text:
# Trapping atoms in the vacuum field of a cavity

## I Introduction

Cavity QED constitutes one of the most important experimental set–ups where the basic properties of Quantum Mechanics can be controlled, observed, and tested. During the last years, a significant experimental progress has taken place, allowing to observe quantum phenomena in the interaction of a single atom with a single mode of the electromagnetic field, both in the optical Kimble00heat ; Kimble00cool ; Rempe99obs ; Rempe02kal ; Rempe02src ; Feld98 ; Walther01opt ; Blatt02  and microwave regime Walther01mic ; Haroche02 . Some of these experiments are currently limited by the fact that (neutral) atoms typically move almost freely in the cavity and eventually leave it, which restricts the duration of the experiment as well as its controllability. For example, in the optical regime, the coupling between the atoms and the cavity mode strongly depends on the position of the atom, and thus when it moves this can strongly affect the interaction.

In order to overcome these problems, several strategies to trap an atom in a cavity have been put forward Haroche91trap ; Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98 ; Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Kimble01trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long ; Kimble99fort ; Kimble02fort ; Chapman01 . Some of them involve using some external laser fields which exert a confining force to the atom, something that has been successfully realized in recent experiments Kimble99fort ; Kimble02fort ; Chapman01 . In a far-off resonant trap (FORT) this is achieved by employing a far-off resonant trapping beam along the cavity axis. A more intriguing approach consists of using the cavity mode itself to confine the atom Haroche91trap ; Kimble01trap ; Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98 . In remarkable experiments Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long  it has been possible to keep an atom in a cavity just using the force provided by a single photon. In this work we will show that it is, in principle, possible to trap an atom in its ground state in a cavity which is basically in the vacuum state. Apart from its fundamental interest, our method may have some practical advantages with respect to the previous one in that since the atom and the cavity mode are in their ground state, losses are appreciable reduced.

Atom trapping in cavities has interesting applications in the field of quantum information. All the proposals of quantum computation using atoms interacting via a common cavity mode Pellizzari95  require that the atoms are trapped in the cavity in a fixed position. Moreover, this is also required to build quantum networks involving cavity QED setups Cirac97 ; vanEnk98 ; Pellizzari97 . In those cases the idea is to store the quantum information in two internal ground levels of each atom, $`|g`$ and $`|g^{}`$, and to entangle them by using real or virtual photon exchange through the cavity mode. Note that in this context a single spontaneous emission or cavity loss may have dramatic effects for all quantum information tasks (see, however, Ref. vanEnk97 ). Thus, it is not only important to trap the atoms in the cavity but also to reduce the decoherence time as much as possible. By trapping the atoms in the vacuum state of the cavity our scheme achieves a strong reduction of the decoherence processes.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In Section II we give a qualitative description of our scheme, estimating its operating conditions such as the depth of the trapping potential and the lifetime of the state. In Section III we give a full description of the method including dissipative processes. The analytical results and estimations are checked numerically in Section IV. Finally, Section V contains a summary of our results.

## II Description

We consider an atom with two internal ground levels $`|g`$ and $`|g^{}`$, which are resonantly coupled by two cavity modes to two excited levels $`|e`$ and $`|e^{}`$, respectively. Additionally, an external plane-wave laser field detuned by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ excites the same transition (see Fig. 1).

Note that this laser field does not exert any force on the atoms. In the following we will consider only the levels $`|g`$ and $`|e`$, since for the other two levels the same description applies (they are independent).

In order to understand the mechanism that we propose, it is convenient first to revise the method used in previous experiments Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long  to keep an atom in a cavity. The interaction between the atom and cavity mode is characterized by a coupling constant $`g(x)`$, which depends on the atomic position $`x`$. In Fig. 2 we show the set–up, as well as the instantaneous energy levels of an atom as a function of its position (in one dimension).

The ground state of the composed atom–cavity system is $`|g,0`$, where $`|n`$ is the cavity state with $`n`$ photons (in this case $`n=0`$). The corresponding energy, $`E_0`$ is position independent. The first two excited levels are the dressed states of the Jaynes–Cummings Hamiltonian jc63 , $`|\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g,1\pm |e,0)`$, with corresponding energies $`E_\pm (x)=\pm g(x)`$ in the interaction picture, where we have taken $`\mathrm{}=1`$ . As Fig. 2 shows, the position–dependence of $`E_{}(x)`$ provides the atom with a confining potential at the center of the cavity. Thus, if the atom can be prepared in the state $`|`$ with a kinetic energy smaller than $`g_0=g(0)`$, it will remain trapped Haroche91trap ; Kimble01trap ; Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long ; Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98 . As the state $`|`$ contains a linear combination involving one photon, one can state that the atom is trapped by a single photon. On the other hand, the state $`|`$ can be efficiently prepared by starting in the state $`|g,0`$ and tuning the external laser field to be resonant with the transition $`|g,0|`$ near $`x=0`$, as indicated in Fig. 2 Parkins93 . Note that in the case studied in many references Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long ; Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98  the trapping force may be velocity dependent since they are also interested in laser cooling, whereas for us this is not the case. In this sense it will be difficult to exactly compare the results of both approaches.

The above discussion has omitted an important element which is present in all experiments, namely the dissipation mechanism. On the one hand, excited atoms may decay very fast (as long as the state $`|e`$ does not correspond to some Zeeman level, which is coupled to the cavity mode by some Raman transition Kimble99ram ). More importantly, cavities have usually losses, so that the photons will leave the cavity after some time $`t1/\kappa `$, where $`\kappa `$ is the cavity damping rate. Any of these mechanisms will induce the spontaneous transition $`||g,0`$, and therefore the atom will no longer experience the trapping force. The typical time scale of this processes is of the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and $`\kappa ^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\kappa `$ are the spontaneous emission and the cavity damping rate, respectively. In practice Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long  the atom can be promoted several times to the state $`|`$ by the external laser, so that the trapping time inside the cavity can be several hundreds of $`\kappa ^1`$. Note, however, that these spontaneous transitions will break the atomic coherence if we are using more internal levels to store, for example, some quantum information in the atom (see Fig. 1).

Our idea is to detune the external laser slightly below the transition $`|g,0|`$ at $`x=0`$. If the laser intensity is low enough, its only effect will be to produce an AC–Stark shift for the level $`|g,0`$, whose energy $`E_0(x)`$ will now depend on the position, as shown in Fig. 3.

Thus, if the atom is in the level $`|g,0`$, it will experience a trapping force towards $`x=0`$, and therefore, it can be trapped (as long as the corresponding potential supports bound states). Note also, that since the atom is basically in the ground state and no photon is present, all the dissipative mechanisms may be drastically reduced.

In the following sections we will compute the performance of our scheme. In the rest of this section we will use very simple estimates to characterize the trapping potential and the corresponding time scales.

Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the Rabi frequency of the external laser, and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ its corresponding detuning with respect to the $`|g|e`$ transition ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$), we have that the regime of validity of our analysis will be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Delta }+g_0|g_0.$$
(1)
In this case, the depth of the trapping potential $`V_0`$ will be approximately equal to the AC–Stark shift of the level $`|g,0`$ due to its coupling to $`|`$ at $`x=0`$, i.e.

$$V_0\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{8|\mathrm{\Delta }+g_0|}.$$
(2)
On the other hand, losses will be due to the small contamination of level $`|g,0`$ with level $`|`$ given by the off–resonant coupling. The population of this level will be of the order of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2/4|\mathrm{\Delta }+g_0|^2`$, and therefore the lifetime of the state will be

$$\tau \frac{4|\mathrm{\Delta }+g_0|^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\kappa ^1).$$
(3)
Equations (2) and (3) indicate that the lifetime can be made arbitrarily big at the expense of reducing the potential depth.

In three dimensions, one can easily estimate the condition for a potential to possess a bound state. It is given by Galindo  $`2mV_0L^2/\mathrm{}^21`$, where $`L`$ is the cavity length, $`m`$ is the atomic mass, and we have included $`\mathrm{}`$ to make the dimensions more explicit. We can rewrite this as $`V_0(L/\lambda )^2E_R`$, where $`\lambda `$ is an optical transition wavelength and $`E_R`$ the corresponding energy of one photon recoil. Since $`L\lambda `$ in all cases we see that by taking $`V_0>E_R`$ we will always have an atomic bound state. Note that in a one dimensional set–up there is always a bound state for any value of $`V_0`$ Galindo .

So far, we have shown that it is possible to have atoms trapped in the cavity with basically zero photons and in the atomic ground state. However, the trapping potential may become very weak. Thus, in order to trap atoms it will be required that they move very slowly in the cavity in the state $`|g,0`$ and then, when they are close to $`x=0`$, the external field is turned on. Let us estimate what will be, in this case, the lifetime of the trapped state. We will assume that we have Rb atoms and the kinetic energy is of the order of one optical recoil ($`E_R=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, where $`k`$ is the optical wavevector). Thus, we take $`E_R=4`$kHz $`<V_0=10`$kHZ. Let us analyze separately the optical and microwave regimes.

For the optical regime we take the parameters from Rempe00trap . There the $`5^2S_{1/2}F=35^2P_{3/2}F=4`$ transition of $`{}_{}{}^{85}\mathrm{Rb}`$ with a frequency of $`3.8\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Hz}`$ was used. The maximal coupling between cavity and atom is $`g_016\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}`$, the cavity loss rate is $`\kappa 1.4\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}`$ and the spontaneous decay rate is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }3\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}`$. We estimate (3) a decay time of $`2.1\times 10^5\mathrm{s}`$. For the microwave regime we consider circular Rydberg states, so we have Haroche91trap ; Haroche96dec  $`g_067\times 2\pi \mathrm{kHz}`$, $`\kappa 1.6\times 2\pi \mathrm{Hz}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1.6\times 2\pi \mathrm{Hz}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the spontaneous decay rate of the Rydberg transition. We reach a life time of $`40\mathrm{s}`$ (3).

