text:
# Coherent quasielastic neutron scattering and correlations between rotational jumps of molecules on a periodic lattice

## I Introduction

In a recent paper we calculated the coherent quasielastic neutron-scattering signal that results from $`n`$-fold rotational jumps of $`N`$ molecules periodically arranged on the sites of a $`d`$-dimensional solid-state lattice, by applying a previously described method. The jumping molecules themselves do not need to have $`n`$-fold symmetry. As a physical visualization of the present problem we could mention the array of nonadecane molecules hosted by an urea inclusion compound. (Such molecules have CH3 end groups of three-fold symmetry, but the entire molecule has no such symmetry).

In a first approach, we assumed that the molecules are jumping independently, leaving open the question: What could happen if the relaxational motions of neighbouring molecules cease to be uncorrelated? We anticipated that in that case coherent quasielastic neutron scattering might be able to evidence possible correlations. In the present paper we address this possibility, understanding the word correlation in the sense that within connected sets of a given size and shape all molecules jump simultaneously in some phase or anti-phase relations, like in a cog-wheel mechanism. In the paper we will use the word “clusters” to refer to these sets. Assuming further that the relaxation times for these combined jumps do not depend on the momentaneous orientations of the molecules inside (and outside) the cluster, we come to the astounding (and disappointing) conclusion that such correlations do not leave a fingerprint in the structure factors of the ensuing coherent dynamical signal. (See the abstract or below for a more precise formulation of the restrictions). In other words: It is impossible to extract information on the presence and/or the nature of such correlations from coherent quasielastic neutron scattering signals alone.

Let us point out where the surprise lies. Quite often, if we calculate the total structure factor for such dynamics within a single isolated cluster, we will be able to detect the presence of such correlations, as we do not find the same answer as for the jump dynamics of a single molecule. Even when the cluster is not isolated, highly correlated rotors still can be expected to manifest themselves very differently in reciprocal space than randomly independent rotors, e.g. in a linear chain anticorrelated configurations produced by the dynamics would manifest themselves at the $`Q`$-value corresponding to the zone boundary of the reciprocal lattice. Indeed, the correlated dynamics can give rise to static correlations between the orientations of the molecules, that should be observable. How is our result then possible? This question resumes one of the counter-intuitive aspects of our result.

The snag is that the clusters we consider can be centered on any point of the crystal lattice, such that two clusters situated on neighbouring points can overlap. If the cog-wheels of two such points have ground in succession then the rotations involved in the second move will partly undo the static correlations that existed between the molecules after the first move. In such kind of dynamics the correlations are no longer as all-out that we can call them “ferro” or “anti-ferro” (as in the example of anti-correlated configurations above). To complicate things further, they are not necessarily zero eighter. They can be of an intermediate strength. How the story unwinds further, really will depend on the specific dynamics defined within the cog-wheel mechanism. E.g. it is conceivable that in certain dynamical models the memory of the initial static correlations in a single cluster (or in the crystal), eventually are totally washed out with time, due to the game of overlapping clusters. We then have a different situation than the one evoked for a problem of an isolated cluster where the static correlations might persist indefinitely. Equally conceivable are other models, where such a total loss of memory does not occur.

We will distinguish two mutually exclusive possibilities: (1) The loss of memory with time is total, such that starting from any initial configuration that one could obtain by independent dynamics we can stray to any other configuration that could be obtained by independent dynamics. We will call this the ergodic case. (2) On the contrary, in the non-ergodic case not all configurations can be reached. The configuration space that applied for the independent dynamics then splits up in several disjoint subsets. Only one of these is the set of possible states of the sample under study. All other states just do not exist in the sample.***Classifying the system according to this distinction was not motivated by the physics. This choice mainly reflects the limits of our abilities to perform certain calculations. The distinction we make codes information about what happens to the system at infinite times: The correlations are eventually lost or otherwise. Nothing is stated about correlations that might persist for finite times. Despite this lack of information about the situation at finite times, in case (1) we will be able to infer an impossibility to discern indications for the presence of correlations within the dynamical signal.

Neutron scattering calculations involve an average over all possible initial states. In the ergodic case, this averaging will run over the same set of initial states as in the case of independent dynamics. In the non-ergodic case, the set is smaller. We are able to prove that this kind of averaging over all possible configurations of the molecules in the ergodic case is able to iron out the signature of a correlation that was present in the dynamics of an isolated cluster in reciprocal space, i.e. we recover the result for a single molecule. In the non-ergodic case, we average over a smaller set of possible states. This kind of weaker averaging does not permit us to assert that we would recover the result for a single molecule. That is the result of our paper.

At this point it is perhaps instrumental to summarize the situation at the hand of an example. Let us take a linear chain whose 2N molecules can take only two orientations (which we can call pseudospins). We suppose that the dynamics is given by some rule that two neighbour sites can flip simultaneously their pseudospins (by two-fold rotations). If this rule defines permanent dimers in the sense that only molecules 1+2, 3+4, 5+6, etc. can turn simultaneously, then we are in the presence of a strong correlation. The presence of such dimers is immediately obvious on an instaneous photograph of the system and will leave an unmistakeable fingerprint in the dynamics. That is the case we are all familiar with. And it is on this case that we all built our intuition.

We render the situation far more subtle by allowing the dimers to be dissociated by the game of overlapping clusters.There is then no longer equivalence between the concepts of a dimer and of a (dynamical) cluster as it is used by us in this paper. We use the terminology “dynamical cluster” to indicate the presence of a dynamical correlation, and to define sets of molecules that are supposed to be able to turn together, while the terminology “dimer” indicates the presence of a fixed orientational relationship between two molecules. Our use of the word “cluster” has also nothing to do with the idea of a domain wherein all molecules would have some special orientational relationships, e.g. to be aligned in a parallel fashion as in a ferromagnet. Our definition of the word cluster is a purely mathematical one. It is thus different from the usual intuitive physical idea. Let us first consider a simultaneous flip of the molecules on sites 1 and 2 (starting from a completely aligned configuration). That introduces a correlation. Now assume that an analogous flip involving sites 2 and 3 follows. Will this remove the “correlation”, as the “image” of the initial “dimer” has been destroyed? The answer is (here) that some less conspicuous correlation remains. Due to the construction of the model there will always be an even number of flipped pseudospins. How weak it ever might be, this is a (static) correlation that will never disappear from the model. In fact, due to the persistence of these static correlations, the system is not ergodic and does not fulfil the assumptions that are underlying our paper. But in this very specific case it happens that we can actually prove that the model does not yield the same neutron answer as a system with totally uncorrelated molecules. One can easily check this by using our method of calculation on a small toy model and exploiting the fact that the configuration space for the uncorrelated case splits into two disjoint subsets when we introduce the dynamical correlations. But if in another type of dynamical model the configuration space were not to split, then we will be able to assert with certainty that the dynamical signal will not offer clues as to the presence of the dynamical correlations.

## II Motivation of the use of our method

A many reader might find the mathematical leap we will take to configuration space too cumbersome and too much of a fuss to his taste. Is all this really necessary? Part of the answer may reside in the following warning against a possible confusion. Consider the following (fallacious) argument. When we look at an instantaneous photograph of an ergodic system, the orientations of the molecules will in general look completely random. From this observation it takes only one step to argue that the “correlations are random”. Would that not show that our result is trivial? The problem is that the word “correlation” occurs with several different meanings in this context. The (spatial) static correlations between the orientations of the molecules that would be visible in an instantaneous photograph of the sample may well be random.In diffraction studies static correlations lead to diffuse scattering. It is perhaps tempting to invert this implication in the sense that absence of static correlations implies absence of diffuse scattering, but this is just wrong in dynamics. However, the instant dynamical (or temporal) correlations are not random, as they tie up a well-defined set of molecules into a cog-wheel.

To avoid confusion, it is thus important to realize that the word correlation can intervene with two entirely different meanings in the discussion and in the mind of the reader. We have static orientational correlations between the molecules of the whole crystal that we may detect in a snapshot of the system. We call such snapshots configurations. These static correlations are the ones that matter in structural diffraction techniques. One will run headlong into trouble if one does not properly sort out for oneself that moving to a dynamical context involves a shift of paradigm: We have to consider temporal correlations between pairs of such snapshots at all possible times. The cog-wheel mechanism defines dynamical correlations between molecules within a (small) cluster, in the sense that it tells you which molecules will turn simultaneously and how they will turn. The dynamical correlations are the ones that really count, not the static ones, although the former are of course responsible for the occurrence of the latter. In view of this remark, the loose phrasing “in the presence of correlations” appears thus as fraught with ambiguity.§§§In this language of static and dynamical correlations, our statement that we do not consider environment-dependent dynamics, can be reformulated by saying that the jump times are not considered to depend on details in the static correlations between the orientations of the molecules inside or outside the dynamical cluster within a given configuration, but rather uniquely defined by the cog-wheel mechanism on this dynamical cluster.

