text:
# 1 Motivation

## 1 Motivation

The need for an improved understanding of what Quantum Mechanics really is, needs hardly be explained in this meeting. My primary concern is that Quantum Mechanics, in its present state, appears to be mysterious. It should always be the scientists’ aim to take away the mystery of things. It is my suspicion that there should exist a quite logical explanation for the fact that we need to describe probabilities in this world quantum mechanically. This explanation presumably can be found in the fabric of the Laws of Physics at the Planck scale.

However, if our only problem with Quantum Mechanics were our desire to demystify it, then one could bring forward that, as it stands, Quantum Mechanics works impeccably. It predicts the outcome of any conceivable experiment, apart from some random ingredient. This randomness is perfect. There never has been any indication that there would be any way to predict where in its quantum probability curve an event will actually be detected. Why not be at peace with this situation?

One answer to this is Quantum Gravity. Attempts to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics lead to a jungle of complexity that is difficult or impossible to interpret physically. In a combined theory, we no longer see “states” that evolve with “time”, we do not know how to identify the vacuum state, and so on. What we need instead is a unique theory that not only accounts for Quantum Mechanics together with General Relativity, but also explains for us how matter behaves. We should find indications pointing towards the correct unifying theory underlying the Standard Model, towards explanations of the presumed occurrence of supersymmetry, as well as the mechanism(s) that break it. We suspect that deeper insights in what and why Quantum Mechanics is, should help us further to understand these issues.

Related to the question of quantizing gravity is the problem of quantizing cosmology. Astrophysicists tell us that the Universe started with a “big bang”, but, at least at first sight, such a statement appears to be at odds with the notions of quantum mechanical uncertainty. In principle, we could know the state the Universe is in presently, and then one could solve the Schrödinger equation backwards in time, but this should yield a quantum superposition of many configurations, not just a Big Bang. Questions of this sort may seem of purely academic nature, but they become very concrete as soon as one attempts to construct some reasonable model for a “Quantum Universe”. The notion of a quantum state of the Universe appears to defy logic.

Attempts nevertheless to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Cosmology were made. Whether the proposed schemes may be viewed as a satisfactory picture of our world, is difficult to discuss. To convince someone that they are flawed may be as difficult as changing someone’s religious beliefs. Therefore, I shall refrain from trying to do this; instead, one further issue is as displayed in the next section.

## 2 Holography

Black holes are not only legitimate solutions of Einstein’s field equations for the gravitational force, one can also show quite easily that black holes *inevitably* form under given favorable initial conditions of conventional matter configurations. Such ‘conventional’ black holes are very big, having a radius at least of the order of 10 km. Therefore, they are usually considered as classical, *i.e.* non-quantum mechanical, objects. But, at least in principle, they should also obey the laws of Quantum Mechanics. Elementary particles in the vicinity of a black hole should be described by Quantum Field theory, and the laws of General Relativity should dictate how to handle Quantum Field theory here. As was shown by S. Hawking, this exercise leads to the astonishing result that particles must emerge from a black hole.

Mathematically, the explanation for this effect is that *time* is measured by freely falling observers in a coordinate frame that is fundamentally different from the coordinate frame used by the onlooking observer outside the black hole. Physically, one may explain the emission as a gravitational tunneling effect, comparable to the pair creation of charged particles in the presence of a strong electric field. The emission rate is precisely computable, and conventional theory gives a flux of particles corresponding to a temperature

$`T_\mathrm{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{8\pi kGM_{\mathrm{BH}}}},`$ (2.1)
where $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is the mass of the black hole.

Hawking’s result can be used to estimate the *density of quantum states* of a black hole. Assuming a transition amplitude $`𝒯_{\mathrm{in}}`$ for the absorption process, we can write in two ways an estimate for the absorption cross section $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{k})`$ for an amount of matter $`\delta E`$ with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ by a black hole of mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}`$:

$`\sigma `$ $`2\pi r_+^2=8\pi M_{\mathrm{B}H}^2;`$ (2.2)
$`\sigma =`$ $`|𝒯_{\mathrm{i}n}|^2\varrho (M_{\mathrm{B}H}+\delta E)/v.`$ (2.3)
Here, $`r_+`$ is the radius of the outer event horizon, $`\varrho (M)`$ is the density of states of a black hole with mass $`M`$, and $`v`$ is the velocity of the absorbed particle. The probability $`W\mathrm{d}t`$ of a particle emission during a time interval $`\mathrm{d}t`$ can also be written in two ways:

$`W\mathrm{d}t=`$ $`|𝒯_{\mathrm{o}ut}|^2\varrho (M_{\mathrm{BH}})\mathrm{d}t/V;`$ (2.4)
$`W\mathrm{d}t=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\stackrel{}{k})v}{V}}e^{\delta E/kT_\mathrm{H}}\mathrm{d}t.`$ (2.5)
Here, $`V`$ is the volume of a box, in which the wave function of the emitted particle is normalized. Dividing Eqs. (2.2) — (2.5), we get, in Planck units,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varrho (M+\delta E)}{\varrho (M)}}={\displaystyle \frac{|𝒯_{\mathrm{o}ut}|^2}{|𝒯_{\mathrm{i}n}|^2}}e^{\delta E/kT_\mathrm{H}}=e^{8\pi M\delta E}.`$ (2.6)
We assumed here that $`|𝒯_{\mathrm{o}ut}|=|𝒯_{\mathrm{i}n}|`$. All that is needed for this assumption is $`PCT`$ invariance, since $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{k})`$ is symmetric under $`P`$ and $`C`$. For all known field theories, $`PCT`$ is a perfect symmetry. Needless to say, we do not know this to be so for quantum gravity, but it would be a natural assumption.

Eq. (2.6) is to be seen as a differential equation that is easily integrated, to give:

$`\varrho (M)=e^{4\pi M^2+𝒞}=𝒞^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{A/A_0},`$ (2.7)
where $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒞^{}`$ are integration constants, $`A=4\pi r_+^2`$ is the black hole area, and $`A_0=4\mathrm{ln}2`$ in Planck units. One concludes that the density of quantum states of a black hole is that of an object with $`A/A_0`$ free Boolian parameters on its surface. The integration constant represents a fixed degree of freedom that all black holes have in common. The result (2.7) can also be derived using thermodynamics, but then one has to cope with the difficulty that black holes, embedded in a thermal environment, are unstable because of their negative specific heat (they cool off when energy is added to them).

In one respect, this result appears to be quite interesting and acceptable. Apparently, the quantum states of a black hole form a discrete set, just as if the black hole were a fairly ordinary object, easily to become macroscopic, in the astronomical case. Black hole formation and evaporation can indeed be described in terms of quantum amplitudes, and if the black hole is very tiny, these amplitudes can be represented in Feynman diagrams.

On closer inspection, however, there are several problems with this result. We would have thought that a general coordinate transformation transforms *states* into *states*. An in-going observer describes what (s)he sees in terms of particle states superimposed on an approximately flat space-time environment, using regular coordinates. The outside observer uses the black hole coordinates featuring an horizon. The states observed by the outside observer are counted by discrete variables of one bit for every area unit $`A_0`$. How can this mapping of discrete states onto the continuum of states for the in-going observer be unitary? How does the in-going observer count his/her states? We should have expected the number of these states to scale with the bulk volume of his environment, not with the area.

Hawking’s calculation gives no clues here. To the contrary, it appears to tell us that, even if the initial state of an imploding object would be a quantum mechanically pure state, the radiating black hole that emerges after some time would nevertheless be in a quantum mechanically mixed state. Such a transition cannot be described by any Schrödinger equation. Does the black hole, viewed as an isolated object, disobey the quantum code? This is what was concluded initially, but most of us now agree that such a conclusion must be premature.

If, however, on the other hand, information is conserved in unitary evolution equations, how is it that the information in the in-going particles is transmitted to the out-going ones?

A first clue towards answering this question was provided by taken into account the fact that ingoing particles interact with the outgoing ones when they pass each other. The gravitational interaction here diverges. Early ingoing particles meet late outgoing ones in an entirely different local Lorentz frame, so that the relative energy, that is, the energy in the center of mass frame, is large, and this number diverges exponentially with the time difference of the two particles. Taking this into account, one does find a unitary scattering matrix relating outgoing particles to the ingoing ones, but the spectrum of states does not seem to be bounded by the horizon area. Such a bound presumably has to come from the transverse components of the gravitational interactions, which is much harder to calculate.

Requiring that the number of states in some region of space, described by a theory, is bounded by the surface area of this region, seems to be paradoxical. This paradox seems to be as deep and fundamental as the one that lead M. Planck to his postulates of Quantum Mechanics, or, in other words, we expect that its resolution requires a paradigm shift. How can we have locality in three-space, but numbers bound by two-space?