These estimates look very promising. They will be optimized and compared with numerical calculations in the following sections. On the other hand, let us stress that we have calculated here the time for a single loss event, since it will destroy the coherence present in the atomic state. For the reference Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98 ; Kimble01trap ; Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long , in the optical experiments in which the atom is trapped in a cavity both the effective decay rate and the potential depth seen by the atom scale proportionally to the population of the excited level. However, in our case the potential depth (2) scales in a different way. Thus we expect that our scheme will be useful under appropriate conditions (small initial velocities). In the following sections we will also analyze the trapping time if several loss events are allowed.

## III Model

In this section we will introduce in detail the model that describes the situation we have in mind. In the first subsection we will start with the full Hamiltonian characterizing the atom–cavity interaction and perform some approximations in order to derive the estimates given in the previous section. Then we will introduce the decay mechanisms in this picture.

### III.1 Hamiltonian dynamics

The Hamiltonian describing the dynamics of the atom and the cavity mode can be written as follows

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+\omega _0(a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _z)+g(x)(\sigma ^+a+a^{}\sigma ^{})`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}(\sigma ^+e^{i\omega _Lt}+\sigma ^{}e^{i\omega _Lt}).`$
Here, $`\omega _L`$ and $`\omega _0`$ are the laser and atomic transition frequency, respectively, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency and $`g(x)`$ the position dependent coupling constant between the cavity mode and the atom. Note that we have not included the position dependence of the laser plane wave to make more explicit the fact that the laser exerts no force on the atom (in any case, since this laser only gives rise to AC-Stark shift, its position dependence will cancel out).

In order to make the analysis simpler, we will project our system in the subspace spanned by the states $`\{|g,0,|e,0,|g,1\}`$. In any case, the reader can easily verify that the population of all other levels will be much smaller than the last two, which will be scarcely populated. The Hamiltonian (4) in this subspace can be rewritten as $`H=p^2/2m+H^{}(x)`$, and this last can be diagonalized exactly in the rotating frame. Instead of doing that, we calculate the eigenstates and eigenvalues of $`H^{}(x)`$ in lowest order perturbation theory with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is assumed to be small with respect to $`|\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x)|`$ for all values of $`x`$ (see Fig. 3), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _L\omega _0`$. We obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`|g,0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2g(x)^2}}\left(g(x)|g,1+\mathrm{\Delta }|e,0\right)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|g,1|e,0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x)}}|g,0\right)`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|g,1+|e,0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)}}|g,0\right)`$ (5)
and the corresponding eigenvalues

$`\lambda _0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }g(x)}}\right)`$
$`\lambda _1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}g(x){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{8(\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x))}}`$
$`\lambda _2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}+g(x){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{8(\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x))}}.`$ (6)
As we see, the ground state is basically $`|g,0`$ with a vanishing contribution of levels $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$ in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Delta }+g(x)|`$. However, it acquires a position–dependent shift in its energy. The two terms in the shift come from the AC–Stark shifts due to $`|`$ and $`|+`$, respectively, which, with the chosen detuning, do not compensate each other. The shift is maximal at $`x=0`$. To obtain the potential depth $`V_0`$ we have to subtract the shift at $`g(x)=0`$. This gives

$$V_0=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_0^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_0^2\right)}.$$
(7)
In the limit (1) we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_0`$. If we plug this into (7) we obtain (2).

Starting out with $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, if the atom is initially in $`|g,0`$ and has a small velocity near $`x=0`$, and we turn the laser on, it will basically remain in the eigenstate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, and therefore will experience the potential $`\lambda _0(x)`$. Note that for this picture to be valid, we need the kinetic energy of the atom to be smaller than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }+g_0|`$ since in this case we can adiabatically eliminate the levels $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$ and obtain the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{ad}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\lambda _0(x)|g,0g,0|.$$
(8)
### III.2 Dissipation

We introduce a cavity decay rate $`\kappa `$ and a spontaneous decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the atom. To take both into account we use the master equation that describes the time evolution of this open quantum systems. The state of the system, which is now in general a mixed one, is given by a density matrix $`\rho `$. For our system we obtain

$$\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+(_{\mathrm{cav}}+_{\mathrm{at}})\rho .$$
(9)
Here,

$$_{\mathrm{cav}}\rho =\kappa \left(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a\right)$$
(10)
describes cavity damping, whereas

$`_{\mathrm{at}}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2{\displaystyle _1^1}N(u)\sigma ^{}e^{iux}\rho e^{iux}\sigma ^+\mathrm{d}u`$ (11)
$`\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{})`$
describes spontaneous emission. The first term in this expression accounts for the photon recoil experienced by the atom after photon emission. We have included here a one dimensional version, since in our numerical calculations we have investigated this case.

To simulate a single trajectory we use the Quantum Jump Approach Hegerfeldt92 ; Dalibard ; Carmichael93 ; Dum92 . Therefore one defines an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which describes the time evolution of the system under the condition that no emission takes place. The master equation can than be written in the form

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`i[\left(H_{\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}\right),\rho ]`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\kappa a\rho a^{}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle _1^1}N(u)\sigma ^{}e^{iux}\rho e^{iux}\sigma ^+du.`$
The decay rates contribute to the effective time evolution as damping terms. Therefore the norm of the state decreases. This means that the probability to find no photon in the time interval $`(0,t)`$ decreases with time ”$`t`$”.

Dissipation occurs in our model due to the small contamination of level $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ with the states $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$, which in turn decay due to cavity damping and spontaneous emission, respectively. In order to determine the effective decay rate (or jump time) we take the sum over the probabilities for the excited states $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$ in $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ weighted with the cavity decay rate $`\kappa `$ and the spontaneous emission rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For the coupling constant we assume that the atom is in the center of the cavity \[$`g(x)=g_0`$\]. We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \left|{\displaystyle \frac{g_0\mathrm{\Omega }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_0^2}}\right|^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_0^2}}\right|^2`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\kappa g_0^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)}{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_0^2\right)^2}}.`$
This gives an effective decay time of

$$\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}=\frac{4\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2g_0^2\right)^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\kappa g_0^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)}.$$
(14)
For the estimation of the life time in Eq. (3) we neglected the contribution of the upper dressed level $`|+`$. If we consider this and the approximation $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_0`$ and plug it with $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Gamma }=max(\kappa ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ into (14) we end up with the expression (3).

### III.3 Discussion

In Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 we have plotted the potential depths $`V_0`$ and the effective life time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

From Fig. 4(A) we see that in order to get a long decay time it would be desirable to have $`|\mathrm{\Delta }||g_0|`$. In Fig. 4(B) the region $`g_0<\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ is not of interest since there one obtains no attractive potential ($`V_0<0`$). One has to find a compromise between $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ close to $`g_0`$ in order to get a deep potential and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }||g_0|`$ in order to obtain a long decay time. This behavior is not surprising because if the detuning is close to $`g_0`$ the population in $`|`$ increases. This leads to a short decay time and a deep potential. The same reasoning explains the plots in Fig. 5 since the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a measure for the coupling strength between the atomic transition and the laser.

For the parameters from Rempe00trap  and a potential depth of $`V_0=10\mathrm{kHz}`$ the longest effective life time we can achieve in the optical regime is $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=0.18\mathrm{ms}`$. The corresponding values for the laser parameters are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`0.70\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ $`=`$ $`1.90g_0=30\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}.`$ (15)
In the microwave regime Haroche91trap ; Haroche96dec  we get $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=1.26\mathrm{sec}`$ with

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`54\times 2\pi \mathrm{kHz},`$
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ $`=`$ $`2.06g_0=0.14\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}.`$ (16)
It is important to mention that since we used the expressions from (7) and (14) we are not in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }g_0`$ (1). This leads to a significantly longer life time in the optical regime.

## IV Numerical results

Here we investigate the behavior of the system numerically. For the analytic results we made certain approximations. The comparison with the numerical results will show if these assumption are justified for realistic parameters. Furthermore we will include spontaneous emission and photon recoil.

We denote the state of the system by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. For the simulation we write it as $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\phi _{g0}+|\phi _{g1}+|\phi _{e0}`$, where $`|\phi _i=|ii|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We consider only the contributions of $`|g,0`$, $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$ since the population of the levels with two and more excitations is negligible. As for the analytic estimations we restrict the investigations to one dimension. The probability amplitudes for the system being in the states $`|g,0`$, $`|g,1`$ and $`|e,0`$ at position ”$`x`$” are given by $`\phi _{g0}(x)=x|\phi _{g0}`$, $`\phi _{g1}(x)=x|\phi _{g1}`$ and $`\phi _{e0}(x)=x|\phi _{e0}`$.

In the first subsection we calculate the ground state of the system with and without the assumptions made above. In the following we include dissipation and compare the decay time with the effective decay time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ we estimated in the last section. Finally we consider spontaneous emissions and recoil and investigate how long the atom remains in the cavity for different parameters. Apart from one simulation with the parameters from the analytic estimation we will only consider the optical regime in this section.

### IV.1 The ground state

To obtain the ground state we apply the imaginary time evolution Zoller99  to an arbitrary initial state until it remains unchanged. Instead of the time evolution operator $`e^{\mathrm{i}H\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ one uses a modified operator $`e^{H\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$. After a sufficient number of iterations this damps away all states orthogonal to the one with the lowest eigenvalue, which is the ground state of the system.