An important aspect of our method is that it develops a precise mathematical tool that permits to discuss all kinds of details that can arise in an argument about correlations in a very clear and rigorous way, without running into difficulties due to certain inadequacies of plain language. The examples of the correlations that persist on a linear chain despite the dissociation of the dimers and of the fallacy based on the ambiguous use of the phrasing “random correlation” as sketched above may serve to show how heedless it is to underestimate the difficulty of deciding on one’s mere intuition if a correlation is present within a system or otherwise, and how discussing such matters in informal language can seed confusion. Two persons may easily use the same words and sentences to refer to mental pictures in their heads that are fundamentally different, without being aware of these differences. In a casual discussion it might e.g. take quite some time before it transpires that a person does not take properly into account the vital distinction between static and dynamical correlations we outlined above. The reverse of the medal is that mathematical rigor all too often leads to austere if not frustrated reading.

## III Possible domains of application of this work

### A Scope of experimental probes

We are presenting our work in terms of a coherent neutron scattering problem, but the formalism will also apply to other microscopic techniques, provided the scattering is really coherent and the technique allows to obtain a $`Q`$-dependence. Coherent scattering does not only occur with neutrons when the nuclei have an important coherent scattering cross-section. In contrast with neutron scattering, where the nuclei can have both a coherent and an incoherent scattering cross section, X-ray and light scattering processes jiggle the electrons and will uniquely lead to coherent scattering. Good candidates for applications are thus also quasielastic X-ray scattering and light scattering. In such techniques the $`Q`$-range tends to be small ($`Q0`$), but a lot of progress has been made in the last decade in inelastic X-ray scattering techniques using synchrotron radiation, rendering available large $`Q`$-values combined with good energy resolution ($``$ 1 meV). When there is no energy information, the energy-integrated quasielastic scattering will still yield the $`𝐐`$-dependence of the diffuse scattering.It may be noted that the formalism for inelastic X-ray scattering leads to expressions that link the scattering functions to the measured intensities in a way that looks identical to what we have for inelastic neutron scattering. However, important differences are very often passed under silence: The scattering functions that intervene in X-ray scattering are sums over all the electrons in the sample, while in neutron scattering they are sums over all nuclei. But both are generally noted as $`S(𝐐,\omega )`$, without any explicit reference to this important distinction. Thus some work has to be done to render the two different definitions of scattering function comparable. It is not a priori given that the electrons will just move as the nuclei in the photon field. In Raman scattering e.g. the polarizability of the atom intervenes and gives rise to a coupling factor that can be hard to evaluate and is different from the simple expression $`𝐮𝐐`$ that occurs for neutron scattering. (Here $`𝐮`$ is the atomic displacement). The polarization of the electromagnetic radiation is important, etc… To our knowledge these points have never been worked out exhaustively for X-ray scattering.

Extremely high resolutions can be obtained with the so-called speckle technique which allows one to study relaxation on a time scale of the order of 15 minutes! Very good resolutions (neV) can also be obtained by nuclear resonance methods using synchrotron radiation (e.g. exciting the 14.41 keV Mössbauer level of 57Fe), but in general this is an incoherent process (as in this process the radiation interacts with the nuclei rather than with the electrons). Under certain exeperimental conditions the process is nonetheless coherent, but then the quasielastic scattering has to be deteced against a very strong background of elastic scattering.

### B Scope of experimental phenomena

Coherent quasielastic neutron scattering studies are rare and this is certainly due to the difficulty of treating the problem theoretically. Incoherent quasielastic neutron scattering can often be modeled by a system of coupled rate equations, that one can solve analytically. But describing correlations, as probed by coherent quasielastic scattering, along such lines proves difficult. One solution to this problem is to drop the ideal of an analytical description all together and to make Monte Carlo  or molecular dynamics  simulations, but then fitting some variable parameters of the model to the experimental data will no longer be possible.

There are two main categories of stochastic motion that lead to (non-magnetic) quasielastic scattering, viz. translational diffusion and rotational relaxation.In molecular liquids both occur simultaneously and they can be coupled. Our paper does not deal with translational diffusion.\**\**\**There is an unsuperable intrinsic difference between rotational and translational diffusion. The point is easily made by considering the translational jump diffusion of two particles on a linear chain (of $`n`$ positions). If the two particles could both occupy a same lattice site simultaneously then the configuration space would be just a square lattice (whose points (1,1),(1,2),…,(i,j),…(n,n), correspond to configurations where the first particle is located at the site with coordinate $`i`$, and the second particle at the site with coordinate $`j`$). As real particles cannot be in the same site at the same time, the diagonal of the square lattice ($`i=j`$) represents forbidden configurations. Once these points have been removed from the square lattice, we are left with two totally disconnected mirror-symmetric triangles (the mirror-symmetry corresponds to identical particle exchange). Eighter of these triangles can be taken as the configuration space for the two particles. The generalization to $`N`$ particles leads to an $`N`$-dimensional simplex that is a $`(1/N!)`$-th slice of an $`N`$-dimensional hypercube. The secular matrix that intervenes in the rate equations no longer has $`N`$-dimensional translational invariance in this truncated configuration space. The method of calculation we use in our paper is based on $`N`$-dimensional translational symmetry in configuration space and breaks thus down. (In models of correlated rotational jumps there are no such hyperplane cuts through configuration space corresponding to problems of excluded volume, but it is also a loss of global translational symmetry, splitting the configuration space in totally disconnected parts, that renders it impossible to perform the calculations for the non-ergodic case ). If it were possible to overcome such fundamental difficulties one could make a mathematically rigorous calculation of the total scattering function for a hard-sphere liquid, by taking a continuum limit of an appropriate lattice gas model. There exists a generalization of the Chudley-Eliott model that permits to calculate the coherent quasielastic neutron scattering signal for translational jump diffusion on a lattice. But this is an average description in that it is based on rate equations which rely on the assumption that the concentrations are rigorously homogeneous throughout the sample. For the sake of completeness we refer the reader interested in theoretical aspects of translational diffusion to references  and . The bulk of the experimental efforts have focused on the diffusion of D in NbDx , Ag in silver halides  and in Ag2Se , Rb in RbAg4I5 , Na in Na3PO4  Oxygen in UO2  and F in fluorites .

What kinds of rotational relaxation is our paper then able to address? Let us immediately state that our model may not have a perfect counterpart in the real world.††††††Eventually the assumptions that underly our model are dictated by the limits of our mathematical skills rather than the physics we attempted to address. As we will see, our approach of the problem leads to a description of the dynamics in terms of huge jump matrices. Analytical diagonalization of matrices of rank larger than 4 is in general not possible: As Galois has shown, beyond degree 4 there are no general solutions in terms of radicals for polynomial equations. A notable simplification can occur however, if we can make use of symmetry. It is mainly translational symmetry in configuration space that achieves the analytical diagonalization of the jump matrix in the present paper. It is a requirement of not breaking translational symmetry in configuration space that imposes the underlying assumptions of our paper. If these are not met, the calculation of the correlations is of a difficulty far beyond the methods we use.

We noted at the beginning of the Introduction that the rotating molecules do not need to have the symmetry of the rotational jump. This is important. If the symmetry of the molecules is the same as the symmetry of the jump, then the sample will look the same after the jump as before the jump. This means that the Fourier transform of the molecules can be factorized out in the calculations and we do not need to go through the more difficult approach of our paper.‡‡‡‡‡‡Unless the dynamics is more complicated than a simple rotational jump model, due to supplementary problems such as translation-rotation coupling etc….

Combining these two limitations of feasibility and technical interest, the geometry of the nonadecane molecules is intrumental for visualizing the problem that we can treat, and for describing the (restricted) kind of correlations that we have in mind. The physical correlations between the nonadecane molecules that are really experimentally observed in the urea inclusion compound are of a different nature, which we are unable to treat (although this was not yet clear at the time we started this work). But this kind of correlations could exist in another system. The major lesson from our exercise must be that we give a non-trivial counter-example that indicates how coherent quasielastic neutron scattering may not always yield the information one expects on the basis of commonly accepted notions.

In our method the configuration space for the single-molecule dynamics is one-dimensional. It is however possible to generalize the formalism such as to recover also higher-dimensional single-molecule configuration spaces.\**\**\**We will not give this derivation in order not to burden the paper. The proof runs as for the one-dimensional case mutatis mutandis. This broadens the scope of possible applications further to three-dimensional rotations of molecules whose symmetry is not the same as that of the rotation symmetry. An example of such cases would be the rotational jumps of molecules of tetrahedral symmetry containing different isotopes (such that the symmetry is broken) as e.g. CH3D, CD3H, CH2D2, NH3D, C79Br381Br, C79Br281Br2 , CBr2Cl2 , CBrCl3, etc… However in the physical world these molecules do not necessarily give rise to solids where our type of problems are encountered. In partially deuterated methane the physics is just different: Bulk CH3D and CD3H are either close to rotational diffusion, or there is quantum behaviour. In partially deuterated ammonia, the existence of exchange of $`D`$ and $`H`$ between the molecules complicates the picture.

Also octahedral molecules could be considered.\*†\*†\*†A good example would be SF6, if it were not that the natural element fluorine is mono-isotopic (19F), such that the simplification mentioned above can be applied. Finally, an important application of our result could be C60. The (coherent) quasielastic neutron scattering signal of the rotational dynamics of this molecular crystal in its room temperature phase has been successfully described in terms of a model of completely independent rotors by Neumann et al.. Although our results have been derived for rotational jumps rather than for continuous rotations as occur in C60, they suggest by analogy that it cannot be claimed with certainty on the basis of the sole neutron data of Neumann et al. that the molecules would be totally independent.