In certain versions of string theories, these apparently conflicting demands are met to some extent, except that the concept of locality appears to be ignored. The amount of ‘magic’ required for these ideas to work is still not acceptable. It is this author’s belief that the true reason for the mysterious nature of this problem is our insistence to stick to the language of Quantum Mechanics. It seems to be only natural to see a link between the mysteries of string theory and those of the correct interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

## 3 Harmonic oscillators.

It is instructive to ask how a deterministic system can be addressed using the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. Our starting point is that we may have simple autonomous dynamical systems, where later we will decide how they should be coupled. Thus, we start with a deterministic system consisting of a set of $`N`$ states,

$`(0),(1),\mathrm{},(N1)\}`$
on a circle. Time is discrete, the unit time steps having length $`\tau `$ (the continuum limit is left for later). The evolution law is:

$`tt+\tau :(\nu )(\nu +1\mathrm{mod}N).`$ (3.1)
Introducing a basis for a Hilbert space spanned by the states $`(\nu )`$, the evolution operator can be written as

$`U(\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau )=e^{iH\tau }=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi i}{N}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& & & & 1\\ 1& 0\\ & 1& 0\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & & 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (3.2)
The phase factor in front of the matrix is of little importance; it is there for future convenience. Its eigenstates are denoted as $`|n`$, $`n=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. They are found to be

$`|n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{\frac{2\pi in\nu }{N}}(\nu ),n=0,\mathrm{},N1.`$ (3.3)
This law can be represented by a Hamiltonian using the notation of quantum physics:

$`H|n={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (n+\frac{1}{2})}{N\tau }}|n.`$ (3.4)
The $`\frac{1}{2}`$ comes from the aforementioned phase factor. Next, we apply the algebra of the $`SU(2)`$ generators $`L_x`$, $`L_y`$ and $`L_z`$, so we write

$`N\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}2\mathrm{}+1,n\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}m+\mathrm{},m=\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}.`$ (3.5)
Using the quantum numbers $`m`$ rather than $`n`$ to denote the eigenstates, we have

$`H|m={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi (m+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2})}{(2\mathrm{}+1)\tau }}|m\text{or}H={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{(2\mathrm{}+1)\tau }}(L_z+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2}).`$ (3.6)
This Hamiltonian resembles the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian when $`\omega =2\pi /(2\mathrm{}+1)\tau `$, except for the fact that there is an upper bound for the energy. This upper bound disappears in the continuum limit, if $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau 0`$. Using $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$, we can make the correspondence more explicit. Write

$`L_\pm |m`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)m(m\pm 1)}|m\pm 1;`$ (3.7)
$`L_\pm `$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}L_x\pm iL_y;[L_i,L_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}L_k,`$ (3.8)
and define

$`\widehat{x}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\alpha L_x,\widehat{p}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\beta L_y;\alpha \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\pi }}},\beta \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\mathrm{}+1}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\tau }}}.`$ (3.9)
The commutation rules are

$`[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]=\alpha \beta iL_z=i(1{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\pi }}H),`$ (3.10)
and since

$`L_x^2+L_y^2+L_z^2=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1),`$ (3.11)
we have

$`H=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2\widehat{x}^2+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{4}}+H^2\right).`$ (3.12)
Now consider the continuum limit, $`\tau 0`$, with $`\omega =2\pi /(2\mathrm{}+1)\tau `$ fixed, for those states for which the energy stays limited. We see that the commutation rule (3.10) for $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ becomes the conventional one, and the Hamiltonian becomes that of the conventional harmonic oscillator:

$`[\widehat{x},\widehat{p}]i;H\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2\widehat{x}^2+\frac{1}{2}\widehat{p}^2.`$ (3.13)
There are no other states than the legal ones, and their energies are bounded, as can be seen not only from (3.12) but rather from the original definition (3.6). Note that, in the continuum limit, both $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ become continuous operators, since both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ tend to zero.

The way in which these operators act on the ‘primordial’ or ‘ontological’ states $`(\nu )`$ of Eq. (3.1) can be derived from (3.7) and (3.9), if we realize that the states $`|m`$ are just the discrete Fourier transforms of the states $`(\nu )`$, see Eq. (3.3). This way, also the relation between the eigenstates of $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ and the states $`(\nu )`$ can be determined. Only in a fairly crude way, $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ give information on where on the circle our ontological object is; both $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ narrow down the value of $`\nu `$ of our states $`(\nu )`$.