The Hamiltonian of the system is given in Eq. (4). We denote its ground state by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we took the values from (III.3). According to the analytic approximation they should give the maximal decay time which is achievable for a potential depth of $`10\mathrm{kHz}`$. The numerical simulation of the ground state leads to the probability distribution shown in Fig. 6.

The three plots show the population distribution of the three internal states separately. The excited states are only very weakly populated. The probability to find an atom in the center of the cavity with the system being in state $`|g,1`$ or $`|e,0`$ is three to four orders of magnitude smaller than to find it there with the state $`|g,0`$. We also found that the atom is well localized in the center of the cavity. At $`0.1\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is the width of the cavity, the probability to find the atom is already reduced by more than $`1/2`$.

In order to valuate the approximations made for the analytic estimation we calculated the ground state also using the Hamiltonian from Eq. (8). We denote its ground state solution by $`|\xi _0`$. We find

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|g,0|\xi _0.$$
(17)
This means that nearly all the population is in $`|g,0`$. So the approximations in the analytical approach are justified and one can trap an atom in a basically empty cavity.

### IV.2 Dissipation and photon emissions

In this subsection we include the coupling of the system to the environment and as a consequence the spontaneous emission of photons. First we will only consider the time evolution of the system under the condition that no photon is emitted and compare the decay time with the analytic estimation. Then we include also spontaneous emissions and the recoil kick the atom experiences.

In the Quantum Jump Approach one describes the time evolution of the system with an effective Hamiltonian as long as no photon is emitted. The emissions which cause the system to jump in a different state are described by reset operators. We obtain an expression for the effective Hamiltonian by comparing Eqs. (9),(10) and (11) with Eq. (III.2). This gives

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left(|g,1g,1|+|e,0e,0||g,0g,0|\right)`$ (18)
$`+g(x)\left(|e,0g,1|+|g,1e,0|\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2}}\left(|g,0e,0|+|e,0g,0|\right)`$
$`\mathrm{i}\kappa |g,1g,1|\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }|e,0e,0|,`$
where we used an interaction picture rotating with the laser frequency $`\omega _L`$ and assumed that there is at most one excitation in our system.

After preparing the system in the ground state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ using the imaginary time evolution we simulated the time evolution with the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This leads to a damping of the state of the system. So the probability $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$ that no photon has been emitted also decreases. We compare the time after which this probability has reached $`1/e`$ with the effective life time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ we estimated analytically. For the parameters from (III.3) we obtained $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=0.18\mathrm{ms}`$, which agrees with the decay time from the numerical simulation of $`0.14\mathrm{ms}`$.

In the Quantum Jump Approach the jumps are described by reset operators. We obtain them from the master equation (III.2). For the spontaneous emission of the atom we get

$$e^{iux}\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}|g,0e,0|,$$
(19)
where $`e^{iux}`$ describes the momentum shift ”$`u`$” due to the photon recoil. If the cavity emits a photon one has to apply

$$\sqrt{2\kappa }|g,0g,1|.$$
(20)
In both cases the population of the excited level gets shifted to the ground state. After that one has to normalize the wave function.

In the following we will discuss the trapping time $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}`$ of the atom. We define it as the time when the probability to find the atom in the cavity ($`|x|<\sigma `$) is reduced to $`0.5`$. The atom has an initial kinetic energy and gains a momentum kick when it spontaneously emits a photon. When the motional energy is bigger than the trapping potential the atom leaves the cavity. So it is desirable to achieve a long decay time in order to get a low photon emission rate. On the other hand a deeper potential provides the possibility of a bound state for an atom which experienced more recoil kicks. From our analytic estimations we know that these demands contradict each other. For the simulation we took the parameters from (III.3) for a potential depth of $`V_0=10\mathrm{k}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$ and the longest corresponding effective decay time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=0.18\mathrm{ms}`$. We applied the operator $`e^{iux}`$ to the ground state which we got from the imaginary time evolution in order to take into account an initial kinetic energy. The momentum shift ”u” corresponds to the energy of one photon recoil $`E_R=4\mathrm{kHz}`$. After a couple of spontaneous emissions the atom leaves the cavity at $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}=0.73\mathrm{ms}`$.

In order to achieve a longer trapping time we first varied the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and left the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.70\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}`$ unchanged. The result is shown in Fig. 7.

A larger detuning of the laser leads to a smaller potential depth $`V_0`$ and a longer effective life time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. From Fig. 7 we see that the longer life time has a bigger influence on the trapping time since $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}`$ increases with growing detuning. It is not surprising that the effective life time has a crucial influence on the trapping time since it determines how fast the motional energy of the atom grows.

A larger Rabi frequency causes a smaller effective life time and a deeper potential. So consistently we expect a decreasing trapping time when we enlarge the Rabi frequency. This is confirmed by Fig. 8, where we plotted $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a fixed detuning $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=1.90g_0=30\times 2\pi \mathrm{MHz}`$.

If we compare this plot with the plot in Fig. 5(A) we ascertain a qualitative agreement. This is again what we expect if we assume that the decisive variable for the trapping time $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}`$ is the effective decay time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

The longest trapping times we can achieve in the optical regime are of the order of $`1\mathrm{ms}`$. For the microwave regime we took $`g_0=67\times 2\pi \mathrm{kHz}`$, $`\kappa =1.6\times 2\pi \mathrm{Hz}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.6\times 2\pi \mathrm{Hz}`$. The trapping time we obtained for the laser parameters from (III.3) was $`\tau _{\mathrm{trap}}10\mathrm{s}`$. The reason for the good result are the very small decay rates for the Rydberg state and the micro–cavity. Another important advantage over the optical regime is that the recoil due to spontaneous emissions is practically zero.

## V Conclusions

We showed that it is possible to trap an atom in the vacuum field of a high Q cavity. To do this we need a weak laser which couples directly to the atom in the cavity. It induces a position dependent AC Stark shift to the ground state of the cavity-atom system. We use this energy shift as a trapping potential and as we showed by an analytic estimation and a numerical simulation it is deep enough to trap an atom with a realistic initial momentum.

The advantage of this approach is the low effective decay rate due to the little amount of excitation in the system. This requires to cool the atom to a lower kinetic energy than the potential depth. In order to obtain a long life time it would be good to have an initial kinetic energy of the order of one photon recoil. This is still difficult to achieve, even though it is possible to cool an atom below one photon recoil with the method of velocity-selective coherent population trapping Cohen  or Raman-cooling Chu . Another possibility would be a cavity assisted cooling method Ritsch97 ; Ritsch98 .

The trapping time we can achieve in the optical regime with our approach is of the same order or even lower as observed already in experiments Kimble99trap ; Kimble00trap ; Rempe00trap ; Rempe00trap\_long . The benefit of this method is that the time after which the first jump occurs is longer because there is only very little excitation in the system. As mentioned before this decay time is very important for any kind of quantum information application since the jump destroys the coherence in the atomic state. In the microwave regime the trapping times can be much longer.

Acknowledgment. We would like to thank G. Rempe, G. Giedke, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll and B. Kraus for interesting and stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# The scalar perturbation of the higher-dimensional rotating black holes.

## 1 Introduction

The higher dimensional space-times have been more seriously considered in recent studies as possible grounds for the unified theory of elementary particles. Though there are no experimental evidence that we live in more than four-dimensional space-time, it is suggested that the existence of the extra dimensions might be proved by the signature of black hole production in planned high energy experiments.

This argument follows from the brane-world scenario . In such a model, the Standard Model particles are confined to the three-brane, which means that the Kaluza-Klein modes of the SM particles are not excited, and only gravitons can propagate in the bulk, hence there are rather mild constraints on the size of the extra dimensions, so that the fundamental (higher-dimensional) Planck scale can reduce to TeV scale. This is a possible solution to the hierarchy problem. Another type of the brane-world models has been proposed by Randall and Sundrum, which utilize the warped metric of the AdS space.

If the fundamental scale is given by TeV, the black holes will be produced at the future colliders such as the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), of which center of mass energy is 14TeV . Though the classical approximation might be marginal for hypothetical black holes to be produced at LHC, we shall here discuss the higher-dimensional classical black holes, which is relevant for future colliders beyond the LHC. Recent studies show that the higher-dimensional black holes might be qualitatively rather different from usual four-dimensional ones.

Significantly, the stationary black hole solutions are shown to be nonunique, while the uniqueness of static black hole has been established . There are five-dimensional Kerr solution, while Emparan and Reall  have recently found the rotating black ring solution with $`S^1\times S^2`$ horizon, and there exists a parameter ranges where Kerr black hole and black ring have the common mass $`M`$ and the angular momentum $`J`$. The dimensionless Kerr parameter $`a_{}:=a/r_H`$, where $`a=3J/2M`$ is the Kerr parameter and $`r_H`$ the horizon radius, are characteristic quantity determining the property of the five-dimensional Kerr black hole, which are equivalent to the another dimensionless quantity $`J^2/GM^3`$ via

$$\frac{J^2}{GM^3}=\frac{32}{27\pi }\frac{a_{}^2}{a_{}^2+1}.$$
(1)
The five-dimensional Kerr black hole can have arbitrary $`a_{}>0`$ for fixed total mass. Consider a sequence of the solution with the mass being fixed. Starting with $`a_{}=0`$ (Schwarzschild black hole), spin up the black hole. At $`a_{}=2.3`$, there emerge two branches of black ring solutions with same $`J`$, both have less horizon area than the Kerr black hole. However, for $`a_{}>2.8`$, the horizon area of the larger black ring exceeds that of the Kerr black hole with same $`J`$. Since the horizon area is just the black hole entropy, it means that the five-dimensional Kerr black hole are entropically unfavourable in microcanonical ensemble. Though this is a purely thermodynamical argument, one might wonder the stability of the rapidly rotating black holes, and this is the subject of the present paper.