## IV Method

The general method we use has been already described previously . The idea is to formulate the problem in configuration space. The instantaneous configuration of the whole system is an abstract particle that diffuses on a network in this configuration space. The vertices of the network are the possible configurations of the system. (How to define them is illustrated by our example of the translational diffusion of two particles in footnote 7). When one single particle of the system makes a jump with a relaxation time $`\tau `$, we say that the system “jumps” between two configurations with the relaxation time $`\tau `$. Two configurations that are linked by such a move of one particle are connected by a line of the network carrying a label $`\tau `$. The dynamics of our system is this way mapped isomorphically onto the problem of the diffusion of a single abstract particle (the system) on a network in configuration space. The only difference is that the embedding configuration space is of considerably higher dimension than physical space.

The physical problem can thus be described in terms of a set of coupled rate equations $`\frac{d}{dt}𝐏=\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{𝐌𝐏}`$, where the column vector $`𝐏(t)`$ contains the probabilities $`p_j(t)`$ that the system is in configuration $`j`$ at time $`t`$, $`\tau `$ is a relaxation time, and $`𝐌`$ is the so-called jump matrix. The formal solution is worked out in reference  and does not contain further suprising steps or new ideas: By diagonalizing $`𝐌=𝐒𝚲𝐒^1`$, we can write the solution of this set of coupled linear differential equations as $`𝐏(t)=𝐒\mathrm{exp}(𝚲t/\tau )𝐒^1𝐏(0)`$. By plugging in the various initial conditions into $`𝐏(0)`$, we obtain then the full set of probabilities $`p_{j,k}(t)`$ that the system is in configuration $`j`$ at time $`t`$ if it was in configuration $`k`$ at time $`0`$. These are the quantities that are needed in the Van Hove correlation functions. A proper choice of initial conditions will also take into account the thermal occupation factors, i.e. entail the required thermal averaging. The total scattering function is obtained from the spatio-temporal Fourier transform of the thermal average of the correlation functions. In its final expression the total scattering function reads: $`S(𝐐,\omega )=\frac{1}{n^N}𝐅𝐒(e^{𝚲t/\tau })𝐒^{}𝐅^{}`$, where $`𝐅`$ is the row matrix that contains the spatial Fourier transforms $`F_𝐜`$ of the configurations $`𝐜`$ obtained by putting a Dirac measure of weight $`b_x`$ at the position of each atom of type $`x`$ ($`b_x`$ is its coherent scattering length); $``$ stands for the temporal Fourier transform. The normalization factor $`\frac{1}{n^N}`$ is here written for the case of uncorrelated $`n`$-fold rotational jumps of $`N`$ molecules.\*‡\*‡\*‡Generally speaking, treating the system in terms of configurations has several advantages. First of all, the total scattering function is invariant under the operation of identical-particle exchange, and this fact is automatically accounted for in our method, by considering as strictly identical all the configurations that can be obtained one from another by swapping identical particles. Consequently, identical particles are not tagged in our method: They remain undistinguishable. We do not loose time or efforts in enumerating tagged configurations. This reduces the number of configurations to be considered drastically: For each type of particles $`j`$, there can be a reduction by a factor $`n_j!`$, where $`n_j`$ stands for the number of such identical particles of type $`j`$ (provided that they can indeed physically swapped by the dynamics). This is e.g. the reason why in the example of the translational diffusion of two particles in footnote 7, the configuration space can be taken as only one of the two triangles defined by the diagonal. (In the present case of rotational jumps, this simplification does not occur as the dynamics do not entail exchanges of molecules). The second advantage is that all static correlations that might occur inside a single configuration are automatically taken into account. In the calculation this transpires through the presence of the Fourier transform $`_𝐜`$ of the configuration $`𝐜`$. For this reason we further will never even mention these static correlations in the paper. The worth correlation only occurs in a dynamical sense.

## V Formulation of the jump matrix

When there are no correlations between the molecules, the configuration space for the $`n`$-fold rotational jumps of $`N`$ molecules on a lattice $`^d(d\{1,2,3\})`$, e.g. $`=([1,\mathrm{}])^d`$, $`N=\mathrm{}^d`$, will be a hypercubic lattice $`=(/n)^N`$ with cyclic boundary conditions in $`^N`$. (Each particle adds one dimension to configuration space: E.g. if there were just two molecules ($`N=2`$) that make threefold rotational jumps ($`n=3`$), the configuration space would be the square lattice of the $`n^N=3^2=9`$ points (1,1), (1,2),…(i,j),… (3,3). The configuration $`(i,j)`$ corresponds then to the situation that particle 1 has orientation $`i`$ and particle 2 orientation $`j`$. The boundary conditions are cyclic as each particle can go through the successive orientations $`1231`$). For a three-dimensional sample ($`d=3`$), the position vectors of the molecules will be $`(j_x,j_y,j_z)`$. The jump matrix $`𝐌`$ is then defined by:

$$M_{𝐜;𝐝}=2N\delta _{𝐜;𝐝}+\underset{𝐣}{}(\delta _{𝐜;𝐝+𝐞_𝐣}+\delta _{𝐜;𝐝𝐞_𝐣}).$$
(1)
The reader should not feel intmidated by the few very concise notations of this type that occur in the paper. They are mainly given for the sake of completeness. The main point he should capture is at which points in the jump matrix there are non-zero entries and how they look like. Eq. (1) is built up as follows. There is a unit vector $`𝐞_𝐣`$ in hypercubic space associated with each molecule (with position vector $`𝐣`$) that can turn: As we illustrated with the example of two particles above, each molecule adds a dimension to configuration space. When we start from a configuration $`𝐜`$ and the molecule $`𝐣`$ makes a rotational jump, the system goes to the configuration $`𝐝=𝐜+𝐞_𝐣`$. Hence, in the absence of correlations, a configuration $`𝐜`$ has $`2N`$ neighbours $`𝐝=𝐜\pm 𝐞_𝐣`$, where $`𝐣=(j_x,j_y,j_z)`$: At the line corresponding to $`𝐜`$ in the jump matrix there are thus non-zero entries at all columnar positions corresponding to the configurations $`𝐝=𝐜+𝐞_𝐣`$ and $`𝐝=𝐜𝐞_𝐣`$, a fact which is expressed through the presence of the Kronecker delta’s $`\delta _{𝐜;𝐝+𝐞_𝐣}`$ and $`\delta _{𝐜;𝐝𝐞_𝐣}`$. The diagonal terms follow from these terms as in any other jump matrix for a diffusion problem.

The unit vectors $`𝐞_𝐣`$ are the generators of the hypercubic lattice $``$, and each configuration $`𝐜`$ accessible can be written as $`𝐜=_𝐣c_𝐣𝐞_𝐣`$, with $`c_𝐣/n`$. The hypercubic lattice $``$ represents all possible configurations that can be obtained by $`n`$-fold rotations, and therefore the configuration space when there are correlations will be a sublattice $`𝒮`$ of $``$.We would like to stress that there is no underlying assumption related to representing the various configurations as points on a hypercubic lattice, for the mere convenience of enumerating them more easily. This also true when the rotors are not independent. More specifically, it does not imply any factorization of probabilities as we would have in the case of independent rotors. The probabilities will be given by the topological connectivity of the network or graph that links these points. These lines could be very different from the edges of the hypercubes of the hypercubic lattice that occur in the case of independent dynamics. The probability for a jump between two configurations is taken into account by connecting the points that represent them by a line labeled with its relaxation time. Only if these probabilities themselves were factorized would we have an underlying independence.

It is logical that we assume that due to the range of the intermolecular interactions, the set or cluster of jumping molecules extends to a neighbour shell of a certain order. Due to the translational invariance on the physical lattice $``$, this cluster should be allowed to occur at every lattice site $`𝐣`$. A configuration $`𝐜`$ will now be connected to other configurations $`𝐜\pm 𝐯_𝐣,𝐣`$ on the sublattice $`𝒮`$, than $`𝐜\pm 𝐞_𝐣,𝐣`$ as for the independent dynamics, and it is the set of $`\nu `$ relative position vectors $`𝐯_𝐣`$ that has to be defined. E.g. if on a two-dimensional square lattice $`=([1,\mathrm{}])^2`$ with cyclic boundary conditions, the jump of a molecule at $`(j_x,j_y)`$ over $`2\pi /n`$ is always accompanied by opposite jumps over $`2\pi /n`$ of its four first neighbours, then $`\nu =\mathrm{}^2`$ and