The most important conclusion from this section is that there is a close relationship between the quantum harmonic oscillator and the classical particle moving along a circle. The period of the oscillator is equal to the period of the trajectory along the circle. We started our considerations by having time discrete, and only a finite number of states. This is because the continuum limit is a rather delicate one. One cannot directly start with the continuum because then the Hamiltonian does not seem to be bounded from below.

The price we pay for a properly bounded Hamiltonian is the square root in Eq. (3.7); it may cause complications when we attempt to introduce interactions, a problem that is not yet properly worked out.

Starting from this description of harmonic oscillators in terms of deterministic models, one may attempt to construct deterministic theories describing, for instance, free bosonic particles, see Ref.

Strings can also be seen as collections of harmonic oscillators. A first attempt to write string theory in deterministic terms failed because conformal invariance could not be built in. Apparently, further new ideas are needed here.

## 4 Continuous degrees of freedom.

In the previous section, a discrete, periodic system was considered, and we took the continuum limit in the end. Could one not have started with a continuous model right from the beginning?

Take a Newtonian equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}q^i(t)=f^i(\stackrel{}{q}).`$ (4.1)
We can write the *quantum* Hamiltonian,

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_if^i(\stackrel{}{q}),p_i={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^i}}.`$ (4.2)
This is quantum language for a classical, deterministic system. It works because the Hamiltonian is linear, not quadratic, in the momenta $`p_i`$. The difficulty linking this with real Quantum Mechanics is that this Hamiltonian cannot possibly be bounded from below, so that there is no ground state.

## 5 Massless, noninteracting fermions.

Massless, non-interacting fermions are entirely deterministic. this can be demonstrated by identifying the ‘beables’ for this system. Beables are a complete set of observables $`𝒪_i(t)`$ that commute at all times:

$`[𝒪_i(t),𝒪_j(t^{})]=0,t,t^{}.`$ (5.1)
First, consider only first-quantized, chiral fermions. They have a two-component complex wave function obeying the Hamilton equation for

$`H=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p};\sigma _i\sigma _j=\delta _{ij}I+i\epsilon _{ijk}\sigma _k,`$ (5.2)
$`\sigma _i`$ being the Pauli matrices. Consider the set

$`𝒪_i(t)=\{\widehat{p},\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma },\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}\},`$ (5.3)
where

$`\widehat{p}_i\pm {\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{|p|}},\widehat{p}_x>0.`$ (5.4)
These operators obey closed time evolution equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }(t),{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\left(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}(t)\right)=\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma },{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}}\left(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\right)=0.`$ (5.5)
$`\widehat{p}(t)=\widehat{p}(0),\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(t)=\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }(0),\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}(t)=\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}(0)+\widehat{p}\sigma (0)t.`$ (5.6)
The fact that all operators in Eq.(5.3) commute with one another is easy to establish, with the possible exception of $`[\widehat{p}_i,\left(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}\right)]`$. The fact that the latter vanishes is most easily established in momentum space, realizing that $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$ is the dilatation operator, while $`\widehat{p}`$ keeps the same length 1 under dilatations:

$`[(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}),\widehat{p}_i]=i\left(\widehat{p}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}}\right)\widehat{p}_i=0.`$ (5.7)
The *physical* interpretation of this result is that the dynamical behaviour of a massless, chiral, non-interacting fermion is exactly like that of an *infinite, flat, oriented sheet*, moving with the speed of light in a direction orthogonal to the sheet. $`\pm \widehat{p}`$ gives the direction of the sheet, $`\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ gives the sign of its orientation and $`\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{x}`$ its distance from the origin.

As before, we encounter the difficulty that, in this deterministic system, the Hamiltonian is not bounded below, again because it is linear in the momenta $`p_i`$. Thus, there exists no ground state. In this case, however, P.A.M. Dirac told us what to do: *second quantization*. Assume an indefinite number of particles with hamiltonian (5.2). Consider the range of energies they can have. Take the state where all negative energy states are occupied by a particle, all positive energy states are empty. That is the state with lowest possible total energy, the vacuum state. It is standard procedure, but it does require our particles to obey Fermi statistics, or, in other words, no two particles are allowed in the same state, and interchanging two particles does not change a state into a different one.