As a simplest case, we here investigate the massless scalar field in the five-dimensional Kerr background. We formulate in arbitrary dimensions for later convenience, and then concentrate on the five-dimensional case in actual computation. The separability in five-dimensional case has been shown in Ref .

## 2 Kerr metric in higher dimensions

The metric of the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Kerr metric with only one non-zero angular momentum is given in Boyer-Lindquist-type coordinates by

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{2a(r^2+a^2\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}dtd\phi `$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}dr^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }d\vartheta ^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta ,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mu r^{1n},`$ (4)
and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ denotes the standard metric of the unit $`n`$-sphere. This metric describes a rotating black hole in asymptotically flat, empty space-time with mass and angular momentum proportional to $`\mu `$ and $`\mu a`$, respectively. Hereafter, $`\mu ,a>0`$ are assumed.

The event horizon is located at $`r=r_H`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }|_{r=r_H}=0`$, which is homeomorphic to $`S^{2+n}`$. When $`n=1`$, an event horizon exists only when $`a<\sqrt{\mu }`$, and the event horizon shrinks to zero-area in the extreme limit $`a\sqrt{\mu }`$. On the other hand, when $`n2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ has exactly one positive root for arbitrary $`a>0`$. Thus, there are no extreme Kerr black holes in higher dimensions.

## 3 Separation of variables of massless scalar field equations

Here we consider the scalar perturbation on the background metric (2). Fortunately, the massless scalar equation turns out to be separable. We shall just comment that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a test particle is also separable, so that we have so-called the Carter constant in arbitrary dimensions.

We put $`\varphi =e^{i\omega tim\phi }R(r)S(\vartheta )Y(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into the massless scalar field equation $`^2\varphi =0`$, where $`Y(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the hyperspherical harmonics on $`n`$-sphere, of which eigenvalues given by $`j(j+n1)`$ ($`j=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$). Then we obtain the separated equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^n\vartheta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\vartheta }}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^n\vartheta {\displaystyle \frac{dS}{d\vartheta }}\right)+[\omega ^2a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta `$
$`m^2\mathrm{csc}^2\vartheta j(j+n1)\mathrm{sec}^2\vartheta +A]S=0,`$ (5)
and

$`r^n{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^n\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dr}}\right)+\{{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\omega (r^2+a^2)ma\right]^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{j(j+n1)a^2}{r^2}}\lambda \}R=0,`$ (6)
where $`\lambda :=A2m\omega +\omega ^2a^2`$.

We consider the eigenvalue problem of Eqs. (5) and (6) subject to the quasi-normal boundary condition. This boundary condition is given by

$`R(rr_H)^{i\sigma },(rr_H)`$
$`Rr^{(n+2)/2}e^{i\omega r},(r+\mathrm{})`$ (7)
where

$$\sigma :=\frac{(r_H^2+a^2)\omega ma}{(n1)(r_H^2+a^2)+2r_H^2}$$
(8)
has been determined by the asymptotic behavior of the Eq. (6). In other words, the waves are purely ingoing at the horizon and purely outgoing at the infinity.

### 3.1 Possible Unstable Modes

Here we show along the line of Detweiler and Ipser  that the possible unstable mode is restricted to some region of the complex $`\omega `$-plane. We assume that Eqs. (5) and (6) have an unstable eigenmode with frequency $`\omega `$:

$$\omega =\omega _R+i\omega _I,\omega _I<0,$$
(9)
where $`\omega _R`$ and $`\omega _I`$ are the real and imaginary part of $`\omega `$, respectively. Multiplying scalar field equation $`^2\varphi =0`$ by $`r^n\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^n\vartheta \mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi ^{}`$, and integrating over the region outside the event horizon, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \left\{2\omega _R\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(r^2+a^2)+\mu a^2r^{1n}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right]+m\frac{2a\mu r^{1n}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right\}|\varphi |^2r^n\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^n\vartheta drd\vartheta }=0,`$ (10)
and

$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }\{[j(j+n1)(\mathrm{sec}^2\vartheta +{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}})+(\omega _I^2\omega _R^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(r^2+a^2)+\mu a^2r^{1n}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]`$
$`+m\omega _R{\displaystyle \frac{2a\mu r^{1n}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+m^2(\mathrm{csc}^2\vartheta {\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}})]|\varphi |^2+\mathrm{\Delta }|{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{r}}|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\vartheta }}|^2\right\}r^n\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{cos}^n\vartheta drd\vartheta =0.`$ (11)
The Equation (10) implies that $`m\omega _R>0`$ holds when $`m0`$, and $`\omega _R=0`$ when $`m=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ is monotonically increasing function for $`r>r_H`$, we have

$`r^{n1}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }(r^2+a^2)+\mu a^2r^{1n}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \right]`$
$`=r^{n1}\left[(r^2+a^2)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta \right]`$ $``$ $`r^{n1}\left[(r^2+a^2)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right]`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`r^{n+3}+r^{n+1}a^2+\mu a^2`$
$`>`$ $`r_H^{n+3}+r_H^{n+1}a^2+\mu a^2`$
Then, from Eq. (10), the real part of $`\omega `$ turns out to be bounded:

$$|\omega _R|<\frac{|m|a\mu }{r_H^{n+3}+a^2r_H^{n+1}+\mu a^2}=\frac{|m|a}{\mu r_H^{1n}}:=|m|\omega _H.$$
(13)
On the other hand, using a similar inequality

$`r^{n1}[(r^2+a^2)^2a^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta ]`$ $``$ $`r^{n+3}+r^{n+1}a^2+\mu a^2`$ (14)
$``$ $`r_H^{n+3}+r_H^{n+1}a^2+\mu a^2,`$
Eq. (11) leads to the inequality

$`\omega _I^2\omega _R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2a}{r_H^2}}\omega _H,(n1),`$ (15)
$`\omega _I^2(|\omega _R||m|\omega _H)^2,(n=1).`$ (16)
In particular, it turns out that there no unstable mode in the axisymmetric ($`m=0`$) and the Schwarzschild ($`a=0`$) cases. In the non-axisymmetric case, when unstable modes are not ruled out, we rely on the numerical calculation.

## 4 Numerical Computation

Here we employ the continued fraction method  for this problem, which can determine the resonant frequency $`\omega `$ and the separation constant $`A`$ with very high accuracy. We assume the following series expansion for $`S`$

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^j{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_k(\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta )^k,`$ (17)
which automatically satisfies the regular boundary conditions at $`\vartheta =0,\pi /2`$ whenever converges. Substituting this into Eq. (5), we obtain the three-term recurrence relations

$`\alpha _0a_1+\beta _0a_0=0,`$ (18)
$`\alpha _ka_{k+1}+\beta _ka_k+\gamma _ka_{k1}=0,(k=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ (19)
where

$`\alpha _k`$ $`=`$ $`8(k+1)(2j+n+2k+1),`$ (20)
$`\beta _k`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[(j+|m|+2k)(j+n+|m|+2k+1)A\right],`$ (21)
$`\gamma _k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{}^2a_{}^2.`$ (22)
Here we have defined the dimensionless quantity $`\omega _{}:=\omega r_H`$ and $`a_{}:=a/r_h`$, since the behavior of the system depends only on $`a_{}`$. When $`a_{}=0`$, the eigenvalue $`A`$ is explicitly determined from the requirement that the series expansion ends within finite terms, since otherwise divergent. Thus we have

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(2\mathrm{}+j+|m|)(2\mathrm{}+j+|m|+n+1)+O(\omega _{}a_{}),`$ (23)
$`(\mathrm{}=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$
and the 0th-order eigenfunctions are given in terms of the Jacobi polynomials:

$`P_{\mathrm{}jm}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\vartheta )^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta )^j`$
$`\times F(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}+j+|m|+{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}},j+{\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{2}};\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta ).`$
In a similar way, we expand the radial function $`R`$ into the form

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\omega _{}r}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_H}{r_H}}\right)^{i\sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+r_H}{r_H}}\right)^{(n+2)/2i\sigma }`$ (25)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{k}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_H}{r+r_H}}\right)^k,`$
which automatically satisfies the quasi-normal boundary condition, whenever convergent.

