and $`[klh]`$ we obtain the following dependences between $`c_i`$:

$`a_1c_i([00h])+a_2c_i([kl0])+a_3c_i([klh])=0`$ for $`i=0,1`$

$`b_1c_i([00h])+b_2c_i([kl0])+b_3c_i([klh])=0`$ for $`i=0,1,2`$ where $`b_i=a_i=0`$.

The above equalities arise from the conditions of vanishing all polynomials $`W_i`$ with $`i=0,1`$ and $`i=0,1,2`$ in the expansion of $`g_4(t)`$ and $`g_6(t)`$, respectively. The coefficient $`c_1`$ satisfies both equations when $`c_1([00h])=c_1([kl0])=c_1([klh])`$ what is in agreement with the previous result. Knowing additionally that $`c_1([kl0])`$ does not depend on the direction $`[kl0]`$, we can conclude that for the cubic structure the value of $`c_1([klh]`$) does not depend on the direction (denoted here by $`[klh]`$).

As before, all relations were proved for both model and experimental profiles. Some examples are presented in the next section.

## III Application

First, disposing twenty five $`2D`$ $`ACAR`$ experimental spectra  for the four metals of the hcp structure with $`𝜻`$ on the plane $`|G|=6`$, we obtained that the conditions $`1^0`$ and $`2^0`$ are satisfied with a very high accuracy, lower than $`0.5\%`$ ($`c_1`$), $`1.5\%`$ ($`c_2`$), $`1.5\%`$ ($`c_3`$), $`2.5\%`$ ($`c_4`$) and $`5.5\%`$ ($`c_5`$). Because the first $`ckm(𝜻)`$ have the highest values, they are determined the best (the influence of the statistical noise is the lowest). This very small inconsistency implies that spectra  (with the average number of counts at peak about 60000) were not only measured but also corrected with a very high precision.

In the figure 2 we show results for the theoretical Compton profiles for Cr  with $`𝜻`$ along $`[100]`$, $`[110]`$ and $`[111]`$ directions. In this case (cubic structure) the first two coefficients $`c_k(𝜻)`$ should have the same value for each spectrum, while the third coefficient should satisfy the relation: $`c[100]c[110]=3\{c[110]c[111]\}`$. After normalizing spectra to the same area ($`c_0=1`$) we obtained that a distortion of $`c_1`$ from its average value is changed from $`0.1\%`$ up to $`0.4\%`$ and the inconsistency of $`c_2`$ is of order $`1.5\%`$. Thus, the behaviour of $`c_k(𝜻)`$ is the same as for previously studied experimental data. It is connected with the fact that in order to create such spectra it would be necessary to calculate $`\rho (𝐩)`$ in the whole momentum space $`𝐩`$, what, of course, cannot be done. Here the accuracy of calculating Compton profiles was comparable with the statistical noise of 2D ACAR data . Of course, in order to get the similar inconsistency of the Compton profiles (where a contribution of core densities is much higher than in a positron annihilation experiment) the experimental statistic must be also much higher.

In order to examine how these conditions react to an improper shape of $`g(t,𝜻)`$, we changed somewhat the shape of one spectrum ( marked in figure 2 by squares). Here we would like to point out that this incorrect spectrum does not differ from other spectra too much (the differences between $`g([100])`$ and $`g([111])`$ are higher). After normalizing it to the same area ($`c_0=1`$) we obtained that $`c_1`$ changed its value from -0.7 to -0.74 . So, here we observe a much higher inconsistency ($`5\%`$) than for experimental data  ($`0.5\%`$).

## IV Conclusions

All spectra received from experiments are contaminated by statistical noise and thus they are not consistent. Depending on the number of measured projections, some part of the inconsistent noise is eliminated via the consistency conditions during the reconstruction of $`\rho (𝐩)`$. However, we propose to check (before the reconstruction) if spectra were measured and corrected properly (the inconsistent part of the data cannot be too large). For that purpose we can use the interdependences, derived by combining the consistency and symmetry conditions, obtained here for the line and plane projections.

The knowledge of the interdependences rules can be also profitable for an improvement of data for which densities are not reconstructed (some part of the inconsistent noise can be eliminated). Moreover, it can be applied to verify these techniques which are used for correcting Compton scattering spectra (they are not univocal and can be individual for each spectrum ). For that we propose to measure the high resolution CP, denoted usually by $`J(p_z)`$, for hexagonal metals with $`p_z𝜻`$ changed on the plane $`|G|=6`$ ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /2`$). Having $`p_z`$ along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }K`$ ($`\phi =0`$), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ ($`\phi =\pi /6`$) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }N`$ ($`\phi =\pi /12`$), we can check if $`c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)=c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }M)=c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)`$ for $`i=0,1,2`$ and if $`c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }K)+c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }M)=2c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)`$ for $`i=3,4,5`$. Of course, the best choice is to study rare-earth metals where the anisotropy of $`\rho (𝐩)`$ is so high that spectra $`J(p_z)`$ should be essentionally different.

## Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Professor R. M. Lewitt for helpful discussions, Professor R. N. West for making available his experimental 2D ACAR data and to the State Committee for Scientific research (Republic of Poland, Grant No 2 P03B 083 16) for financial support.


text:
# The infinite volume limit in generalized mean field disordered models

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , we introduced a simple interpolation method, which allows to prove the existence of the thermodynamic limit for the quenched average of the free energy and ground state energy per site, for a wide class of mean field spin glass models . This class includes, for instance, the well known Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model  and Derrida’s $`p`$-spin model , for even $`p`$. Moreover, we proved almost sure convergence, with respect to the quenched disorder, without taking the average. Subsequently, this strategy has been developed in  to include, among the others, the REM  and GREM , and in , where finite connectivity models are considered. In the present paper, we generalize the strategy of  in a different direction. The class of models for which we provide a proof of the existence of the thermodynamic limit embraces, for instance, models where the spin degrees of freedom $`\sigma _i`$ have several components, which are not necessarily two-valued Ising variables. In the same way, we show how to treat the case where a Curie-Weiss interaction term is added to the mean field spin glass Hamiltonian. Finally, the same results hold for a system composed of several replicas (i.e., identical copies with the same disorder realization) of the mean field spin glass model, where replicas are coupled together by an interaction term, which depends on their mutual overlaps. In all of these cases, when the method of  is naively applied, there appear terms which spoil the simple subadditivity argument which works for the SK and $`p`$-spin models. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the effect of these potentially dangerous terms can be eliminated, by suitably decomposing the configuration space. This idea was introduced by Michel Talagrand in , and developed in a series of important applications. Among these, Talagrand proposed a very interesting generalization of the broken replica bounds  to the case of systems made of two coupled replicas.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we introduce some basic definitions concerning mean field spin glass models. In Section 3, we state the main results of the paper, and we give some physically meaningful examples of models to which they can be applied. Section 4 contains the proof of the results. Finally, Section 5 is dedicated to conclusions.

## 2 Basic definitions

In this Section, we recall some basic definitions concerning mean field spin glasses, without making reference to any specific model.

The generic configuration $`\sigma `$ of the system is defined by $`N`$ spin degrees of freedom $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{}`$. We suppose each $`\sigma _i`$ to belong to a set $`𝒮`$$`^n`$, $`n`$, equipped with an a priori measure $`\nu `$. For instance, the case $`𝒮=`$$`\{1,+1\}`$ and $`\nu =1/2(\delta _1+\delta _{+1})`$ corresponds to the usual Ising two-valued variables. The Hamiltonian of the model, $`H_N(\sigma ,J),`$ depends on the spin configuration, on the system size $`N`$ and on some quenched disorder, which we denote as $`J`$. Of course, the Hamiltonian can also depend on some additional external fields, e.g., on the magnetic field $`h`$. The mean field character of the model consists in the condition that, if two configurations $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are connected by a permutation of the site indices, the random variables $`H_N(\sigma ,J)`$ and $`H_N(\sigma ^{},J)`$ have the same distribution.

For a given inverse temperature $`\beta `$, we introduce the disorder dependent partition function $`Z_N(\beta ,J)`$, the quenched average of the free energy per site $`f_N(\beta )`$, and the Boltzmann-Gibbs state $`\omega _J`$, according to the definitions

$`Z_N(\beta ,J)={\displaystyle _{𝒮^N}}𝑑\nu (\sigma _1)\mathrm{}𝑑\nu (\sigma _N)\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_N(\sigma ,J)),`$ (1)
$`\beta f_N(\beta )=N^1E\mathrm{log}Z_N(\beta ,J),`$ (2)
$`\omega _J(A)=Z_N(\beta ,J)^1{\displaystyle _{𝒮^N}}𝑑\nu (\sigma _1)\mathrm{}𝑑\nu (\sigma _N)A(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_N(\sigma ,J)),`$ (3)
where $`A`$ is a generic function of the $`\sigma `$’s.

Let us now introduce the important concept of replicas. Consider a generic number $`n`$ of independent copies of the system, characterized by the spin variables $`\sigma _i^{(1)}`$, $`\sigma _i^{(2)}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, distributed according to the product of Boltzmann-Gibbs states

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_J=\omega _J^{(1)}\omega _J^{(2)}\mathrm{}\omega _J^{(n)},$$

where each $`\omega _J^{(\alpha )}`$ acts on the corresponding set of $`\sigma _i^{(\alpha )}`$’s, and all replicas are subject to the same sample $`J`$ of the quenched disorder. For a generic smooth function $`F`$ of the configuration of $`s`$ replicas, we define the $`.`$ averages as

$$F(\sigma ^{(1)},\sigma ^{(2)},\mathrm{})=E\mathrm{\Omega }_J\left(F(\sigma ^{(1)},\sigma ^{(2)},\mathrm{})\right),$$

where the Boltzmann-Gibbs averages $`\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ acts on the replicated $`\sigma `$ variables, and $`E`$ is the average with respect to the disorder $`J`$.