The latter condition is easily met, but to forbid two particles to be in the same state requires some sort of repulsion. The easiest procedure is to have at each value for the unit orientation vector $`\widehat{p}`$ a grid with some finite spacing $`a`$. No two sheets are allowed on the same lattice point. Then we can count the states exactly as in a fermion theory and the second quantization procedure works. The limit $`a0`$ can be taken without any difficulty.

## 6 Locality.

Let us focus a bit more on the ontological states for massless fermions. They are characterized by an orientation $`\widehat{k}`$ (obeying $`|\widehat{k}|=1`$), and a distance scalar $`z`$. Furthermore, we need the quantum operator conjugated to $`z`$, which we call $`qi/z`$. We define $`\eta _3`$ to be the sign of $`q`$, and $`\widehat{k}`$ is the orientation of the sheet with its sign chosen such that it moves in the positive $`\widehat{k}`$ direction:

$`(\widehat{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma })\widehat{p}\widehat{k}\eta _3{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{|p|}};\eta _3{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{|p|}}=\pm 1.`$ (6.1)
$`z=(\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the distance of the sheet from the origin, apart from its sign, which denotes whether the sheet moves away from or towards the origin. To define the original components of the vector $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, we first have to find its length $`|p|`$. This we take to be the operator

$`|p||q|i\eta _3{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}},\text{so}\stackrel{}{p}=i\widehat{k}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}.`$ (6.2)
$`\widehat{k}`$ and $`z`$ are the ontological variables, or beables, whereas $`q`$ and $`\eta _3`$ are changeables. We have $`H=q`$, so the dynamical equations are now simply

$`\dot{z}=1;\dot{\widehat{k}}=0,`$ (6.3)
which are the equations of a sheet moving in a fixed direction. Since Eq. (6.2) defines the momenta, and their canonically conjugated operators the positions, we should now be in a position to compute the conventional wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},\sigma _3)`$, $`\sigma _3=\pm 1`$, if we have some wave function $`\psi (\widehat{k},z)`$. A fairly delicate calculation gives

$`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},\pm )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\stackrel{}{}_x^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi \left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}\theta \\ e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}\theta \end{array}\right)|\widehat{k},z},`$ (6.4)
where we used the notation

$`z=(\widehat{k}\stackrel{}{x});\widehat{k}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right\}.`$ (6.5)
Thus, apart from the Laplacian, all sheets contributing to $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},\sigma _3)`$ are going through the point $`\stackrel{}{x}`$.

## 7 Information loss

The reasons why *information loss* may be an essential ingredient in deterministic hidden variable models of the sort pioneered above, has been extensively discussed in Ref.,. A prototype microcosmos with information loss is the model of Fig. 1. Following the arrows, one would conclude that the evolution matrix is

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (7.1)
This, of course, is not a unitary matrix. One way to restore unitarity would be to remove state # 4. The problem with that is that, in universes with tremendously many allowed states, it would be very difficult to determine which of the states are like state number 4, that is, they have no state at all in their (distant) past.

A preferred way to proceed is therefore to introduce *equivalence classes* of states. Two states are equivalent iff, some time in the near future, they evolve into one and the same state<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2It could also happen that two states merge into the same state in the *distant* future, but in many models such events become increasingly unlikely as time goes on.. In Fig. 1, states ## 1 and 4 are equivalent, so they form one class. By construction then, equivalence classes evolve uniquely into equivalence classes.

It should be emphasized that, at the Planck scale, information loss is not a small effect but a very large effect. Large numbers of ‘ontological’ states are in the same equivalence class, and the equivalence classes form a much smaller set than the class of all states. This is how it can happen that the total number of distinguishable quantum states (= the number of equivalence classes) may only grow exponentially with the *surface* of a system, whereas the total number of ontological states may rise exponentially with the volume. This seems to be demanded by black hole physics, when we confront the laws of quantum mechanics with those of black holes.

Information loss at the level of the underlying deterministic theory, may also explain the apparent lack of causality in the usual attempts to understand quantum mechanics in terms of hidden variables. The definition of an equivalence class refers to the future evolution of a system, and therefore it should not be surprising that in many hidden variable models, causality seems to be violated. One has to check how a system will evolve, which requires advance knowledge of the future.