$$𝐯_{(j_x,j_y)}=𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x+1,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x1,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x,j_y+1)}𝐞_{(j_x,j_y1)},(j_x,j_y),$$
(2)
where the minus signs translate the fact that the rotations are opposite. We can understand this by decomposing the combined move mentally into a succession of single-molecule jumps: We first turn the molecule $`(j_x,j_y)`$, which changes the configuration from $`𝐜`$ to $`𝐜+𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}`$. Then we turn the molecule $`(j_x+1,j_y)`$, which changes the configuration further from $`𝐜+𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}`$ to $`𝐜+𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x+1,j_y)}`$, etc… upto the final configuration $`𝐜+𝐯_{(j_x,j_y)}`$. The order in which we take these individual moves is not important, as in the combined move of the five molecules the system does not visit the intermediate configurations and goes immediately from the initial ($`𝐜`$) to the final configuration ($`𝐜+𝐯_{(j_x,j_y)}`$). On our network there will be a line that connects these two configurations and which will be labeled by $`\tau `$. Of course the relaxation time $`\tau `$ we use now has no longer any relationship whatsoever with the relaxation times we used in the problem of independent dynamics. It is the relaxation time for a cluster, not for a molecule, and the probabilities we are dealing with here can in principle not be expressed as a product of probabilities as would occur if the rotors were independent.It must be obvious that the occurrence of a cluster is probabilistic: The model of Eq. (2) is perhaps best seen as part of a larger model wherein e.g. a molecule has some probability to turn alone, some probability to turn as given by Eq. (2), and some probabilities to turn even within other types of clusters (see e.g. Eq. (45) below). One should thus not use the definition of Eq. (2) to “prove” that the whole lattice should turn simultaneously: when $`(j_x,j_y)`$ turns, $`(j_x+1,j_y)`$ turns; then since $`(j_x+1,j_y)`$ turns, $`(j_x+2,j_y)`$ must also turn, etc… That would be an absurd way of misinterpreting of our aims.\*∥\*∥\*∥We must emphasize that further on our approach will only work since we assume translational invariance in configuration space $``$: the types of possible rotational jumps of a molecule (or a cluster of molecules) and their respective probabilities do not depend on the specific orientation of that molecule or any other actual detail of the prevailing configuration of the system. This would be quite reasonable for the case of alkane molecules evoked, but nevertheless this remark implies that we have not exhausted all possible meanings of the concept correlation. (We are not dealing in the present paper with the additional complication that the dynamics could also depend on the actual local environment of the molecules. Defining systems of the latter type in a self-consistent way is already difficult in its own right. We briefly touch upon it in the Appendix.). The $`\nu =\mathrm{}^2`$ vectors $`𝐯_𝐣`$, $`𝐣=(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},1),(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2),\mathrm{}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ are the generators of the sublattice $`𝒮`$. Using the hypercubic norm, we see that $`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y)}=5`$.

As a second example, we could also imagine that each molecule at $`(j_x,j_y)`$ has (for symmetry reasons) four equivalent alternatives to jump simultaneously with a single first neighbour. Then $`\nu =4\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`(j_x,j_y)`$:

$`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y),1}=𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x+1,j_y)},`$ (3)
$`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y),2}=𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x1,j_y)},`$ (4)
$`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y),3}=𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x,j_y+1)},`$ (5)
$`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y),4}=𝐞_{(j_x,j_y)}𝐞_{(j_x,j_y1)}.`$ (6)
Here $`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y),r}=2`$$`r\{1,2,3,4\}`$ ). We see thus that in the general situation with correlations the jump matrix $`𝐌`$ will be defined by

$$M_{𝐜;𝐝}=2N\rho \delta _{𝐜;𝐝}+\underset{𝐣}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}(\delta _{𝐜;𝐝+𝐯_{𝐣,r}}+\delta _{𝐜;𝐝𝐯_{𝐣,r}}),$$
(7)
where $`\rho =\nu /\mathrm{}^d`$ is the number of different types $`r`$ of clusters per lattice site that can turn (i.e. $`\rho =4`$ in the example of Eq. (3)). The definition of Eq. (7) is analogous to the one in Eq. (1) with each vector $`𝐞_𝐣`$ replaced by $`\rho `$ vectors $`𝐯_{𝐣,r}`$. We can more generally assume that the various possibilities labeled by $`r`$ lead to different time constants. Drawing in the time constants into $`𝐌`$ the jump matrix becomes:

$$M_{𝐜;𝐝}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}\frac{1}{\tau _r}(2N\delta _{𝐜;𝐝}+\underset{𝐣}{}(\delta _{𝐜;𝐝+𝐯_{𝐣,r}}+\delta _{𝐜;𝐝𝐯_{𝐣,r}})).$$
(8)
This notation can be further generalized by noticing that $`r`$ corresponds to a difference (or translation) vector $`𝐭`$, $`_r_𝐭`$. We must then admit that for many values of $`𝐭`$, we will have $`\frac{1}{\tau _𝐭}=0`$, or replace $`𝐭`$ by $`𝐭𝒢`$ where $`𝒢`$ is a physical cluster:

$$M_{𝐜;𝐝}=\underset{𝐭𝒢}{}\frac{1}{\tau _𝐭}(2N\delta _{𝐜;𝐝}+\underset{𝐣}{}(\delta _{𝐜;𝐝+𝐯_{𝐣,𝐭}}+\delta _{𝐜;𝐝𝐯_{𝐣,𝐭}})).$$
(9)
We have just given some examples of possible correlations. In the present paper we will not further insist on writing down a general formalism that would cover all possible cases. First of all, there are too many possibilities. Secondly, we think that a general abstract formalism in configuration space (which typically has a dimension $`10^{24}`$) with notations of the rather elaborate type that occur in Eq. (7-9), might easily conceal the rather simple ideas behind our method. We will therefore rather proceed by illustrating the method for examples of the type given, in order to familiarize us with its spirit.

## VI The problem of ergodicity

Since the hypercubic norms of the vectors $`𝐯_𝐣`$ are by definition larger than $`1`$ in the presence of correlations, one would be inclined to think that $`𝒮`$ will always be a strict subset of $``$, which we expressed by saying that our dynamical problem is no longer “ergodic”. The real situation is more subtle. Taking the possibility of non-ergodicity seriously is a difficult task that we are unable to treat rigorously in general. In the Appendix we develop a physical argument to put forward the idea that we can relax the condition of ergodicity to a weaker criterium of local (as opposed to global) ergodicity. For the main stream of the paper we will henceforth assume ergodicity. But despite the fact that we devote here only a few lines to this assumption, we must stress that ergodicity is a vital issue for the validity of the calculations in the rest of the paper.

## VII Solution of the jump model in the ergodic case

When the system is ergodic, we can immediately use the eigenvectors we already established for $``$ in reference , and we will be able to derive without effort the eigenvalues from the form of $`𝐯_{𝐣,r},𝐣`$. Indeed, when the system is ergodic then the jump matrix in configuration space has translational symmetry along each of the directions defined by the $`N`$ unit vectors $`𝐞_𝐣`$ that span $``$. The eigenvectors are therefore just $`N`$-dimensional Bloch waves, i.e. $`n^N\times 1`$ column matrices $`𝐕^{(𝐤)}`$ defined by $`[𝐕^{(𝐤)}]_𝐜=\mathrm{exp}[ı\frac{2\pi }{n}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐜𝐤_0)],𝐜`$. Here $`𝐤_0`$ stands for $`(1,1,1,\mathrm{}1,1)^N`$ and is introduced to take into account the fact that the expression for the eigenvectors features the quantities $`k_\xi `$ and $`c_\xi `$ always under the form of linear combinations $`(k_\xi 1)`$, and $`(c_\xi 1)`$. The $`N`$-dimensional Bloch wave is obtained as a Kronecker product of $`N`$ one-dimensional Bloch waves, just as a three-dimensional phonon can also be written as a Kronecker product of three one-dimensional Bloch-waves. (Each one-dimensional Bloch wave is a $`n\times 1`$ column matrix). Combining these eigenvectors with the definition of the $`n^N\times n^N`$ jump matrix $`𝐌`$ in Eq. (7) yields the corresponding eigenvalues:

$$\lambda _𝐤=2\rho N+2\underset{𝐣}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}\mathrm{cos}[𝐯_{𝐣,r}(𝐤𝐤_0)].$$
(10)
This is exactly analogous to the way the eigenvalues of a phonon problem are obtained by operating the dynamical matrix on the Bloch wave eigenvectors. We just calculate $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐕}^{(𝐤)}`$ using the definitions of $`𝐌`$ and $`𝐕^{(𝐤)}`$ and check that the result can be rewritten as $`\lambda ^{(𝐤)}𝐕^{(𝐤)}`$ for some value $`\lambda ^{(𝐤)}`$. For the phonon case in text books, this calculation is usually only written for a general line of the column matrix that represents the eigen vector, with the possible effect that the argument might not be recognized as perfectly analogous to the one we are dealing with here. E.g. in the case of Eq. (2) we have $`N=\mathrm{}^2`$, $`\rho =1`$, $`𝐣:𝐤_0𝐯_𝐣=3`$, such that Eq. (10) is more explicitly seen to yield