When $`n=1`$, substituting Eq. (25) into Eq. (6), we obtain the five-term recurrence relations

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_kb_{k+1}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_kb_k+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_kb_{k1}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_kb_{k2}+\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_kb_{k3}=0,`$ (26)
$`(k=0,1,\mathrm{})`$
where $`b_1=b_2=\mathrm{}=0`$ and coefficients are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k`$ $`=`$ $`4(k+1)(k+1+2i\sigma ),`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k`$ $`=`$ $`64k4(k+1)^2a_{}^24\lambda +32\omega _{}\sigma `$ (28)
$`+i\left[2ma_{}(16k+10+2a_{}^2)\omega _{}\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k`$ $`=`$ $`8k^2+4k11+8j^2a_{}^28\lambda +64\omega _{}\sigma `$ (29)
$`4i(4k1)(2\omega _{}+\sigma ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_k`$ $`=`$ $`8+4k4j^2a_{}^24\lambda +32\omega _{}\sigma `$ (30)
$`4i\left[4(k1)\omega _{}\sigma \right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k`$ $`=`$ $`+(2k3)(2k3+4i\sigma ).`$ (31)
For $`n2`$, the recurrence relations have more terms. In what follows, we restrict ourselves on the $`n=1`$ case as a simple case. The five-term recurrence relations reduce to the four-term ones

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{}b_{k+1}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{}b_k+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{}b_{k1}+\stackrel{~}{\delta }_k^{}b_{k2}=0,(k=0,1,\mathrm{})$$
(32)
via the Gaussian elimination:

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^{}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1,`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_2,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2,\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{\delta }_2,`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k1}^{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k/\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{k1}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k1}^{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k/\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{k1}^{},\stackrel{~}{\delta }_k^{}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k1}^{}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_k/\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{k1}^{},`$ (35)
$`(k=3,4,\mathrm{})`$
The similar procedure

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{},\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^{},`$ (36)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{},\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k1}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\delta }_k^{}/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{k1}^{\prime \prime },`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k1}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\delta }_k^{}/\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{k1}^{\prime \prime },(k=2,3,\mathrm{})`$ (37)
leads to the three-term relations

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{\prime \prime }b_{k+1}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{\prime \prime }b_k+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{\prime \prime }b_{k1}=0.(k=0,1,\mathrm{})$$
(38)
Given the three-term recurrence relations the formal expressions of the ratio of the successive coefficients are obtained in two ways:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_k}{a_{k1}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{k1}}{\alpha _{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{k1}\alpha _{k2}}{\beta _{k2}+}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\alpha _1}{\beta _1+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\alpha _0}{\beta _0}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _k}{\beta _k+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _k\gamma _{k+1}}{\beta _{k1}+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{k+1}\gamma _{k+2}}{\beta _{k2}+}}\mathrm{},`$
where $`(1/x+)(y/z)`$ abbreviates $`1/[x+(y/z)]`$. In a similar manner, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_k^{}}{b_{k^{}1}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k^{}1}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k^{}1}^{\prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k^{}1}^{\prime \prime }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{k^{}1}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k^{}2}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k^{}2}^{\prime \prime }+}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_1^{\prime \prime }+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_0^{\prime \prime }}}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_k^{}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_k^{}^{\prime \prime }+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{k^{}+1}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k^{}1}^{\prime \prime }+}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{k^{}+1}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{k^{}+2}^{\prime \prime }}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{k^{}2}^{\prime \prime }+}}\mathrm{}.`$
For fixed $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$, we have simultaneous equations (39) and (40) for two unknown complex numbers $`\omega _{}`$ and $`A`$. We perform the numerical evaluation of the solutions using a standard nonlinear root search algorithm provided by the MINPACK subroutine package. The equations for different sets of ($`k`$,$`k^{}`$) are used as a numerical check.

In the case of non-rotating black hole, the first eight quasi-normal modes with several values of angular momentum obtained in our computation are plotted in Fig. 1.

Typical examples of quasi-normal modes of the five-dimensional Kerr black holes are plotted in Figs 27, where the Kerr parameter $`a_{}`$ is continuously varied. Here the resonant frequencies are normalized by $`\sqrt{\mu }`$ rather than $`r_H`$, i.e., we work on $`\sqrt{1+a_{}^2}\omega _{}`$-plane. Though the Kerr parameter $`a_{}`$ is taken to be sufficiently large values, each mode does not seem to pass through the real axis of the frequency plane in any cases. The $`m>0`$ branches seem to approach to some points on the real axis, which is a similar behaviour to the four-dimensional case . Though we have searched for unstable modes up to $`|m|,j5`$, they are not found.

## 5 Summary

We have investigated the massless scalar field equation in the higher-dimensional Kerr black hole background. The field equation is separable in arbitrary dimensions. Under the quasi-normal boundary condition, we have searched for the resonant frequencies in the complex $`\omega _{}`$-plane in the case of the five dimensions.

In the Schwarzschild case ($`a_{}=0`$), the resonant frequencies are characterized by $`\mathrm{}`$ and the excitation number $`N`$. For nonzero Kerr parameter, these resonant frequencies split for different sets of $`m`$ and $`j`$. Continuously varying the Kerr parameter $`a_{}`$, we keep track of resonant modes, of which trajectories are characterized by the set of wave numbers: ($`\mathrm{},m,j,N`$). Each trajectory does not pass through the real axis of the complex frequency plane. For $`m>0`$, however, these trajectories seem to approach to points on the real axis of the frequency plane. The corresponding time scale of the resonant oscillation in the limit $`a_{}0`$, in which case the horizon radius shrinks to zero, is characterized by the mass scale $`\mu ^{1/2}`$ rather than the light-crossing time $`r_H`$.

These results show the evidence of the stability of the scalar perturbation of the five-dimensional Kerr black holes.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank R. Emparan, H. Ishihara, H. Kodama, T. Mishima, K. Nakamura, K. Nakao, K. Oda, H. Onozawa, M. Sasaki and T. Shiromizu for useful discussions and comments. D.I. was supported by JSPS Research, and this research was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund (No. 6499).


text:
# Analytic models and forward scattering from accelerator to cosmic-ray energies

## I Introduction

High-energy soft processes are presently a topical problem in high-energy physics, mainly because they are essentially a nonperturbative phenomenon dok . Despite important results at the interface between soft and hard physics and recent progress in nonperturbative QCD, elastic scattering, the simplest soft process, cannot be described in a pure QCD framework, but only in a phenomenological context.

In this area, a variety of models, such as, for example, Regge, Diffraction, QCD-inspired models, and others matthiae , has survived due to a solid theoretical basis and efficiency in describing physical quantities. What is presently well established and accepted concerns some general principles, limits, bounds, and theorems, earlier deduced from the Mandelstam representation, potential scattering, and also from axiomatic field theories eden ; het . In this context, analyticity, unitarity and crossing play central roles and are also the framework of several models referred to above. Among them, the so called analytic models are characterized by parametrizations of the hadronic amplitude through general analytic functions that strictly obey the formal principles and theorems. Specifically, the aim is to investigate two fundamental physical quantities that characterize the forward elastic scattering at high energies, namely, the total cross section $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and the $`\rho `$ parameter (the ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward elastic scattering amplitude). In terms of the scattering amplitude $`F`$ they may be given by

$`\sigma _{tot}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Im}F(s,t=0)}{s}},\rho (s)={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}F(s,t=0)}{\text{Im}F(s,t=0)}},`$ (1)
where $`t`$ is the four-momentum transfer squared and $`s`$ the center-of-mass energy squared. These expressions, in terms of real and imaginary parts of the amplitude, obviously suggest dispersion relations as a suitable formal framework for investigations. For particle-particle and particle-antiparticle interactions, the addition of crossing symmetry extends and completes the analytical approach. It is expected that such a general formalism, avoiding details of the interaction or dynamics, could be a suitable tool in the search for adequate calculational schemes in nonperturbative QCD.

The analytic models have a long history and important results have been obtained through both integral relations idr , for example amaldi ; bc ; ua4/2 ; bertini , and derivative (analyticity) relations ddr ; bks ; kn , for example kn ; kvw ; cudelletall . Recently, much effort has been concentrated in the COMPETE Collaboration (COmputerized Models, Parameter Evaluation for Theory and Experiment), which joined the COMPAS group and others specialists also with outstanding contributions in the area. These authors have investigated a large class of analytic models, through several statistical indicators that complement the usual $`\chi ^2`$ and and $`C.L.`$ criteria. One of the main results is the universality of the $`B\mathrm{ln}^2s/s_0`$ increase of the total cross section for all the collisions considered cudelletall ; competework .

Despite all the experience accumulated and the detailed analyses that have been developed, we understand that three aspects yet need some investigation and this is the main purpose of this work. These aspects are based on the following observations.

Beyond the energy region of the accelerators, experimental information on $`pp`$ total cross sections exists from cosmic-ray experiments. Despite the model dependence involved, the large error bars in the numerical results, and also the existence of discrepant values, some of these results are usually displayed as a support for several model predictions. However, this set of experimental information is not usually taken into account in explicitly quantitative analyses that could provide, for example, bounds for the increase of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\rho `$ (and, consequently, the intercept of exchanged trajectories) or for the differences between $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ total cross sections (for exceptions, see bjp01 ; alm ). Moreover, as will be discussed in some detail, several results obtained by different authors, through different approaches, indicate nearly the same increase of $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ and this increase is faster than usually believed or accepted.

In general, the fits are performed with the full hadronic amplitude, that is, simultaneous fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\rho `$. Although some authors correctly claim that this procedure maximizes the number of data points, it must first be recalled that important results have been obtained through fits to only the $`\sigma _{tot}`$data; a classical example is the approach by Donnachie and Landshoff dl . Moreover, as will be discussed, in the bulk of experimental data available, $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$have different status as physical quantities, since $`\rho `$is estimated either by extrapolations through dispersion relations (and fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$data), or as a fit parameter to the differential cross section in the region of Coulomb-nuclear interference, and this is a delicate problem. Finally, since from the previous observation we shall also be interested in the high-energy cosmic-ray results, which concern only $`\sigma _{tot}`$(and not $`\rho `$), global fits may constrain the possible increase of this quantity.

The connection between $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\rho `$ through standard dispersion relations demands one subtraction idr . Although the subtraction constant works as a fit parameter in traditional analysis amaldi ; bc ; ua4/2 ; bertini , it does not appear in the approach by the COMPETE Collaboration, since the derivative relation or prescription used does not involve subtraction constant. Once the analytical approach demands fits to experimental data and the free parameters involved are all correlated, it is expected that the presence or not of the subtraction constant may lead to different results.