## 3 The existence of the thermodynamic limit

The main object of interest in the theory is the quenched free energy $`f_N(\beta )`$. First of all, one would like to prove that it admits a well defined limit, for $`N\mathrm{}`$, independently from the explicit calculation of the limit itself.

We restrict our analysis to the case of Gaussian models, i.e., models for which the $`H_N(\sigma ,J)`$ are (correlated) Gaussian random variables. Of course, these random variables are fully characterized by their mean values

$$b_N(\sigma )=EH_N(\sigma ,J)$$

and covariance matrix

$$c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=E(H_N(\sigma ,J)H_N(\sigma ^{},J))E(H_N(\sigma ,J))E(H_N(\sigma ^{},J)).$$

In order to prove the existence of the thermodynamic limit, we suppose that the following conditions are satisfied. First of all, we require that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_N(\sigma )}{N}}=g(m_N^{(1)}(\sigma ),\mathrm{},m_N^{(k)}(\sigma ))+O(N^1).`$ (4)
Here, $`k`$, $`g`$ is a smooth function of class $`C^1`$ and the $`m_N^{(i)}(\sigma )`$ are bounded functions, with $`Nm_N^{(i)}`$ additive in the system size. In other words,

$$|m_N^{(i)}(\sigma )|Mi,N,\sigma $$
(5)
and

$`Nm_N^{(i)}(\sigma )=N_1m_{N_1}^{(i)}(\sigma ^{(1)})+N_2m_{N_2}^{(i)}(\sigma ^{(2)}),`$ (6)
if $`N=N_1+N_2`$ and if the configuration $`\sigma `$ can be decomposed as

$$\sigma =(\sigma _1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\sigma _{N_1}^{(1)},\sigma _1^{(2)},\mathrm{},\sigma _{N_2}^{(2)}).$$

As for the covariance matrix, we require that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})}{N}}=f(Q_N^{(1)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}),\mathrm{},Q_N^{(k)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}))+O(N^1),`$ (7)
where $`f`$ is a convex function with continuous derivatives. The variables $`Q_N^{(i)}`$ must satisfy properties analogous to (5)-(6), i.e.,

$$|Q_N^{(i)}(\sigma ,\sigma )|Mi,N,\sigma $$
(8)
and

$`NQ_N^{(i)}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=N_1Q_{N_1}^{(i)}(\sigma ^{(1)},\sigma ^{(1)})+N_2Q_{N_2}^{(i)}(\sigma ^{(2)},\sigma ^{(2)}).`$ (9)
It is interesting to notice that the models considered in  have the additional properties that $`c_N(\sigma ,\sigma )`$ does not depend on the configuration $`\sigma `$, and that $`g`$ is a linear function.

Now, we can state our result:

###### Theorem 1.

If conditions (4) to (9) are satisfied, then the thermodynamic limit of the quenched free energy exists:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_N(\beta )=f(\beta ).$$
(10)
Moreover, the disorder dependent free energy converges almost surely, with respect to the disorder realization:

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_N(\beta )=f(\beta )Jalmostsurely,$$
(11)
and its disorder fluctuations can be estimated as

$$P\left(\left|\frac{1}{N\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_N(\beta )f_N(\beta )\right|u\right)2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Nu^2}{2L}\right),$$
(12)
where

$$L=\underset{|x_i|Mi}{\mathrm{max}}|f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)|,$$
(13)
and $`M`$ is the same constant as in (8).

Remark As explained in , from Eqs. (10)-(12) follows also the convergence, both under quenched average and $`J`$-almost surely, of the ground state energy per site.

Before we turn to the proof of the Theorem, we give a few examples of physically meaningful systems to which it applies.

1. The SK model with non-Ising type spins, defined as

$$H_N(\sigma ,J)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _jh\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i.$$
(14)
Here, and in the following examples, the couplings $`J_{ij}`$ are independent identically distributed Gaussian random variables, with mean zero and unit variance, while $`h`$ is the magnetic field. As for the spin degrees of freedom, we suppose that $`\sigma _i𝒮=[a,a]`$, while the measure $`\nu `$ on $`𝒮`$, which appears in the definition of the partition function, is arbitrary. In this case,

$$\frac{b_N(\sigma )}{N}=hm_N(\sigma )=\frac{h}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i$$

and conditions (4) to (6) are clearly satisfied, since $`|m_N(\sigma )|a`$ and the total magnetization $`_i\sigma _i`$ is linear in the system size. Of course, the function $`g`$ in (4) is just $`g(x)=hx`$. As regards the covariance matrix, one finds easily

$$\frac{c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})}{N}=\frac{q_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^2}{2}+O(N^1),$$

where

$$q_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i\sigma _i^{},|q_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}|a^2,$$

is the overlap of the two configurations. Since $`Nq_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ is additive and $`f(x)=x^2/2`$ is convex, conditions (7) to (9) are also satisfied.