(18)
where $`𝐤=(k_{(1,1)},k_{(1,2)},\mathrm{}k_{(j_x,j_y)},\mathrm{}k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})})`$, and $`k_{(j_x,j_y)}/n`$. There are thus $`n^\mathrm{}^2`$ $`𝐤`$-vectors in the case of Eq. (2). In fact, a general configuration $`𝐜`$ has $`\mathrm{}^2`$ vector components: $`𝐜=(c_{(1,1)},c_{(1,2)},\mathrm{}c_{(j_x,j_y)},\mathrm{}c_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})})`$. The coordinates $`c_{(j_x,j_y)}`$ can take $`n`$ values representing the $`n`$ possible orientations of the molecule at $`(j_x,j_y)`$. There are thus in total $`n^\mathrm{}^2`$ configurations, and for each of them there is a probability. The jump matrix $`𝐌`$ works on the space of these $`n^\mathrm{}^2`$ configurations. An eigenvector $`𝐕^{(𝐤)}`$ is a vector with $`n^\mathrm{}^2`$ entries $`[𝐕^{(𝐤)}]_𝐜`$, where $`𝐜`$ runs through all possible configurations. We can thus depicture $`𝐕^{(𝐤)}`$ as a function (the Bloch wave): $`𝐕^{(𝐤)}:𝐜[𝐕^{(𝐤)}]_𝐜`$. Let us operate $`𝐌`$ on an eigenvector. The first non-zero off-diagonal entry in $`𝐌`$ corresponds to the possibility that $`𝐜`$ undergoes a transformation to $`𝐜+𝐯_{(1,1)}`$. That will transform the function from $`\mathrm{exp}[ı\frac{2\pi }{n}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐜𝐤_0)],𝐜`$ to $`\mathrm{exp}[ı\frac{2\pi }{n}(𝐤𝐤_0)(𝐜+𝐯_{(1,1)}𝐤_0)],𝐜`$, i.e. multiply it by $`\mathrm{exp}[ı\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(1,1)}k_{(1,2)}k_{(1,\mathrm{})}k_{(2,1)}k_{(\mathrm{},1)}+3)]`$. Continuing this way with the possible transformations towards $`𝐜+𝐯_{(1,2)}`$,…, $`𝐜+𝐯_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}`$, including also the possible transformations towards $`𝐜𝐯_{(1,1)}`$, $`𝐜𝐯_{(1,2)}`$,…, $`𝐜𝐯_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}`$, and finally adding the diagonal term we obtain the result announced in Eq. (18).

The whole part of the calculation involving the determination of the structure factors remains the same as for the case without correlations. In fact this calculation (based on the evaluation of $`𝐆=𝐅𝐒`$) is entirely defineded by the values of the eigenvectors ($`𝐒`$) and the Fourier transforms of the configurations ($`𝐅`$) and these are not changed in the ergodic case. This means that Eqs. (35) and (37) of reference  remain valid. Using the same notations as in that paper, the Lorentzian $`L(\mathrm{}\lambda _𝐤/\tau ,\omega )`$ will be associated with $`|G_𝐤|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, where

$`G_{k_{(1,1)};k_{(1,2)};\mathrm{}k_{(j_x,j_y)};\mathrm{}k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{j_x=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j_y=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_{(j_x,j_y)}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}_{c_{(j_x,j_y)}}e^{ı\frac{2\pi }{n}(c_{(j_x,j_y)}1)(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)}e^{ı𝐐𝐫_{(j_x,j_y)}}`$ (19)
(20)
$`\times \delta _{1k_{(1,1)}}\delta _{1k_{(1,2)};\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathrm{}\delta _{1k_{(j_x,j_y1)}}\delta _{1k_{(j_x,j_y+1)}}\mathrm{}\delta _{1k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1)}}\delta _{1k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}}.`$ (21)
Here $`_{c_{(j_x,j_y)}}`$ is the Fourier transform of the molecule $`(j_x,j_y)`$ (with orientation $`c_{(j_x,j_y)}`$ ) if it were placed at the origin. (The real position vector of this molecule is $`𝐫_{(j_x,j_y)}`$). Consequently, the structure factor of the elastic term remains the same. The structure factors of the quasielastic terms remain also the same. Just the widths of the Lorentzians have to be re-examined. Due to the presence of the Kronecker symbols in Eq. (19) only Lorentzians for $`𝐤`$-values which have one single component $`k_{(j_x,j_y)}1`$ are contributing. In our example on the square lattice, these are the Lorentzians with

$$\lambda _𝐤=2\mathrm{}^2+2(\mathrm{}^25)+10\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)],$$
(22)
since in $`\lambda _𝐤`$ there are $`\mathrm{}^25`$ terms with a vanishing argument in the cosines and $`5`$ terms where the argument of the cosines collapse to $`\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)`$. We recover thus miraculously the same Lorentzians with a width parameter $`2+2\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)]`$ as in the case without correlations, except for the detail that the relaxation time $`\tau `$ that occurs in the rate equations is being replaced in the final result by a five times faster relaxation time $`\tau /5`$, which does not happen in the case without correlations.\***\***\***But since we are dealing with clusters of $`5`$ molecules, we might originally have had the intuition to put a value $`5`$ times slower than in the uncorrelated case into the rate equations. If we do not allow for this, then we would end up with a speed-up of the quasielastic signal in the presence of reorienting clusters, which is quite unphysical, as it should in principle be more difficult to move a set of molecules rather than a single molecule. This use of a factor $`5`$ based on a handwaving argument can only be considered as a first approximation. We have no means to elucidate this relationship any further, since the jump time a single molecule would have had if its jumps had been independent is just not available to the experimentalist. There could be a change in the jump time parameter between the cases of correlated and uncorrelated jumps, but this cannot be learned from an inspection of coherent scattering data alone, since there is no change in the structure factors. There is only a possible renormalization of the relaxation time to be used in the description of the jump dynamics. Conclusion: It is absolutely impossible to appreciate from a signal due to coherent neutron scattering alone if there are correlations or otherwise! One can only hope that a comparison with incoherent data might still yield some clues. This result will be general if the cardinal number $`\mathrm{\#}`$ of the set of possible configurations $``$ is not altered by the presence of correlations (case (1) in the terminology of the Introduction). In fact, the factor $`5`$ in our example comes from the circumstance that our clusters contain five molecules, such that $`𝐯_{(j_x,j_y)}`$ will contain five terms. Due to this $`\lambda _𝐤`$ will contain five terms that contain $`(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)`$, each time combined with other terms of the general type $`\pm (k_{(j_x^{},j_y^{})}1)`$, that vanish since $`k_{(j_x^{},j_y^{})}=1`$. All other contributions to $`\lambda _𝐤`$ are devoid of terms in $`k_{(j_x,j_y)}`$.

We have not addressed the possibility illustrated by the example of Eq. (3), where we have more than one type of cluster. In principle this case is not different in nature from the one embodied by Eq. (2), since there we also have already $`\nu >N`$, such that Eq. (2) represents two equations rather than one. Provided we have ergodicity we can derive for this model from Eq. (7) with $`N=\mathrm{}^2,\rho =4`$, $`(𝐣)(r\{1,2,3,4\})(𝐤_0𝐯_{𝐣,r}=0)`$:

(38)
Expressing the selection rule from Eq. (19) that only Lorentzians are contributing which correspond to a $`𝐤`$-value that contains a single component $`k_{(j_x,j_y)}1`$, we just retain the Lorentzians with

$$\lambda _𝐤=8\mathrm{}^2+2(4\mathrm{}^28)+16\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)],$$
(39)
such that the widths are now again $`2+2\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}1)]`$, this time with a prefactor $`8`$, since there are in total $`16`$ different moves that involve a jump of molecule $`(j_x,j_y)`$.

We may note that we have already covered quite realistically looking possibilities. The task of taking into account correlations of this type on a whole lattice definitely seemed daunting before we embarked on our method. The most realistic case would probably involve a distribution of cluster sizes, whereby each cluster has its own characteristic relaxation time. E.g. on the square lattice we could instead of Eq. (2), have relaxation times and clusters $`(j_x,j_y)`$:

(45)
where in the additional cluster we have included now all members of the second-neighbour shell, assuming that their rotional jumps are in phase with those of the central molecule, i.e. in opposite phase with all the members of the first-neighbour shell. This leads to Lorentzians with a width parameter $`\frac{1}{\tau _1}\lambda _𝐤^{(1)}+\frac{1}{\tau _2}\lambda _𝐤^{(2)}`$, where $`\lambda _𝐤^{(1)}`$ is given by Eq. (18), while $`\lambda _𝐤^{(2)}=2\mathrm{}^2+2_{(j_x,j_y)}\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}(k_{(j_x,j_y)}k_{(j_x+1,j_y)}k_{(j_x1,j_y)}k_{(j_x,j_y+1)}k_{(j_x,j_y1)}+k_{(j_x1,j_y+1)}+k_{(j_x+1,j_y1)}+k_{(j_x+2,j_y)}+k_{(j_x1,j_y1)}+k_{(j_x2,j_y)}+k_{(j_x,j_y+2)}+k_{(j_x,j_y2)}+k_{(j_x+1,j_y+1)}5)]`$. We can appreciate that in general the width parameter for the Lorentzian $`L_𝐤`$ will be