Information loss at the Planck scale may also shed further light on the origin of gauge theories. it could be that, at the level of the ontological degrees of freedom at the Planck scale, there is no local gauge symmetry bat all, but in order to describe a physical state, that is, an equivalence class, we need to describe a particular member of this class, a single state. its relation to the other members of the same equivalence classes could be what is presently called a ‘gauge transformation”.

There is another aspect to be considered in theories with information loss. Theories with continuous degrees of freedom would have an infinity of possible states if there were no information loss. With information loss, there may be a discrete set of limit cycles, meaning that the equivalence classes may still form discrete sets. Discreteness, one of the prime characters of quantum physics, could thus be ascribed to information loss.

## 8 Conclusions.

Our view towards the quantum mechanical nature of our world can be summarized as follows.

* Nature’s fundamental laws are defined at the Planck scale. At that scale, all we have is *bits of information*.
* A large fraction of this information gets lost very quickly, but it is being replenished by information entering from the boundaries.
* A quantum state is defined to be an equivalence class of states which all have the same distant future. This definition is non-local and acausal, which implies that, if we would attempt to describe everything that happens purely in conventional quantum mechanical terms, such as what is done in superstring theories, locality and even causality will seem to be absent at the Planck scale. Only in terms of a deterministic theory this demand of internal logic can be met.
* These equivalence classes are described by observables that we call ‘beables’. In quantum terminology, beables are a complete set of operators that commute at all times, see Eq,(5.1). A beable describes what a Planckian observer would be able to register about a system — information that did not get lost.
* All other quantum operators are ‘changeables’, operators that do not commute with all beables.
* The wave function $`\psi `$ has the usual Copenhagen/Bohr/Bohm interpretation, but:
* Many or all of the familiar symmetries of Nature, such as translation, rotation, Lorentz and isospin symmetry, must be symmetries that relate beables to changeables. This means that the ‘ontological’ theory behind Quantum Mechanics does not have these symmetries in a conventional form.

When we go from the Planck scale to the Standard Model scale,

* Our only way to obtain effective laws of physics at the larger distance scales is by applying the renormalization group procedure.
* Beables and changeables are then mixed up to the extent that it is impossible to identify them; they obey the same laws of physics.
* When we perform a typical quantum experiment, we therefore do not know in advance whether an operator we are working with is a beable or a changeable. Due to the symmetries mentioned above, beables and changeables may obey the same laws of physics. Only when we measure something, and not before, do we know that what we are looking at is a beable. In this way, we believe, apparent clashes with Bell’s inequalities may be avoided.
* The classical observables in the classical (macroscopic) limit, commute with the beables. They are beables as well.

There are numerous difficulties left. Most urgent is the need for a viable model, demonstrating how the mechanism works that we believe to be responsible for the conspicuous quantum mechanical nature of the world that we live in. It continues to be difficult to produce a non-trivial model, one showing particles that interact, for instance, such that its Hamiltonian is bounded from below.


format: text

text:
# Diffusion-limited reaction for the one-dimensional trap system

## Diffusion-limited reaction for the one-dimensional trap system

D. Bara

aDepartment of Physics, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

## Abstract

We have previously discussed the one-dimensional multitrap system of finite range and found the somewhat unexpected result that the larger is the number of imperfect traps the higher is the transmission through them. We discuss in this work the effect of a small number of such traps arrayed along either a constant or a variable finite spatial section. It is shown that under specific conditions, to be described in the following, the remarked high transmission may be obtained for this case also. Thus, compared to the theoretical large number of traps case these results may be experimentally applied to real phenomena

Pacs number(s): 02.50.Cw, 02.10.Ud, 02.60.Lj

## 1 Introduction

The problem of diffusion through traps  is generally discussed in the literature by refering to the single trap system. In  an infinite mutitrap system arranged over all space was discussed and the application of traps to long chain polymers was considered in . In  the aspect of the density of one-dimensional traps in a finite spatial section was discussed and it was shown that the larger this density is the higher is the transmission of particles through this dense system of traps. In this work we refer, especially, to the small number of traps system and find the conditions under which the transmission through them is maximal. That is, assuming an ensemble of classical particles we look for the conditions that enable all or most of them to pass through the trap system. We apply in this work the transfer matrix method  used in  with respect to the multitrap system.