2. The SK model with an additional Curie-Weiss interaction, defined as

$$H_N(\sigma ,J)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _j\frac{J_0}{N}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i\sigma _jh\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i,$$

where $`J_0`$ is a non random constant and, again, $`\sigma _i[a,a]`$. This model can be obtained from the previous one, if one supposes that the Gaussian variables $`J_{ij}`$ in (14) have mean value $`2J_0/\sqrt{N}`$. This case can be dealt with in analogy with the previous one, with the only difference that

$$\frac{b_N(\sigma )}{N}=J_0m_N(\sigma )^2hm_N(\sigma ),$$

so that $`g(x)=hxJ_0x^2`$.

3. The multi-replica SK model, with coupled replicas. In this case, the Hamiltonian depends on the configurations $`\sigma ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\sigma ^{(n)}`$ of the $`n`$ replicas, which interact through a term depending on the mutual overlaps:

$$H_N(\sigma ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\sigma ^{(n)},J)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}(\sigma _i^{(1)}\sigma _j^{(1)}+\mathrm{}+\sigma _i^{(n)}\sigma _j^{(n)})+Ng(\{q_{ab}\}),$$

where $`g`$ is a smooth $`C^1`$ function of all the overlaps. The check of properties (4) to (9) is trivial, and is left to the reader.

4. The SK model with Heisenberg type interaction, defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H_N(\sigma ,J)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i,$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i`$ has $`n`$ bounded components $`\sigma _i^{(1)},\mathrm{},\sigma _i^{(n)}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{v}`$ denotes scalar product in $`^n`$. In this case,

$$\frac{c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})}{N}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{n}{}}(q_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{ab})^2+O(N^1),$$
(16)
where

$$q_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}^{ab}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i^{(a)}\sigma _i^{(b)}.$$

It is instructive to verify explicitly that, for these models, the method introduced in  does not work, and requires an extension.

## 4 Proof of Theorem 1

We start with the proof of (12). Results of this kind were firstly obtained in  in the general context of the norms of Gaussian sample functions, and later developed in , and . The book by Talagrand  demonstrates at length the usefulness of this idea in the applications to mean field spin glass theory. For later convenience, we give a selfcontained proof of the more general inequality

$$P\left(\left|\frac{1}{N\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )+\frac{1}{N\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\right|u\right)2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{Nu^2}{2L}\right),$$
(17)
where

$`Z_N^A(\beta ,J)={\displaystyle _{A_N}}𝑑\nu (\sigma _1)\mathrm{}𝑑\nu (\sigma _N)\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_N(\sigma ,J))`$ (18)
is a modified disorder-dependent partition function, with the sum over configurations restricted to an arbitrary nonrandom set $`A_N`$ in the configuration space $`𝒮^N`$.

The restriction to a subset of the space of configurations has been exploited also in  in the case of the p-spin models.

We rewrite the Gaussian variables $`H_N(\sigma ,J)`$ as

$$H_N(\sigma ,J)=\xi _N(\sigma )+b_N(\sigma ),$$
(19)
where, of course, $`\xi _N(\sigma )`$ is a centered Gaussian random variable, and

$$E(\xi _N(\sigma )\xi _N(\sigma ^{}))=c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}).$$

Given $`s`$, we define

$$\phi _N(t)=\mathrm{ln}E_1G_N(t)=\mathrm{ln}E_1\mathrm{exp}\left(s\beta ^1E_2\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(t)\right),$$
(20)
where the interpolating parameter $`t`$ varies between $`0`$ and $`1`$, and $`Z_N^A(t)`$ is the auxiliary partition function

$`Z_N^A(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_N^A(t,J_1,J_2,\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{A_N}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(\beta \sqrt{t}\xi _N^1(\sigma )\beta \sqrt{1t}\xi _N^2(\sigma )\beta b_N(\sigma )).`$
Here, $`\xi _N^1(\sigma )`$ and $`\xi _N^2(\sigma )`$ are two independent copies of the random variable $`\xi _N(\sigma )`$, with the same distribution, and $`E_1,E_2`$ denote average with respect to $`\xi ^1`$ and $`\xi ^2`$, respectively. For simplicity of notation, we set

$$d\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )=d\nu (\sigma _1)\mathrm{}d\nu (\sigma _N)$$

the a priori measure on $`𝒮^N`$, and

$$p_N(t,\sigma )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\beta \sqrt{t}\xi _N^1(\sigma )\beta \sqrt{1t}\xi _N^2(\sigma )\beta b_N(\sigma ))}{Z_N^A(t)}$$

the modified Boltzmann weight.