$$\underset{r=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}\frac{1}{\tau _r}(2N+2\underset{𝐣}{}\mathrm{cos}[\frac{2\pi }{n}𝒫_{𝐣,r}]),$$
(47)
since each cluster, i.e. each term $`𝐯_{𝐣,r}`$ introduces a term $`2N+2_𝐣\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi 𝒫_{𝐣,r}/n)`$, where the polynomial $`𝒫_{𝐣,r}`$ in the $`k`$’s is obtained by replacing each symbol $`𝐞`$ by a symbol $`k`$ in the definition of $`𝐯_{𝐣,r}`$ and adding $`𝐤_0𝐯_{𝐣,r}`$. After combining with $`\delta _{1k_{(1,1)}}\delta _{1k_{(1,2)}}\mathrm{}\delta _{1k_{(j_x,j_y1)}}\delta _{1k_{(j_x,j_y+1)}}\mathrm{}\delta _{1k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}1)}}\delta _{1k_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}}`$ in the example of Eq. (45) we recover $`4(\frac{5}{\tau _1}+\frac{13}{\tau _2})\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{n}(k1)]`$ provided $`𝒮=`$. (Here we have used the fact that the set of values $`k_{(j_x,j_y)}/n`$ is the same for all molecules $`(j_x,j_y)`$, such that identical values coming from different values of $`(j_x,j_y)`$ can be regrouped in a term where the $`k`$-value is simply noted as $`k`$). The more different types of clusters one includes, the more likely the configuration space $`𝒮`$ will cover the whole of $``$. In fact, if also single-molecule jumps are allowed we forcedly end up with $`𝒮=`$. Also for the final expression of the Lorentzian widths after the application of the selection rules it is not difficult to derive the general result: $`4[_{r=1}^\rho (m_r/\tau _r)]\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{n}(k1)]`$, where $`m_r`$ is the number of molecules involved in cluster $`r`$. The use of the quantity $`m_r`$ exploits the fact that in general the correlations between the molecules will be symmetrical. The most striking point is that all this follows almost effortless, even for very complex situations, as the translational invariance on $``$ establishes a kind of dictionary $`𝐯_{𝐣,r}𝒫_{𝐣,r}`$ which allows immediately to write down the eigenvalues, and that these eigenvalues are further tremendously simplified by the selection rule for the $`𝐤`$-values.

## VIII Conclusion

We conclude: Apart from a possible renormalization of the jump time, the signal in presence of correlations of the type we considered is the same as in total absence of correlations. In other words: Coherent quasielastic neutron scattering is unable to reveal possible correlations of the type we considered between the rotational jumps of the molecules. This is a clear, but non-trivial result. We may call it paradoxical that coherent scattering cannot reveal the type of correlations we considered, while incoherent scattering can. The finding that the widths are renormalized calls for caution in the interpretation of such widths in the results of an experiment. One would be inclined to interpret them as simple quantities corresponding to the relaxation of a single molecule, while their real meaning could be quite different. That is another important result of our work.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank M. Duneau for fruitful discussions.

## Appendix: The problem of ergodicity

### A Why the problem is not simple

As the hypercubic norms of the vectors $`𝐯_𝐣`$ are by definition larger than $`1`$ in the presence of correlations, one might believe that we never have ergodicity. They span a larger fundamental cell in hyperspace than the unit cell that occurs with independent dynamics, and therefore less of such cells should be contained in $``$. But since we have cyclic boundary conditions in each dimension of the hypercubic lattice $``$ this is not necessarily true. A good example to illustrate this point is the transformation $`𝐯_1=𝐞_x+𝐞_y`$, $`𝐯_2=𝐞_x𝐞_y`$ on a square lattice, which splits $`^2`$ into two sublattices, one with integer and one with half-integer coordinates in the not normalized basis $`𝐯_1,𝐯_2`$. But if we apply this transformation to the restriction $`(/n)^2`$, allowing for cyclic boundary conditions, then for $`n`$ odd the vectors $`𝐞_1`$ and $`𝐞_2`$ will generate the whole lattice. We see thus that the problem of ergodicity we ran into is not as trivial to cope with as one might have thought at the start. It is however very important to know if we can claim that the problem is ergodic, since it determines if the calculation presented in this paper applies or otherwise.

Let us consider in the non-ergodic case a configuration $`𝐜_1`$ that occurs in $``$, but not in the sublattice $`𝒮`$. On this configuration we can apply also the set of generators $`𝐯_p,p=1,2,\mathrm{}\nu `$, to obtain the coset $`𝐜_1+𝒮`$. The term coset is here appropriate since the lattices $``$ and $`𝒮`$ can be considered as visualizations of a translation group. There might be a further configuration $`𝐜_2`$ that does not occur within $`𝒮(𝐜_1+𝒮)`$. This way we construct $`s=\mathrm{\#}/\mathrm{\#}𝒮`$ disjoint cosets, based on initial configurations $`𝐜_1,𝐜_2,\mathrm{}𝐜_s`$. Our lattice $``$ decomposes then as a Bravais lattice $`𝒮`$ convoluted with a unit cell containing $`s`$ “atoms” $`𝐜_1,𝐜_2,\mathrm{}𝐜_s`$.

The correlated dynamics will then map onto the diffusion of an abstract particle (the configuration of the system) on the connected graph whose vertices are the points of $`𝒮`$. From any point of this graph it will be possible to wander to any other point of this graph. A point from another coset cannot be reached. Another coset represents thus a similar sample with similar dynamics, but the states of the sample represented by this coset cannot be reached starting from the states of the sample represented by $`𝒮`$. The $`s`$ cosets represent thus $`s`$ different samples with a similar structure and similar dynamics, that would be a kind of “eniantomorphs”. The different samples are characterized by the fact that they cannot have the same initial state. It is a priori not true that working with one of these $`s`$ enantiomorphs should still yield the same $`𝐐`$-dependence as for the independent dynamics. This is shown by the counter example with the Ising pseudospins given in the Introduction.

The main problem is that we would have to do the thermal averaging over $`𝒮`$ rather than over $``$. We would therefore need to determine how the lattice $`𝒮`$ looks like and to find a set of basic vectors that generates it. In general, this will prove just too difficult a task, due to the huge dimensions of the configuration space. Furthermore, the averaging over $`𝒮`$ will in general be too weak. Many sums in the averaging over $``$ reduce to Kronecker deltas (see reference ). In the average over $`𝒮`$, these sums will contain less terms, and therefore no longer necessarily yield results that are either $`0`$ or $`1`$.

### B Obvious mathematical criterium of non-ergodicity

One can think of one simple way to find out that the sample is not ergodic, viz. when the dynamics can be described by a single equation, as e.g. in the example of Eq. (2) and the dimension of $`𝒮`$ is lower than the dimension of $``$. There is a linear transformation with matrix $`𝐓`$:

$$[𝐯_{(1,1)},𝐯_{(1,2)},\mathrm{}𝐯_{(2,1)},\mathrm{}𝐯_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}]^{}=𝐓[𝐞_{(1,1)},𝐞_{(1,2)},\mathrm{}𝐞_{(2,1)},\mathrm{}𝐞_{(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}]^{}.$$
(48)
If $`det𝐓=0`$, it is clear that the dimension of $`𝒮`$ is smaller than the dimension of $``$. It is instrumental to note that $`(𝐓+3\text{1 I})`$ is upto the factor $`1/\tau `$ equal to the jump matrix $`𝐀`$ for the translational diffusion on the square lattice $`=([1,\mathrm{}])^2`$, which we know to diagonalize due to its translational symmetry when we assume cyclic boundary conditions. For other types of correlations than given by Eq. (2) an analogous argument will hold. The eigenvalues of $`𝐀`$ are $`4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_x1)]4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_y1)]`$, hence the eigenvalues of $`𝐓`$ are $`3+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_x1)]+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_y1)]`$, such that:

$$det𝐓=\underset{k_x=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k_y=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{3+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_x1)]+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_y1)]\}.$$
(49)
If one of the factors that occurs in this product is zero, we will know that the problem is non-ergodic. E.g. for $`\mathrm{}=12\&k_x=3\&k_y=4`$, we have $`3+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_x1)]+4\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}(k_y1)]=0`$, such that in all cases where $`12`$ is a factor of $`\mathrm{}`$, the determinant will be zero, leading to a reduction of the dimensionality of the problem. We can infer from this that our dynamics very often will not be ergodic when we adopt cyclic boundary conditions on $``$ We will therefore sketch a non-rigorous argument that suggests that for large samples non-ergodicity is not important.

### C A loophole of escape

Let us imagine that the neutron beam only illuminates a small part ($``$) of the whole sample ($`^{}`$). We have then $`^{}`$. We assume that the dynamics on $`^{}`$ are not ergodic. Let us call $`^{}`$ the configuration space that can be constructed from $`^{}`$ and $`_1`$ the configuration space that could be constructed by independent dynamics from $``$, if it were an isolated piece of sample. Let us drop from the description of the configurations in $`^{}`$ everything that cannot be seen by the neutron beam, i.e. restrict their description to $``$. Very often this incomplete, truncated description will generate all possible configurations of $``$, i.e. the whole of $`_1`$. In other words, the system is then not ergodic but the neutron beam cannot see it: $``$ has a (fake) apparent ergodicity. This boils down to a weakening of the ergodicity from a global to a local criterium. On any sizeable patch of the sample all possible configurations will then occur.

We will be in such a case of local ergodicity if we can build from a linear combination with integer coefficients of vectors $`𝐯_𝐤`$, a configuration $`𝐜_𝐣^{}`$, whose restriction to $``$ is equivalent to $`𝐞_𝐣`$, for some $`𝐣`$; put differently, if the projection of this configuration onto $`_1`$ is $`𝐞_𝐣`$. By translational invariance, we will then be able to do this $`𝐣`$, and thus we will also be able to construct by linear combination any configuration $`𝐜_1`$, i.e. we can build a set whose projection is the whole of $``$.