The aim of this work is to investigate the above three observations and their inter-connections in a quantitative way. To this end, we shall analyze only $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ elastic scattering, since for particle and antiparticle interactions they correspond to the highest energy interval with available data and are the only set including the cosmic-ray information on total cross sections ($`pp`$ scattering). We shall use as framework two well known analytic models characterized by distinct asymptotic inputs, the Pomeron-Reggeon model by Donnachie and Landshoff dl  and the maximal Odderon model in the form discussed by Kang and Nicolescu kn . For the connections between real and imaginary parts of the forward amplitude we shall use derivative (analyticity) relations with one subtraction. Observation 1 is treated by the selection of two different ensembles of data from cosmic-ray results, observation 2 through individual and simultaneous fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$, and observation 3 by treating the subtraction constant as a free fit parameter or assuming that its value is zero.

The manuscript is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present the experimental data to be analyzed and the criteria for the selection of two ensembles of data. In Sec. III we review the main formulas in the analytical approach, including the dispersion relations, the models to be used and some high-energy theorems. The fits and results for all the cases considered are presented in Sec. IV and the conclusions and final remarks in Sec. V.

## II Experimental information and ensembles

In this section we review the experimental information that constitutes our data base (accelerator and cosmic-ray regions), together with discussions concerning the differences in the determination of $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$, as well as the model dependences and discrepancies related to all the cosmic-ray information presently available. The criteria for selecting two ensembles of data are also presented and justified in detail.

### II.1 Accelerator data

In the case of accelerator experiments, data on $`\sigma _{tot}`$ from $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering and extracted values for the $`\rho `$ parameter have been accumulated for a long time. Presently, experimental information extends up to $`62.5`$ GeV and $`1.8`$ TeV for $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering, respectively. The database, analyzed and compiled by the Particle Data Group (PDG), has become a standard reference and the corresponding readable files are available pdg . Since recent analysis has shown that general fits to these data are stable for $`\sqrt{s}`$ above $``$ 9 GeV cudelletall , we shall use here the sets for energies above $`10`$ GeV; in our analysis the statistic and systematic errors are added linearly.

At this point, we briefly recall some differences in the determination of $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$matthiae , which suggest that they do not have the same status as physical quantities; this, in turn, corroborates our motivation to investigate global and individual fits separately.

First, one of the methods that was used to extract $`\sigma _{tot}`$at the ISR did not depend on the $`\rho `$value, but only on the machine luminosity and the rates of elastic and inelastic interactions. Therefore in these determinations $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$are independent quantities. Other methods demand the determination of $`\rho `$and the elastic scattering rate at small momentum transfer, extrapolated to the forward direction (slope parameter). In these cases, the quantities to be determined correspond to $`\sigma _{tot}^2(1+\rho ^2)`$ (luminosity dependent) or $`\sigma _{tot}(1+\rho ^2)`$ (luminosity independent) matthiae . In both cases, since it is known that $`\rho <0.14`$, $`\sigma _{tot}`$may be obtained with reasonable accuracy even with a rough estimation of the $`\rho `$parameter. Specifically, some authors use the $`\rho `$value extrapolated from fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$and dispersion relations; in the other procedure, $`\rho `$is determined from fits to the differential cross section data in the region of Coulomb-nuclear interference. In this case the determination is model dependent and it is interesting to note that the procedure, in the last instance, demands knowledge of how the hadronic exchanged object interacts, which is exactly what is looked for. This point seems clear in the Donnachie-Landshoff approach, since the authors do not use the $`\rho `$data as input. We understand that all these facts reinforce the differences in the determination of $`\rho `$and $`\sigma _{tot}`$, putting some limits on the interpretation of $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$as physical quantities with the same status. Beyond these motivations for discriminating between individual and global fits, we add our interest in investigating cosmic-ray information, which concerns only $`\sigma _{tot}`$and not $`\rho `$.

### II.2 Cosmic ray information

For $`pp`$ collisions, the total cross section may also be inferred from cosmic-ray experiments and estimations exist in the high-energy interval $`\sqrt{s}=640`$ TeV. The procedure is model dependent and different analyses lead to different results, as briefly reviewed in what follows.

The extraction of the proton-proton total cross section is based on the determination of the proton-air production cross section from analysis of extensive air showers. Detailed reviews on the subtleties involved may be found in Refs. gaisser ; engel ; gsy . Here we recall only the two main steps, stressing the model dependence involved.

The first step concerns the determination of the proton-air production cross section, namely, the “inelastic cross section in which at least one new hadron is produced in addition to nuclear fragments” engel . This is obtained by the formulas

$`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}(\text{mb})={\displaystyle \frac{2.4\times 10^4}{\lambda _{p\text{-}air}(\text{g/cm}^2)}},\lambda _{p\text{-}air}(\text{g/cm}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{att}}{k}},`$
where $`\lambda _{p\text{-}air}`$ is the interaction length of protons in the atmosphere, $`\lambda _{att}`$ is the shower attenuation length, and the inelasticity coefficient $`k`$ is a measure of the dissipation of energy through the shower. $`\lambda _{att}`$ is an experimental quantity determined through the $`\chi _{max}`$ attenuation method or the zenith angle attenuation technique sokolsky . On the other hand, the coefficient $`k`$ is model dependent and obtained through Monte Carlo simulation; roughly $`k1.51`$ ($`k>1`$) when going from Feynman scaling models to strongly scaling violation models in the fragmentation region engel .

In a second step $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ is obtained from $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}`$ through the multiple diffraction formalism (MDF) by Glauber and Matthiae gm , and taking into account the different processes and effects in the p-air total cross section:

$`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{tot}=\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}+\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{el}+\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{q\text{-}el}+\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,`$
where $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{qel}`$ concerns the quasielastic excitation of the nucleus and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ is the Gribov screening correction due to multiple scattering grib69 .

Two important inputs at this point are the nucleon distribution function and a relation between the slope parameter $`B`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$, necessary in the parametrization of the scattering amplitude:

$`F_{pp}(s,t)\sigma _{tot}^{pp}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{B(s)t}{2}}\right\}.`$
With the screening correction, the MDF allows the determination of all the above cross sections and from the strong correlation between $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}\sigma _{tot}^{pp}B`$ the $`pp`$ total cross section may eventually be estimated (for more details, see engel ; gsy ).

The results presently available from cosmic-ray experiments, in the above energy region, are characterized by discrepancies, mainly due to the model dependence of $`k`$ and $`B(s)`$. Before reviewing these results, it is important to draw attention to two facts. First, as is well known, discrepancies also characterize some $`\sigma _{tot}`$data from accelerator experiments at the highest energies, for example, at $`541546`$ GeV and mainly at $`1.8`$ TeV. Second, when performing quantitative analyses, it is fundamental to select as complete a set of information as possible, or at least those obtained in similar circumstances or bases. In the case of cosmic-ray information, it is important to stress that there is no experimental determination of $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$, since all the results are model dependent. Therefore they cannot be distinguished in terms of an “experimental” status and all the information available must be considered.

Despite the model dependence involved, we can classify the complete set of cosmic-ray information available according to the inputs or procedures used and, simultaneously, by the value of the total cross section extracted, as explained in what follows.

On one hand the results usually quoted in the literature concern those obtained by the Fly’s Eye Collaboration in 1984 fly  and Akeno (AGASA) Collaboration in 1993 akeno . In the first case, the authors used $`k=1.6`$ (Feynman scaling model), a relation of proportionality between $`B`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$, namely, the geometrical scaling model jorge , and a Gaussian profile distribution for the nucleus. At $`\sqrt{s}=30`$ TeV, from the value $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}=540\pm 50`$ mb, they extracted $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=120\pm 15`$ mb fly . The Akeno Collaboration used $`k=1.5`$ (Feynman scaling model) and the Durand and Pi approach dp1  to extract the proton-proton cross sections in the region $`\sqrt{s}620`$ TeV. We shall return to these results later on.

On the other hand, in 1987 Gaisser, Sukhatme, and Yodh (GSY) making use of the Fly’s Eye result for $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}^{prod}`$, as an estimate of the lowest allowed values for $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$, and the Chou-Yang prescription for $`B(s)`$ cy83  obtained $`\sigma _{pp}^{tot}=175_{27}^{+40}`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}=40`$ TeV gsy . In 1993, Nikolaev claimed that the Akeno results should be corrected in order to take into account the differences between absorption and inelastic cross sections, leading to an increase of the results by $`30`$ mb niko . The analysis by Nikolaev was also motivated by previous results from a QCD model of the Pomeron knp .

At this point some fundamental facts concerning all these results must be stressed. First, as reviewed above, the Fly’s Eye and Akeno results for $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ are as model dependent as those by Nikolaev and GSY and therefore cannot be considered as experimental results; what can and must be discussed is the class of model used in each case. In this sense, we first note that since the Fly’s Eye Collaboration used the geometrical scaling hypothesis, which is violated even at the collider energy, their result is probably wrong. Second, in 1990, Durand and Pi asserted in Ref. dp2  that their results published in 1988 dp1 , and used by the Akeno Collaboration akeno , should be disregarded due to a wrong approximation concerning fluctuations. The new results presented in dp2  (Fig. 11 in that paper) introduced significant changes in the scenario. For example, for $`\sigma _{pair}550`$ mb, the Akeno result with the method by Durand and Pi dp1  was $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=124`$ mb and from Fig. 11 in Ref. dp2  the value extracted is $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=137`$ mb, that is, an increase of $`11\%`$; to the Fly’s Eye published point fly , the corresponding value is $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=135`$ mb dp2 , that is, an increase of $`13\%`$. However, to our knowledge no other publication by Durand and Pi on the subject appeared in the literature. Finally, it should be stressed that the Chou-Yang prescription, used by Gaisser, Sukhatme, and Yodh, is somewhat model independent and, also to our knowledge, the results by these authors together with those by Nikolaev have never been criticized, despite the intrinsic model dependence involved. In conclusion, we understand that all these facts, not usually discussed in the literature, suggest an increase of the total cross section faster than indicated by the Akeno and Fly’s Eye results and that this indication has a reasonable basis.