It is very simple to check that

$$\phi _N(1)\phi _N(0)=\mathrm{ln}E\mathrm{exp}s\beta ^1\left(\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )E\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\right).$$
(22)
As for the $`t`$ derivative of $`\phi _N(t)`$, an application of the formula

$$Ex_iF(\{x\})=\underset{j}{}E(x_ix_j)E_{x_j}F(\{x\})$$
(23)
which holds for any family of Gaussian random variables $`\{x_i\}`$ and any smooth function $`F`$, gives

$`\phi _N^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2E_1G_N(t)}}E_1\left\{G_N(t){\displaystyle _{A_N\times A_N}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma ^{})c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})E_2p_N(t,\sigma )E_2p_N(t,\sigma ^{})\right\}.`$
Thanks to the bound (8), one has

$$|\phi _N^{}(t)|\frac{s^2}{2}\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{\mathrm{max}}|c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})|=\frac{Ns^2}{2}\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{\mathrm{max}}|f(Q_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}))|=\frac{Ns^2L}{2}.$$
(24)
Therefore, using Eq. (22) and the obvious inequality

$$e^{|x|}e^x+e^x,$$

one finds

$$E\mathrm{exp}\left(N|s|\left|\frac{1}{N\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\frac{1}{N\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\right|\right)2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{s^2NL}{2}\right).$$
(25)
By Tchebyshev’s inequality,

$$P\left(\left|\frac{1}{N\beta }\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\frac{1}{N\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_N^A(\beta )\right|u\right)2\mathrm{exp}\left(N|s|u+\frac{s^2NL}{2}\right)$$
(26)
and, choosing $`|s|=u/L`$, one finally obtains the estimate (17). $`\mathrm{}`$

Now, we can prove the main statements of Theorem 1, concerning the existence of the thermodynamic limit. For simplicity, we assume that

$$N^1b_N(\sigma )=g(m_N(\sigma ))+O(N^1),$$

and

$$N^1c_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})=f(Q_N(\sigma ,\sigma ^{}))+O(N^1),$$

corresponding to the case $`k=1`$ in Eqs. (4), (7), and that $`L=1`$ in (13). The general case can be obtained as a simple extension.

First of all, we prove the existence of the limit along sequences of the type $`\{N_K\}=\{N_0n^K\}`$, with $`n,N_0`$. As in , the idea is to find a suitable interpolation between the original system, of size $`N_K`$, and a system composed of $`n`$ non interacting subsystems, of size $`N_{K1}`$ each. However, in the present case, it is also necessary to divide the configuration space into sets, such that $`m_N(\sigma )`$ and $`Q_N(\sigma ,\sigma )`$ are approximately constant within each set. The idea of restricting to the set of configurations with given overlap was introduced by Michel Talagrand , and exploited in a series of important applications. For any $`0<\epsilon <1`$, we can write

$$Z_{N_K}(\beta )=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{[1/\epsilon ]}{}}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{[1/\epsilon ]}{}}_{C_{ij}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_{N_K}(\sigma ,J)),$$
(27)
where

$$C_{ij}=\{\sigma 𝒮^{N_K}:i\epsilon Q_{N_K}(\sigma ,\sigma ),<(i+1)\epsilon ,j\epsilon m_{N_K}(\sigma ),<(j+1)\epsilon \}$$
(28)
and $`[x]`$ denotes the integer part of $`x`$. Since $`N_K=nN_{K1}`$, we can divide the system into $`n`$ subsystems of $`N_{K1}`$ spins each, and we denote the configuration of the $`\mathrm{}`$-th subsystem as $`\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})},\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Of course, the following inequality holds

$$Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )=_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}(\beta H_{N_K}(\sigma ,J)),$$
(29)
where

$`C_{ij}\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\sigma 𝒮^{N_K}:i\epsilon Q_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})},\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})})<(i+1)\epsilon ,`$
$`j\epsilon m_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})})<(j+1)\epsilon ,\mathrm{}\}.`$
Now, we introduce an interpolating parameter $`0t1`$, and the auxiliary partition function

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(t,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}}}d\stackrel{~}{\nu }(\sigma )\mathrm{exp}\beta (\sqrt{t}\xi _{N_K}(\sigma )tb_{N_K}(\sigma )\sqrt{1t}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _{N_{K1}}^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})})`$
$`(1t){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}b_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})})),`$
where the $`\xi _N^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma )`$ are $`n`$ independent copies of the random variable $`\xi _N(\sigma )`$. Clearly, for the boundary values of the parameter $`t`$ one has

$$\frac{1}{N_K\beta }E\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(0,\beta )=\frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )$$
(31)
and

$$\frac{1}{N_K\beta }E\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(1,\beta )=\frac{1}{N_K\beta }E\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )\frac{1}{N_K\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta ).$$
(32)
As regards the $`t`$ derivative, we apply the integration by parts formula (23) and, recalling that the random variables $`\xi _N^{\mathrm{}}(\sigma )`$ are statistically independent for different $`\mathrm{}`$, we find after some long but straightforward computations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}E\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(t,\beta )=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}f(Q_{N_K}(\sigma ,\sigma )){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f(Q_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})},\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}))`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}f(Q_{N_K}(\sigma ,\sigma ^{})){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}f(Q_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})},\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}))`$ (34)
$`+g(m_{N_K}(\sigma )){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}g(m_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})}))+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K}}\right),`$ (35)
where the averages are, of course, restricted to configurations belonging to $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{ij}`$. Since $`Q_{N_K}`$ is a convex combination of the $`Q_{N_{K1}}`$ and $`f`$ is a convex function, the term (34) is not positive. On the other hand, since $`f`$ is a function of class $`C^1`$, and $`Q_{N_{K1}}(\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})},\sigma ^{(\mathrm{})})`$ and are constrained to belong to the interval $`[i\epsilon ,(i+1)\epsilon )`$ for each $`\mathrm{}`$, the term (4) is of order $`\epsilon `$. The same holds for the term (35). This implies that, for $`K`$ large enough,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}E\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{Z}_{N_K}^{(ij)}(t,\beta )C\epsilon ,`$ (36)
for some positive constant $`C`$ independent of $`N`$. Recalling Eqs. (31), (32), this means that