In the case of Eq. (2) it looks quite plausible that this would be possible: We start with $`𝐯_𝐣`$. By using $`𝐯_𝐤`$ contributions from the second-neighbour shell we can zero the coefficients of the $`𝐞_𝐤`$ corresponding to the first-neighbour shell, and so we can proceed further outwards shell after shell, upto arbitrary distances from $`𝐣`$. For the example of the dynamics given by Eq. (2) we have verified in detail that this works out. There are no conclusions to be drawn from this single case for any other posibble model. One will have to check case per case if one can fall back onto such an argument of local ergodicity.

## IX Appendix 2. Defining environment-dependent dynamics

We want to show here how one can define environment-dependent dynamics self-consistently. This will allow us to explain why we are not able to treat such dynamics by our method. Let $`𝐜`$ be a configuration, $`𝐜=_𝐣c_𝐣𝐞_𝐣`$. If we want to jump from $`𝐜`$ to $`𝐜\pm \mathrm{𝐞𝐣}`$ we must look at the environment of the molecule at $`𝐣`$, i.e. we must look at the local configuration built by all the molecules that belong to a cluster $`𝐣+𝒢`$ centered around $`𝐣`$, where $`𝒢`$ is a set of relative position vectors. The local configuration defined by these molecules is described by the coefficients $`c_{𝐣+𝐠},𝐠𝒢`$, i.e. by $`(c_{𝐣+𝐠_1},c_{𝐣+𝐠_2},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_{\mathrm{}}},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_\mu })(/n)^\mu `$, where $`\mu `$ is the number of molecules inside $`𝒢`$. To each such multiplet of $`n^\mu `$ vectors will correspond a relaxation time

$$\tau (c_{𝐣+𝐠_1},c_{𝐣+𝐠_2},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_{\mathrm{}}},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_\mu }).$$
(50)
Note that the quantities $`c_{𝐣+𝐠_{\mathrm{}}}`$ are only a small subset of the coordinates of $`𝐜`$. Some of these relaxation times will be equal for symmetry reasons, but the notation remains generally valid. This definition holds at any site $`𝐣`$, due to the translational invariance on $``$. The relaxation time Eq. (50) goes with jumps $`𝐜𝐜\pm 𝐞_𝐣`$, i.e. it goes with $`2\delta _{𝐜,𝐝}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝+𝐞_𝐣}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝𝐞_𝐣}`$, such that we have

$$M_{𝐜,𝐝}=\underset{𝐣}{}\frac{2\delta _{𝐜,𝐝}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝+𝐞_𝐣}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝𝐞_𝐣}}{\tau (c_{𝐣+𝐠_1},c_{𝐣+𝐠_2},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_{\mathrm{}}},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_\mu })}.$$
(51)
If we further would like to introduce the possibility that molecules turn simultaneously, we will end up with

$$M_{𝐜,𝐝}=\underset{𝐣}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\rho }{}}\frac{2\delta _{𝐜,𝐝}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝+𝐯_{𝐣,r}}+\delta _{𝐜,𝐝𝐯_{𝐣,r}}}{\tau ^{(r)}(c_{𝐣+𝐠_1},c_{𝐣+𝐠_2},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_{\mathrm{}}},\mathrm{}c_{𝐣+𝐠_\mu })}.$$
(52)
We can appreciate from such equations that the translational invariance on $``$ is completely lost as the relaxation times depend on $`𝐜`$. Although (atmost) “only” $`\rho n^\mu `$ of them have been introduced, it is not so that we could define a unit cell of $`\rho n^\mu `$ sites on $``$ and define a “Bravais lattice” of $`N/(\rho n^\mu )`$ cells in analogy with the matrix diagonalization procedure for a phonon problem. Indeed, there is translational invariance on $``$ as all clusters $`𝐣+𝒢`$ are congruent, but this does not carry over to $``$, e.g. $`𝐞_{𝐣+𝐬}𝐞_𝐣𝐞_{𝐣+2𝐬}𝐞_{𝐣+𝐬}`$, although $`(𝐣+𝐬)𝐣=(𝐣+2𝐬)(𝐣+𝐬)`$.

The loss of translational symmetry has dramatic consequences. We can no longer diagonalize the jump matrix by simple arguments of translational symmetry and we run out of methods. There are other types of symmetry present, but these are not high enough to simplify the problem in any significant way. Therefore, in this case we cannot expect to recover a behaviour where the elastic intensity would vanish between the Bragg peaks, and the coherent quasielastic intensity would not reveal the correlations present.


format: text

text:
# References

HADRON MULTIPLICITY IN LEPTON-NUCLEON INTERACTIONS

G. I. Lykasova, U. Sukhatmeb, V. V. Uzhinskya

a Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980, Russia.
b State University of New York at Buffalo, 810 Clemens Hall, 14260-4600, USA.

Abstract

Multi-hadron production in inelastic neutrino-nucleon interactions is investigated within the framework of the quark-gluon string model. The contributions of the planar (one-Reggeon exchange) and cylindrical (one-Pomeron exchange) graphs to different observables is computed using a Monte Carlo program for the generation of hadrons produced from the decay of colorless quark-antiquark strings. The suggested approach results in a satisfactory description of the experimental data on $`\nu (\overline{\nu })N\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX`$ reactions obtained recently at CERN by the NOMAD Collaboration. The data extends over a wide range of initial neutrino energies $`E_\nu `$ $`<`$ 200 GeV/c and momentum transfers 1 $`<`$ Q $`<`$ 7 GeV/c, well into the region where perturbative QCD calculations are not applicable.

PACS: 13.60Hb, 13.15.+g

The investigation of multi-hadron production in inelastic lepton-nucleon interactions is a tool to study the dynamics of such processes and the nucleon structure function, particularly the $`Q^2`$ dependence over a wide interval of values. In analyzing these types of reactions, the fragmentation properties of the struck quark in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) in $`\nu _\mu N`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu N`$ charged current events are often compared to those of the quarks produced in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`ep`$ inelastic scattering. This comparison tests the universality of the quark fragmentation process in regions where non-perturbative QCD effects are important. Such an analysis has been performed recently in Ref. . It has also been found that a perturbative QCD calculation results in a good description of the charged hadron multiplicity $`<n_{ch}>`$ measured in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`ep`$ DIS at initial energies E = $`\sqrt{s}`$ = Q $`>`$ 5 GeV/c , whereas a similar calculation of $`<n_{ch}>`$ in the current region of processes $`\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX`$ cannot reproduce the NOMAD data at Q $`<`$ 5 GeV/c . This discrepancy is an important motivation for the present analysis of inelastic neutrino-nucleon interactions within the framework of the quark-gluon string model (QGSM) , which is essentially equivalent to the dual parton model (DPM) developed in Refs. . We calculate the different observables in a manner similar to Ref. , which focused on the pion multiplicity in $`\nu (\overline{\nu })A\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX`$ reactions. The main difference from the previous study is that we now use the Monte Carlo (MC) generation of hadrons produced from the decay of colorless strings. This procedure allows us to analyze all the observables measured experimentally and make a comparison with recent data .

In the QGSM , hadron production in the reactions $`\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX`$ is described in terms of planar and cylindrical graphs, as shown in Fig. 1. The planar graph of Fig. 1(a) describes neutrino scattering off a valence quark, corresponding to the one Reggeon exchange in the $`t`$-channel , whereas the cylindrical graph of Fig. 1(b) describes neutrino scattering off sea quarks in the proton corresponding to the one-Pomeron exchange in the $`t`$-channel . The figures also show the occurrence of hadronization in the colorless quark-antiquark and quark-diquark strings.

The relativistic invariant distribution of hadrons produced in the process $`\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX`$ is defined as

$`\rho _{\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX}=E_h{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d^3p_hd\mathrm{\Omega }dE^{}}},`$ (1)
where $`E_h`$ and $`𝐩_h`$ are the total energy and three momentum of the produced hadron, respectively; $`E^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the energy and the solid angle of the final muon. It can be written in the following general form

$`\rho _{\nu (\overline{\nu })p\mu ^{}(\mu ^+)hX}=\mathrm{\Phi }(Q^2)\left\{F_P(x,Q^2;z,p_{ht})+F_C(x,Q^2;z,p_{ht})\right\}`$ (2)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(Q^2)=mE\frac{G^2}{\pi }\frac{m_W^2}{Q^2+m_W^2},$$

where $`G`$ is the Fermi weak coupling constant, $`E`$ is the energy of the incoming neutrino, $`m`$ and $`m_W`$ are the nucleon and the $`W`$-boson masses respectively, $`x=Q^2/2(p_\nu k)`$ is the Bjorken variable, $`p_\nu `$ and $`k`$ are the four momenta of the initial neutrino and nucleon. Here $`F_P(x,Q^2;z,p_{ht})`$ and $`F_C(x,Q^2;z,p_{ht})`$ are the probability distributions of produced hadrons corresponding to the planar and cylindrical graphs of Fig. 1 respectively. The contributions $`F_P`$ and $`F_C`$ are computed by using the MC generation of all the quark-antiquark and quark-diquark strings drawn in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b). Generally, $`z`$ is the light cone variable defined as $`z=(E_h+p_{hz})/(E+p_z)`$, where $`p_{hz}`$ is the hadron longitudinal momentum respect to the initial neutrino having momentum $`p_z`$, see fro example Refs. and . At large energies of final hadrons it is the longitudinal momentum fraction of hadron with respect to the neutrino in the rest frame of the proton-target. The variable $`z`$ can be treated also as the Feynman variable $`x_F=2p_L^{}/W_X`$ defined as the longitudinal momentum fraction in the hadronic center of mass system (h.c.m.s.). Here $`p_L^{}`$ is the longitudinal hadron momentum in the h.c.m.s., $`W_X`$ is the mass of hadrons produced in the reaction, then $`p_{ht}`$ is the transverse momentum of produced hadron with respect to the current (hadronic jet) direction, see for example Ref. .