It should also be recalled that, more recently, Block, Halzen, and Stanev (BHS) obtained estimations for $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ from $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}`$ bhs , through a QCD-inspired model qcdim  and the MDF. In the analysis, the inelasticity coefficient $`k`$ is considered as a free parameter, determined through a global fit, including $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ accelerator data and the published results on the $`p\text{-}air`$ cross section bhs . Specifically, $`k`$ is determined in a way that their predictions for $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$ (asymptotically) matches $`\sigma _{p\text{-}air}`$ through the MDF. The resulting value $`k1.35`$ seems to be in accord with those obtained by combinations of different simulation programs, namely, $`k1.151.30`$ pryke . The extracted $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)`$ at the cosmic-ray energies shows agreement with the Akeno results and is about $`17`$ mb below the Fly’s Eye value at $`30`$ TeV.

The numbers associated with all the above cosmic-ray estimations of $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ are displayed in Table 1. Despite the importance and originality of the approach by BHS, we shall not include it in our analysis, because they are in agreement with the Akeno results (Table 1) that will be used. However we will treat this case in further work. With the exception of the BHS results, all the other cosmic-ray estimates discussed above together with the accelerator results are displayed in Fig. 1.

### II.3 Ensembles

From Fig. 1 we see that, despite the large error bars in the cosmic-ray region, we can identify two distinct set of estimations: one represented by the results of the Fly’s Eye Collaboration together with those by the Akeno Collaboration; the other by the results of Gaisser, Sukhatme, and Yodh with those by Nikolaev, which follow the higher estimates by Durand and Pi dp2 . Taken separately these two sets suggest different scenarios for the increase of the total cross section, as already claimed before bjp01 ; alm ; mm .

Based on these considerations, we shall investigate the behavior of the total cross section by taking into account the discrepancies that characterize the cosmic ray information and, to this end, we shall consider two ensembles of data and experimental information with the following notation:

$``$ Ensemble I: $`\overline{p}p`$ accelerator data and $`pp`$ accelerator data + Akeno + Fly’s Eye;

$``$ Ensemble II: $`\overline{p}p`$ accelerator data and $`pp`$ accelerator data + Nikolaev + GSY.

To some extent, ensemble I represents a kind of high-energy standard picture and ensemble II a nonstandard one. However, the consistence among the results by Nikolaev and GSY must be stressed , in addition to their agreement with the last results by Durand and Pi (Fig. 11 in Ref. dp2 ). We add also that, from the discussion in Sec. II B, both ensembles seem equally probable.

## III Analytical Approach

In this section we first review the essential formulas in the derivative dispersion approach and recall some fundamental theorems and high-energy bounds. The parametrizations that characterize the analytical models to be used in the next section are also presented.

### III.1 Analyticity relations

For $`pp`$ and $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering, analyticity and crossing symmetry allow us to connect $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ and $`\rho (s)`$ through two compact and symmetric formulas:

$`\rho ^{pp}\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)=E(\sigma _+)+O(\sigma _{}),`$ (2)
$`\rho ^{\overline{p}p}\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)=E(\sigma _+)O(\sigma _{}),`$ (3)
where

$`\sigma _\pm (s)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{tot}^{pp}\pm \sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}}{2}},`$ (4)
and $`E(\sigma _+)`$,$`O(\sigma _{})`$ are analytic transforms relating the real and imaginary parts of crossing even and odd amplitudes, respectively. These analyticity relations are usually expressed in an integral form and in the case of the forward direction the standard once subtracted integral dispersion relations may be expressed by idr ; bc

$`E_{int}(\sigma _+){\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{s_o}^{\mathrm{}}}ds^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2s^2}}\right]\sigma _+(s^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}F_+(s)}{s}},`$ (5)
$`O_{int}(\sigma _{}){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{s_o}^{\mathrm{}}}ds^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^{}}{s^2s^2}}\right]\sigma _{}(s^{})={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}F_{}(s)}{s}},`$ (6)
where $`K`$ is the subtraction constant. Since we shall be interested in the high-energy region, we used in the above formulas the c.m. energy, instead of the laboratory energy and momentum idr ; bc .

At sufficiently high energies integral analyticity relations may be replaced by derivative forms, usually called analyticity relations, which are more useful for practical calculations. In these formulas, differentiation with respect to the logarithm of the energy occurs in the argument of a trigonometric operator expressed by its series ddr ; bks ; kn . Here we shall use the standard form deduced by Bronzan, Kane, and Sukhatme bks  (see also bjp01 ; mmp ), obtained from the integral form in the high-energy limit:

$`E_{der}(\sigma _+){\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+\mathrm{tan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right]\sigma _+(s)={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}F_+(s)}{s}},`$
$`O_{der}(\sigma _{})\mathrm{tan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right)\right]\sigma _{}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}F_{}(s)}{s}}.`$
Operationally these transforms may be evaluated through the expansions

$`E_{der}(\sigma _+){\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}=[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right)^5+...]\sigma _+(s),`$ (7)
$`O_{der}(\sigma _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left\{\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}\left[\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}\right)\right]\sigma _{}(s)\right\}d\mathrm{ln}s}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle }\left\{[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{45}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}s}}\right)^4...]\sigma _{}(s)\right\}d\mathrm{ln}s.`$
This completes the analytical approach: with an input parametrization for $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$, Eqs. (1)-(4) allow, in principle, the determination of $`\rho (s)`$, by means of either the integral forms Eqs. (5)-(6) or the derivative (analyticity) ones Eqs. (7)-(8).

### III.2 Theorems at high energies

For future reference, we briefly recall here two rigorous high-energy results for the asymptotic behavior of the cross sections. The Froissart-Martin bound states that as $`s\mathrm{}`$ froi ; mart

$`\sigma _{tot}C\mathrm{ln}^2s,`$
and, according to the generalized form of the Pomeranchuk theorem eden ; grutru , if the Froissart-Martin bound is reached the difference between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ total cross sections goes as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}=\sigma _{tot}^{p\overline{p}}\sigma _{tot}^{pp}c{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}+\sigma _{tot}^{pp}}{\mathrm{ln}s}},`$
which means that the difference may increase as $`\mathrm{ln}s`$. From Eq. (4), this difference is given by the crossing odd component

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}(s)=2\sigma _{}(s),`$
and therefore, if the Froissart-Martin bound is saturated, a rigorous result is that, asymptotically, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ is controlled by the odd component and the maximum contribution is given by $`\sigma _{}^{max}(s)=\mathrm{ln}s`$. This corresponds to one of the variants of the Odderon picture odd ; kn  and the increase as $`\mathrm{ln}s`$ is the maximum Odderon hypothesis. If the odd contribution in the imaginary part of the amplitude is not present at the highest energies, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}=0`$. The possible effects in the real part will be discussed in what follows.

### III.3 Analytic models

In the formulas that follows we denote $`s/s^{}`$ with $`s^{}=1`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> by $`s`$. We shall consider two different parametrizations for the total cross section, the main difference being the asymptotic limits, which allow the dominance of an even or odd amplitude.

#### III.3.1  Donnachie-Landshoff

The Donnachie-Landshoff (DL) parametrizations for the total cross sections are expressed by dl

$`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)=Xs^ϵ+Ys^\eta ,\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)=Xs^ϵ+Zs^\eta ,`$ (9)
where, originally, $`X=21.7`$ mb, $`Y=56.08`$ mb, $`Z=98.39`$ mb, $`ϵ=0.0808`$, and $`\eta =0.4525`$. We observe that this model predicts that the difference between the two cross sections is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)=(ZY)s^\eta 0(\mathrm{asymptotically}).`$
Through the formalism described in Sec. III A, substitution of the parametrizations (9) into Eq. (4) and then in Eqs. (5)-(6) with $`s_0=0`$ or Eqs. (7)-(8) gives

$`E(\sigma _+)={\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+\left[X\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ϵ}{2}}\right)\right]s^ϵ\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(Y+Z)}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right)\right]s^\eta ,`$
$`O(\sigma _{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(YZ)}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right)\right]s^\eta ,`$
and from Eqs. (2)-(3) we obtain the analytical expressions for $`\rho (s)`$:

$`\rho ^{pp}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+\left[X\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ϵ}{2}}\right)\right]s^ϵ+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(YZ)}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(Y+Z)}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right)\right]s^\eta \right\},`$ (10)
$`\rho ^{\overline{p}p}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+\left[X\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ϵ}{2}}\right)\right]s^ϵ+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(ZY)}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(Y+Z)}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right)\right]s^\eta \right\}.`$ (11)
Since in this model $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma 0`$ asymptotically, for $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}=\sigma _{tot}^{pp}\sigma _{tot}`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\rho ^{\overline{p}p}\rho ^{pp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}(s)}}(ZY)\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \eta }{2}}\right)s^\eta 0\mathrm{as}s\mathrm{}.`$
#### III.3.2 Kang-Nicolescu

The parametrizations for the total cross sections used by Kang and Nicolescu (KN) under the hypothesis of the Odderon odd  are expressed by kn

$`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)=A_1+B_1\mathrm{ln}s+k\mathrm{ln}^2s,\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)=A_2+B_2\mathrm{ln}s+k\mathrm{ln}^2s+2Rs^{1/2}.`$ (12)
Differently from the previous case, this model predicts that the difference between the two cross sections is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}(s)`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}(s)=(A_2A_1)+(B_2B_1)\mathrm{ln}s+2Rs^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }A+\mathrm{\Delta }B\mathrm{ln}s(\mathrm{asymptotically}),`$
so that, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }A0`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Delta }B0`$, the total cross section difference may increase and $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ may even become greater than $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$, depending on the values and signs of $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, which is formally in agreement with the theorems of Sec. III B.