$$\frac{1}{N_K\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )+\frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )C\epsilon .$$
(37)
Now, we want to turn this inequality, which involves disorder averages, into an inequality valid $`J`$almost everywhere. To this purpose, we choose $`\epsilon =N_K^{1/4}`$ and we observe that, thanks to the estimate (17),

$`P\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )+C\epsilon \right)2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N_K}C^2}{2}}\right)`$ (38)
and

$`P\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }}E\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )C\epsilon \right)2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N_K}C^2}{2n}}\right).`$ (39)
Therefore, with probability $`P14\sqrt{N_K}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\sqrt{N_K}C^2}{2n}\right)`$, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )+3CN_K^{1/4}i,j=0,\mathrm{},[N_K^{1/4}].`$ (40)
Since the probability of the complementary event is summable in $`K`$, it follows from Borel-Cantelli lemma  that inequality (40) holds $`J`$-almost surely, for $`K`$ large enough. As a consequence, one obtains

$`Z_{N_K}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{[N_K^{1/4}]}{}}}Z_{N_K}^{(ij)}(\beta )e^{3\beta CN_K^{3/4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{[N_K^{1/4}]}{}}}\left(Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )\right)^n`$
$`e^{3\beta CN_K^{3/4}}N_K^{(1n)/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{[N_K^{1/4}]}{}}}Z_{N_{K1}}^{(ij)}(\beta )\right)^n={\displaystyle \frac{e^{3\beta CN_K^{3/4}}}{N_K^{(n1)/2}}}Z_{N_{K1}}^n(\beta ).`$
Here, we have used the property

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_i^nk^{1n}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}x_i\right)^n,$$
(42)
which holds if $`x_i0`$, thanks to the convexity of the function $`x^n`$. By taking the logarithm and dropping terms of lower order in $`N_K`$, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_K\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}(\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{K1}\beta }}\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_{K1}}(\beta )+3CN_K^{1/4}Ja.s.,`$ (43)
for $`K`$ large enough. Notice that, with respect to (37), the above inequality involves the original free energy, where the sum over over configuration has no restrictions. From (43), it follows that the thermodynamic limit exists, $`J`$-almost surely, the term $`N_K^{1/4}`$ being inessential. On the other hand, the exponential estimate (12), together with Borel-Cantelli Lemma, implies that the limit has a non random value $`f(\beta )`$, for almost every disorder realization $`J`$.

Once the almost sure convergence is proved, the convergence of the quenched average can be obtained easily, provided that the probability that $`1/N\mathrm{ln}Z_N`$ assumes large values is sufficiently small. For instance, one has the following criterion : given random variables $`X_K`$ and $`X`$, if $`X_KX`$ almost surely for $`K\mathrm{}`$, and if

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{K}{sup}E\left(|X_K|𝒳(\{|X_K|\lambda \})\right)=0,$$
(44)
where $`𝒳(A)`$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $`A`$, then

$$EX_KEX.$$

In the present case, $`X_K=(1/N_K\beta )\mathrm{ln}Z_{N_K}(\beta )`$, $`X=f(\beta )`$, and the condition (44) can be easily checked, by employing the exponential bound (12).

In conclusion, we have proved almost sure convergence for the free energy, and convergence of its quenched average, for any subsequence of the form $`\{N_0n^K\}`$. It is not difficult to show, by standard methods, that this implies convergence along any increasing subsequence $`\{N_K\}`$, and the uniqueness of the limit. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper, we have extended the class of mean field spin glass models for which the existence of the thermodynamic limit can be proved, independently of an explicit calculation of the limit itself. Essentially, with respect to the models considered in , one abandons the assumption that the variance of the Hamiltonian is independent of the configuration, and that its mean value is additive in the size of the system. Some of the hypotheses of the Theorem, like the uniform bounds (5), (8), are required only for technical reasons, but can be dispensed with, at the expense of some extra work. On the other hand, the condition of convexity for the covariance function is essential, so that our result does not extend directly, for instance, to the $`p`$-spin model, with $`p`$ odd.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge useful conversations with Pierluigi Contucci, Sandro Graffi, Giorgio Parisi and Michel Talagrand.

This work was supported in part by MIUR (Italian Minister of Instruction, University and Research), and by INFN (Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics).


text:
# Understanding Bottom ProductionThis work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF0098.

## Abstract

We describe calculations of $`b\overline{b}`$ production to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) and next-to-next-to-leading logarithm (NNLL) near threshold in $`pp`$ interactions. Our calculations are in good agreement with the $`b\overline{b}`$ total cross section measured by HERA-B.