The main ingredients for the calculations of observables in the discussed reaction are the quark distributions in a nucleon and their fragmentation functions to hadrons. In addition to the dependence upon $`x`$, quark distributions also depend on $`Q^2`$ and the transverse momentum $`k_t`$. Following Ref. , we take a factorized form for these distributions:

$`q_f(x,Q^2;k_t)=q_f(x,Q^2)g_q(k_t),`$ (3)
with the function $`g_q`$ chosen in the form

$`g_q(k_t)={\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\pi }}e^{Bk_t},`$ (4)
where $`B=1/<k_t>4(GeV/c)^1`$, and $`<k_t>0.25GeV/c`$ is the average transverse momentum of a quark in a nucleon. As for the function $`q_f(x,Q^2)`$ we use the fit suggested in Ref.  including the true Regge $`x`$-asymptotic at $`x0,x1`$ and small $`Q^2`$, and its QCD prediction at large $`Q^2`$. More specifically, the valence $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark distributions according to Ref. , have the following forms:

$`q_u(x,Q^2)=B_ux^{\alpha _R(0)}(1x)^{n(Q^2)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+b}}\right)^{\alpha _R(0)},`$ (5)
$`q_d(x,Q^2)=B_dx^{\alpha _R(0)}(1x)^{n(Q^2)+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+b}}\right)^{\alpha _R(0)},`$ (6)
where

$$n(Q^2)==\frac{3}{2}(1+\frac{Q^2}{Q^2+c}).$$

We take the values of the constants from Ref. : $`\alpha _R(0)=0.4150`$ is the Reggeon intercept, $`B_u=1.2064,B_d=0.1798,b=0.6452,c=3.5489`$ .

The sea quark distribution in the proton is taken to be :

$`q_{sea}(x,Q^2)=Ax^{\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)1}(1x)^{n(Q^2)+4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+a}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)},`$ (7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(Q^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1(Q^2)\times Q^2}{Q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_2}\right),$$

and $`A=0.1502,a=0.2631,\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.07684,\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2.0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2=1.1170`$. Note, this fit of the quark distributions in the proton describes all the experimental data from very small $`x`$ up to $`x0.9`$ .

Generally, the fragmentation functions (FF) of quarks (diquarks) $`D_{q(qq)}^h`$ into hadrons depend on the hadron momentum fraction $`z_1`$ and the hadron transverse momentum $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ht}`$ with respect to a quark (diquark) momentum direction. Here also we choose the factorized form

$`D_{q(qq)}^h(z_1,\stackrel{~}{p}_{ht})=D_{q(qq)}^h(z_1)g_q(\stackrel{~}{p}_{ht}),`$ (8)
with the function $`g_q`$ again chosen in the form (4). The functions $`D_{q(qq)}^h(z_1)`$ are constructed, according to the recursive cascade model procedure suggested in . They are found from the following integral equation :

$`D_{q(qq)}^h(z_1)=f(z_1)+{\displaystyle _{z_1}^1}f(x)D_{q(qq)}^h\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$ (9)
The function $`f(x)`$ is chosen in the form

$`f(x)=x^\beta (1x)^\gamma `$ (10)
According to the main points of the QGSM, the fragmentation functions $`D_{q(qq)}^h(z_1)`$ should satisfy true Regge asymptotics at $`z_11`$ and $`z_10`$ . This limitation allows us to find the values of the parameters. The detailed procedure is presented in Ref. . In general case the FF have to depend not only on $`z_1,p_{ht}`$ but also on $`Q^2`$. At small $`Q^2`$ they have to reproduce the true Regge asymptotic  and at large $`Q^2`$ they have to describe the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation data. Since we analyze inelastic neutrino- nucleon interactions mainly at not large $`Q^2`$, one can assume that the FF depends on it weakly and neglect this $`Q^2`$ behaviour of $`D_{q(qq)}^h`$.

The MC computation results of the different observables in the reaction $`\nu +N\mu ^{}+h+X`$ are presented in Figs. 2 to 5. The mean charged multiplicity in the current region is presented in Fig. 2. As it shown in  the NOMAD multiplicity values $`n_{ch}`$ are very close to $`<n_{ch}>/2`$ results from $`e^+e^{}`$ experiment  at energy $`E=\sqrt{s}`$ and $`<n_{ch}>`$ from $`ep`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu p`$ at $`E=Q`$. In Fig. 2 we compare our results with the QCD calculation of the charged multiplicity from $`e^+e^{}`$ $`<n_{ch}^{QCD}>/2`$. The open circles in Fig. 2 correspond to the QCD calculations  for the evolution of partons in the leading log approximation which give for $`<n_{ch}^{QCD}>`$ the following fit, see also ,

$`n_{ch}^{QCD}=a+b\mathrm{exp}(c\sqrt{ln(Q^2/Q_0^2)}),`$ (11)
where $`a=2.257,b=0.094,c=1.775,Q_0=1GeV/c`$. The solid, long dash and short dash lines in Fig. 2 correspond to our Monte Carlo calculation at the initial neutrino energies $`E_\nu =150GeV,E_\nu =45GeV,E_\nu =23.6GeV`$ respectively. The NOMAD experimental data are averaged over the initial energy . It is seen from Fig. 1 that the QCD fit can’t reproduce the NOMAD data on the charged multiplicity at $`Q<5GeV/c`$, whereas at large $`Q`$ it describes these ones and $`<n_{ch}>`$ from $`e^+e^{}`$, $`ep`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu p`$ experiments satisfactory as it is shown in . The suggested approach describes the NOMAD data at $`Q<5GeV/c`$ rather well.

In Fig. 3 the $`Q^2`$ dependence of the inclusive muon spectrum in the process $`\nu +p\mu ^{}+X`$ is presented. The long and the short dash lines correspond to the the contributions of the cylindrical (one-Pomeron exchange) and the planar (one-Reggeon exchange) graphs to this spectrum, the solid line shows their incoherent sum. It is seen from Fig. 3 that the contribution of the one-Pomeron exchange graph is decreasing with increase of $`Q^2`$ much faster than the one of the one-Reggeon diagram which dominates at $`Q^2>20(GeV/c)^2`$.

In Fig. 4 the $`x_F`$ distributions of strange $`K^0`$-mesons and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-baryons are presented. The solid lines in Fig. 3 correspond to our calculation, the experimental points are the NOMAD data . This figure shows rather satisfactory description of the NOMAD data.

In Fig. 5 our calculation results of the mean multiplicity of the strange hadrons $`K_S^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ as the function of the neutrino energy $`E_\nu `$ with the NOMAD data  are presented.

In this Letter we have analyzed the multiple hadron production in inelastic neutrino-nucleon processes, The main conclusions of our work can be summarized as follows. By the analysis of the charged hadron multiplicity in the current region of the process $`\nu +p\mu ^{}+h+X`$ at $`Q^210(GeV/c)^2`$ the nonperturbative QCD effects become very important. The conventional perturbative QCD calculation of $`<n_{ch}>`$ doesn’t reproduce the NOMAD data in this region, whereas the application of the QGSM or the DPM allows to describe these data rather satisfactory. The main contribution to this observable and the muon distribution $`1/Nd\sigma /dQ^2`$ at small $`Q^2`$ is coming from the cylindrical (one-Pomeron exchange) graph, Fig. 1(b), whereas at large $`Q^2`$ the planar (one-Reggeon) graph, Fig. 1(a), dominates. Note, these two observables presented in Figs. 2,3 are related to the current fragmentation region. Recently in  it has been shown that in the target fragmentation region these two contributions to the multiplicity of pions produced in the backward hemi-sphere in inelastic neutrino-nucleus collisions have the $`Q^2`$ dependences opposite to the ones obtained in this paper. There is some analogous between the last reaction and the soft $`hN`$ processes at $`x_F1`$ when the one-Pomeron exchange graph dominates at large initial energy, see for example . Therefore the contributions of the Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b) graphs have different $`Q^2`$ dependences in the different kinematical regions, the current and the target fragmentation ones.

The NOMAD data on the $`x_F`$ distributions of strange hadrons are described by the QGSM rather satisfactorily. It can mean that the fragmentation functions of quarks (diquarks) used by description of soft $`hN`$ processes are rather good to analyse the multiple hadron production in inelastic $`\nu N`$ interactions at not large $`Q^2`$.

Acknowledgements
We are indebted to A. B. Kaidalov, B. Popov and A. Capella for many helpful discussions. One of the authors (V.V.U.) thanks RFBR grant N 01-02-16431 and INTAS grant N 00-00366 for their financial support. Support from the U.S. Department of Energy is gratefully acknowledged.