With a similar procedure as in the previous model the use of the analyticity relations (7)-(8) leads to

$`E(\sigma _+)={\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1+B_2}{2}}\right)+\pi k\mathrm{ln}sRs^{1/2},`$
$`O(\sigma _{})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_2A_1}{\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}s+\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_2B_1}{2\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2sRs^{1/2},`$
and from Eqs. (2)-(3)

$`\rho ^{pp}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{pp}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1+B_2}{2}}\right)+\left(\pi k+{\displaystyle \frac{A_2A_1}{\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}s+\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_2B_1}{2\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2s2Rs^{1/2}\right\},`$ (14)
$`\rho ^{\overline{p}p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{K}{s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_1+B_2}{2}}\right)+\left(\pi k{\displaystyle \frac{A_2A_1}{\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}s\left({\displaystyle \frac{B_2B_1}{2\pi }}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2s\right\}.`$ (15)
In this case, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ are sufficiently small, so that we may replace $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}\sigma _{tot}^{pp}\sigma _{tot}(s)`$, then, asymptotically,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\rho ^{\overline{p}p}\rho ^{pp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \sigma _{tot}(s)}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }A\mathrm{ln}s+\mathrm{\Delta }B\mathrm{ln}^2s\right\}.`$ (16)
This means that, depending on the fit results, there may be a change of sign in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$, with $`\rho ^{pp}`$ becoming greater than $`\rho ^{\overline{p}p}`$ at some finite energy.

All these possibilities for a change of sign in the differences between $`\overline{p}p`$ and $`pp`$ total cross sections and/or the $`\rho `$ parameters are based on the concept of the Odderon odd ; the case of a change of sign in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ was early discussed by Bernard, Gauron, and Nicolescu bgn  and that in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ by Gauron, Nicolescu, and Leader gnl . They are associated with the condition that the maximal odderon dominates the imaginary or real part of the amplitude, respectively.

## IV Fitting of the data and results

In order to investigate all the points raised in Sec. I and their possible interconnections, we perform 16 different fits through the program CERN-MINUIT. In these fits we use both ensembles I and II defined in Sec. II and both the DL and KN models described in Sec. III. For each of these four possibilities we perform global and individual fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$and, in each case, we either consider the subtraction constant $`K`$ as a free fit parameter or assume $`K=0`$.

In the individual approach we first fit only the total cross section data and then extract the corresponding $`\rho (s)`$ in the case of $`K=0`$, or, with the results for $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$, we fit only the $`\rho `$ data with $`K`$ as a free fit parameter.

The numerical results of the fits and statistical information are all displayed in Tables II and III for the DL and KN models, respectively. The corresponding curves together with the experimental data are shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 for the DL model and Figs. 5, 6, and 7 for the KN model.

## V Conclusions and final remarks

We shall focus our conclusions and present some discussion on the following five points.

Ensembles I and II. The figures corresponding to fits to the total cross section data show that, in general, the results with ensembles I and II do not differ substantially, except in the case of individual fits with the KN model \[Fig. 5.(a)\]. Also, the cosmic-ray information in ensemble II (Nikolaev and GSY) is not described in all the cases. This is a consequence of the small number of points and the large error bars in comparison with the accelerator data, as well as the choices for the parametrizations (the models used). However, we must stress that, despite being a nonstandard result, the cosmic-ray information in ensemble II has a reasonable basis, as discussed in Sec. II B. Certainly, more precise data are necessary for a truly conclusive result, but, at present, it seems reasonable and interesting to investigate the semiquantitative consequences of this nonstandard possibility.

Based on these ideas, in what follows, we shall consider the results with both ensembles. However, it must also be noted that some of the conclusions that follow are independent of the ensemble used, such as those concerning global vs individual fits and the role of the subtraction constant.

Bounds for the pomeron intercept. With the DL model and the cosmic-ray information in ensembles I and II, we may infer some novel limit values for the soft Pomeron intercept $`\alpha _{𝙸𝙿}(0)=1+ϵ`$. From Table II the highest (lowest) $`ϵ`$ value was obtained with ensemble II (I), in the case of individual fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$(global fits to $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$), namely,

$`ϵ_{\mathrm{upper}}=0.094\mathrm{and}ϵ_{\mathrm{lower}}=0.079.`$

Odderon. In the case of individual fits with the KN model, Table III and Fig. 5 show that with ensemble II the model predicts a crossing in $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$, so that $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}`$ becomes greater than $`\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}`$ above $`\sqrt{s}50`$ GeV: $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=5\pm 3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B0`$ (Sec. II C). However, as shown in Fig. 5, in this case the $`\rho (s)`$ data are not described ($`K=0`$ or $`K`$ as a free parameter).

On the other hand, Table III shows that, in the case of global fits with both ensembles I and II, statistically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }A=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=0`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{tot}=\sigma _{tot}^{\overline{p}p}\sigma _{tot}^{pp}=0`$. However, from Figs. 6 and 7, we see that, in both case, $`K=0`$ and $`K`$ as a free parameter, this model predicts a crossing in the $`\rho (s)`$ behavior, with $`\rho _{pp}`$ becoming greater than $`\rho _{\overline{p}p}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}7080`$ GeV (for $`K=0`$) and $`\sqrt{s}6070`$ GeV (for $`K`$ a free parameter), a result in agreement with the early fits by Gauron, Nicolescu, and Leader gnl . Most important, these results are also in complete agreement with all the experimental data presently available on $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$and are independent of the ensemble used. This is certainly an interesting and important prediction that will be verified at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) exp .

Individual and global fits. From Tables II and III, with the exception of the individual fit to ensemble II with the KN model and $`K`$ as a free parameter, the statistical information does not indicate a preference between individual or global fits.

On the other hand, global fits clearly constrain the possible increase of the total cross section. For example, in the case of the DL model, with both ensembles I and II and $`K=0`$, we obtained

$`ϵ_{\text{indi}}^\text{I}0.088ϵ_{\text{simul}}^\mathrm{I}0.081(\text{reduction}9\%)`$

,

$`ϵ_{\text{indi}}^{\text{II}}0.091ϵ_{\text{simul}}^{\text{II}}0.083(\text{reduction}10\%)`$

.

As discussed previously, $`\sigma _{tot}`$and $`\rho `$do not have the same status as physical quantities, since the extracted $`\rho `$value is model dependent. Therefore, in principle, we understand that global fits underestimate the possible rise of $`\sigma _{tot}`$in the asymptotic region. In our analysis the effects of the global and individual fits depend also on the subtraction constant, as discussed in what follows.

Subtraction constant. As commented before, if $`K`$ is taken as a free parameter, the fit procedure demands that it is correlated with all the other parameters of the model involved. Therefore, in principle, it is expected to have effects in both the low- and high-energy regions. Let us discuss our results through individual and global fits.

In the case of individual fits with the DL model, Fig. 2 shows that the results for $`\rho (s)`$ with $`K=0`$ and $`K`$ free are nearly the same above $`\sqrt{s}40`$ GeV and that below this energy the predictions are quite different. We shall not discuss the corresponding results with the KN model, since the data are not described (Fig. 5).

In the case of global fits with the DL model, beyond the differences in $`\rho (s)`$, here below $`\sqrt{s}40`$ GeV, the asymptotic values of $`\sigma _{tot}(s)`$ are different, namely, from Table II,

$`ϵ_{K=0}^\text{I}=0.081\pm 0.002\text{and}ϵ_{K\text{free}}^\text{I}=0.083\pm 0.02(\text{increase}2.5\%),`$

$`ϵ_{K=0}^{\text{II}}=0.083\pm 0.002\text{and}ϵ_{K\text{free}}^{\text{II}}=0.084\pm 0.02(\text{increase}1.2\%).`$

In particular, with ensemble I, for $`pp`$ scattering at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV the fits indicate $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}101`$ mb for $`K=0`$ and $`\sigma _{tot}^{pp}104`$ mb for $`K`$ as a free parameter. On the other hand, for global fits, the KN model is not so sensitive to the influence of the subtraction constant at least for $`\rho (s)`$ above $`\sqrt{s}20`$ GeV, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Therefore, in general, the subtraction constant affects the fit results in both the low- and high-energy regions. Since it is mathematically justified in order to control the convergence of the integral (or derivative) dispersion relation, we understand that the subtraction constant cannot be neglected in the analytical approach.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are thankful to FAPESP for financial support (Contracts No. 00/13490-6, 00/00991-7, and No. 00/04422-7). We are also thankful to Professor M. M. Block for sending us the BHS results (Table I) and to Dr. J. Montanha Neto for a critical reading of the manuscript.