Factorization assumes it is possible to separate QCD cross sections into universal, nonperturbative parton densities and a perturbatively calculable hard scattering function, the partonic cross section. However, some remnants of long-distance dynamics in the hard scattering function can dominate corrections at higher orders near production threshold. These Sudakov corrections have the form of distributions singular at partonic threshold. Threshold resummation techniques organize the singular distributions to all orders, extending the reach of QCD into near threshold production. The singular functions organized by resummmation are the plus distributions, $`[\mathrm{ln}^lx/x]_+`$, where $`x`$ denotes the ‘distance’ from partonic threshold.

The first attempts to resum the heavy quark cross section were at leading logarithm (LL) and exploited the fact that to LL, the Sudakov corrections to the heavy quark cross section were identical to those obtained for Drell-Yan production . This early resummation calculation, like some of the later results that followed, used an empirical cutoff to keep the strong coupling constant from blowing up. Resummation beyond LL cannot make use of this universality because the color structure of each partonic process must be treated separately . The NLL $`Q\overline{Q}`$ terms were first resummed in Ref.  for a simplified case and later fully solved for the $`q\overline{q}`$ channel . The exponents in the $`gg`$ channel were calculationally unwieldly, requiring large cutoffs even for $`t\overline{t}`$ production where the resummation should work best. However, one advantage of the resummed cross section is that when it is expanded in powers of $`\alpha _s`$, it provides estimates of unknown finite-order corrections without resorting to a cutoff or other prescriptions. We have calculated the double-differential heavy quark hadroproduction cross sections up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), $`𝒪(\alpha _s^4)`$, and next-to-next-to-leading logarithm (NNLL), i.e. keeping powers of the singular functions as low as $`l=2i1`$ at order $`𝒪(\alpha _s^{i+3})`$ where $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ . Since resummation is based on expansion of the LO cross section, we only discuss $`Q\overline{Q}`$ production in the $`ij=q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ channels since $`qg`$ scattering first appears at NLO.

In our calculations, the distance from partonic threshold in the singular functions depends on how the cross section is calculated, either by integrating away the momentum of the unobserved heavy quark or antiquark and determining the one-particle inclusive (1PI) cross section for the detected quark, or by treating the $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ as a pair in the integration, pair invariant mass (PIM) kinematics. In 1PI kinematics,

$`p(P_1)+p(P_2)Q(p_1)+X(p_X),`$ (1)
where $`X`$ denotes any hadronic final state containing the heavy antiquark and $`Q(p_1)`$ is the identified heavy quark. The reaction in Eq. (1) is dominated by the partonic reaction

$`i(k_1)+j(k_2)`$ $``$ $`Q(p_1)+X[\overline{Q}](p_2^{}).`$ (2)
At LO or if $`X[\overline{Q}](p_2^{})\overline{Q}(\overline{p}_2)`$, the reaction is at partonic threshold with $`\overline{Q}`$ momentum $`\overline{p}_2`$. At threshold the heavy quarks are not necessarily produced at rest but with equal and opposite momentum. The partonic Mandelstam invariants are

$`s=(k_1+k_2)^2,t_1=(k_2p_1)^2m^2,u=(k_1p_1)^2m^2,s_4=s+t_1+u_1`$ (3)
where the last, $`s_4=(p_2^{})^2m^2`$, is the inelasticity of the partonic reaction. At threshold, $`s_4=0`$. Thus the distance from threshold in 1PI kinematics is $`x=s_4/m^2`$. In 1PI kinematics, the cross sections are functions of $`t_1`$ and $`u_1`$. In PIM kinematics the pair is treated as a unit so that, on the partonic level, we have

$`i(k_1)+j(k_2)`$ $``$ $`Q\overline{Q}(p^{})+X(k^{}).`$ (4)
The square of the heavy quark pair mass is $`p^2=M^2`$. At partonic threshold, $`X(k^{})=0`$, the three Mandelstam invariants are

$`s=M^2,t_1={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}(1\beta _M\mathrm{cos}\theta ),u_1={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{2}}(1+\beta _M\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (5)
where $`\beta _M=\sqrt{14m^2/M^2}`$ and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle in the parton center of mass frame. Now the distance from threshold is $`x=1M^2/s1z`$ where $`z=1`$ at threshold. In PIM kinematics the cross sections are functions of $`M^2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

The resummation is done in moment space by making a Laplace transformation with respect to $`x`$, the distance from threshold. Then the singular functions become linear combinations of $`\mathrm{ln}^k\stackrel{~}{N}`$ with $`kl+1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}=Ne^{\gamma _E}`$ where $`\gamma _E`$ is the Euler constant. The 1PI resummed double differential partonic cross section in moment space is

$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{res}}(\stackrel{~}{N})}{dt_1du_1}}=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{H_{ij}\overline{\mathrm{P}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{m}{\overset{m/\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{ij}\left(\alpha _s(\mu ^{})\right))^{}]\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{m}{\overset{m/\stackrel{~}{N}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{ij}\left(\alpha _s(\mu ^{})\right)]\right\}`$ (6)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_i(\stackrel{~}{N}_u,\mu ,\mu _R)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_j(\stackrel{~}{N}_t,\mu ,\mu _R)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _R}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu ^{}}{\mu ^{}}}\left(\gamma _i\left(\alpha _s(\mu ^{})\right)+\gamma _j\left(\alpha _s(\mu ^{})\right)\right)\right\}.`$
To find the PIM result, transform $`t_1`$ and $`u_1`$ to $`M^2`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ using Eq. (5). $`(\overline{\mathrm{P}})`$ P refer to (anti-)path ordering in scale $`\mu ^{}`$. The cross section depends on the ‘hard’, $`H_{ij}`$, and ‘soft’, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}`$, hermitian matrices. The ‘hard’ part contains no singular functions. The ‘soft’ component contains the singular functions and, from its renormalization group equation, the soft anomalous dimension matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S^{ij}`$, 2 dimensional for $`q\overline{q}`$ and 3 for $`gg`$, can be derived. The universal Sudakov factors, the same in 1PI and PIM, are in the exponents $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, expanded as

$`\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{E}_i(\stackrel{~}{N}_u,\mu ,m))1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}}C_k^{i,(1)}\mathrm{ln}^k(\stackrel{~}{N}_u)\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{4}{}}}C_k^{i,(2)}\mathrm{ln}^k(\stackrel{~}{N}_u)\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (7)
The coefficients $`C_k^{i,(n)}`$, as well as the detailed derivation of the resummed and finite-order cross sections, can be found in Ref. . The momentum space cross sections to NNLO-NNLL are obtained by gathering terms at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^4)`$, inverting the Laplace transformation and matching the $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$-independent terms in $`H_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}`$ to exact $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ results.

We have studied the partonic and hadronic total cross sections of $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ production. Any difference in the integrated cross sections due to kinematics choice arises from the ambiguity of the estimates. At leading order, no additional soft partons are produced and the threshold condition is exact. Therefore, there is no difference between the total cross sections in the two kinematic schemes. However, beyond LO and threshold there is a difference. To simplify the argument, the total partonic cross section may be expressed in terms of dimensionless scaling functions $`f_{ij}^{(k,l)}`$ that depend only on $`\eta =s/4m^21`$ ,

$`\sigma _{ij}(s,m^2,\mu ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2(\mu )}{m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(4\pi \alpha _s(\mu )\right)^k{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}}f_{ij}^{(k,l)}(\eta )\mathrm{ln}^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{m^2}}\right).`$ (8)
We have constructed LL, NLL, and NNLL approximations to $`f_{ij}^{(k,l)}`$ in the $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ channels for $`k2`$, $`lk`$. Exact results are known for $`k=1`$ and can be derived using renormalization group methods for $`k=2`$, $`l=1,2`$. Thus the best NNLO estimate of the cross section includes the exact scaling functions and the NNLL estimate of $`f_{ij}^{(2,0)}`$. On the left-hand side of Fig. 1, we compare $`f_{q\overline{q}}^{(2,0)}`$ and $`f_{gg}^{(2,0)}`$, the only approximate scaling function, in 1PI and PIM. The results are quite similar at small $`\eta `$ but begin to differ for $`\eta 0.1`$, especially in the $`gg`$ channel. If the parton flux is maximized for $`\eta <1`$, as for the HERA-B energy, $`\sqrt{S}=41.6`$ GeV, the reaction is close enough to threshold for the results to be reliable. Unfortunately at RHIC, the flux peaks at $`\eta 1`$, making predictions at RHIC from the threshold approximation alone unreliable. The $`gg`$ channel dominates $`b\overline{b}`$ production in $`pp`$ interactions. An inspection of the scaling functions shows that the results could differ substantially between the two kinematics.

The total hadronic cross section is obtained by convoluting the total partonic cross section with the parton densities $`f_i^p`$ evaluated at momentum fraction $`x`$ and scale $`\mu `$,

$`\sigma _{pp}(S,m^2)={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=q,\overline{q},g}{}}{\displaystyle _{4m^2/S}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}f_i^p(x_1,\mu ^2)f_j^p({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{x_1}},\mu ^2)\sigma _{ij}(\tau S,m^2,\mu ^2).`$ (9)
If the peak of the convolution of the parton densities is at $`\eta <1`$, the approximation should hold. On the right-hand side of Fig. 1 we compare the 1PI and PIM results with the exact NLO results, all calculated with the CTEQ5M parton densities  and $`\mu =m`$. The NNLO-NNLL corrections are substantial. The average of the NNLO-NNLL 1PI and PIM cross sections,

$`\sigma _{b\overline{b}}(41.6\mathrm{GeV})=30\pm 8\pm 10\mathrm{nb},`$ (10)
is in good agreement with the $`b\overline{b}`$ total cross section measured by HERA-B . The first uncertainty is due to the kinematics choice, the second to the scale dependence. The uncertainties in scale and kinematics choice are essentially equivalent.