In Section II we introduce the one-dimensional $`N`$ trap system, the relevant nomination and terminology and, especially, the appropriate transfer matrix formalism as in . In Section III we pay special attention to a small section of the $`N`$ trap system that includes $`m`$ traps where $`m`$ is a small number. We will find how the passage of classical particles through this subsystem is influenced by the relevant parameters of it. These parameters are the number $`m`$ of traps, the total extent $`L`$ of the subsystem, the ratio $`c`$ of the total interval among its traps to the total width of them , the time at which the subsystem is observed and the degree $`k`$ of its imperfection. Note that the ideal trap is characterized  by $`k\mathrm{}`$ in which case all the approaching particles are absorbed by it.

In Section IV we discuss the behaviour of the transmission amplitude for some specific values of its parameters. This transmission amplitude is defined  as the ratio of the value of the imperfect trap coefficient of the transmitted particles at the last trap to its value at the first one. We discuss now this transmission amplitude by considering the ratio of the ideal trap coefficient of the density of the passing particles at the last trap to its value at the first one. We show that this amplitude increases to unity for increasing $`c`$ and for large values of the remarked variables $`L`$, and $`k`$. This amplitude, on the other hand, decreases with increasing $`t`$. Note that although one may expect the transmission to decrease for increasing $`k`$ since this signifies, as remarked, a strengthening of the ideal character of the trap system which entails a large absorption of the passing particles, nevertheless the obtained results are exactly the opposite. We show that the deviation from the expected results is due to the initial and boundary-value conditions we employ for the imperfect trap system discussed here (see the set (3) in  and set 16) here) which are different from those of the ideal ones (see the set (2) in  and set (15) here). That is, the influence of the time factor that emerges from these conditions is much more large than that of $`k`$ in such a way that it veils the expected influence of the latter especially during the initial time. We accompany our calculations with figures that exemplify the results obtained for representative values of $`L`$, $`k`$, $`m`$ and $`t`$.

## 2  Transfer matrix method for the imperfect one-dimensional trap system

The problem we discuss here is the diffusion limited reaction in the presence of $`N`$ traps where, compared to the case discussed in , $`N`$ assumes small values. These traps are arrayed in an ordered one-dimensional structure along a spatial axis. We denote the total width of the traps by $`a`$ and the total interval among them by $`b`$. Thus, for a total number of traps $`N`$ the width of each is $`\frac{a}{N}`$ and the interval between any two neighbouring traps is $`\frac{b}{(N1)}`$ since there are $`(N1)`$ intervals among $`N`$ traps. An important parameter related to this system is the ratio $`c`$ of the total interval $`b`$ to the total width $`a`$, that is, $`c=\frac{b}{a}`$. Thus, denoting the total length of the system $`(a+b)`$ by $`L`$ one may express the parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ as

$$a=\frac{L}{(1+c)},b=\frac{Lc}{(1+c)}$$
(1)
The relevant one-dimensional initial and boundary value diffusion problem in the presence of $`N`$ traps is

$`\rho _t(x,t)=D\rho _{xx}(x,t),0<x(a+b)`$
$`\rho (x,0)=\rho _0+f(x),0<x(a+b)`$ (2)
$`\rho (x_i,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (x,t)}{dx}}|_{x=x_i},t>0,1i2N,`$
where $`\rho (x,t)`$ denotes the density of the particles diffusing through the traps. $`\rho _t(x,t)`$ is the first order partial derivative with respect to the time variable $`t`$ and $`\rho _x(x,t)`$, $`\rho _{xx}(x,t)`$ are the first and second order partial derivatives with respect to the spatial variable $`x`$. $`D`$ is the diffusion constant which may be of two kinds; $`D_i`$ and $`D_e`$ which are the diffusion constants inside and outside the traps respectively. The second and third equations in the set (2) are the initial and boundary value conditions respectively. The range of $`i`$ in the third equation of the set (2) is due to the fact that each trap has front and back faces. It has been shown  that the diffusion problem from the set (2) may be separated into the following two problems

$`\rho _t(x,t)=D\rho _{xx}(x,t),0<x(a+b)`$
$`\rho (x,0)=f(x),0<x(a+b)`$ (3)
$`\rho (x_i,t)=0,t>0,1i2N,`$
$`\rho _t(x,t)=D\rho _{xx}(x,t),0<x(a+b)`$
$`\rho (x,0)=\rho _0,0<x(a+b)`$ (4)
$`\rho (x_i,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho (x,t)}{dx}}|_{x=x_i},t>0,1i2N,`$
The set (3) is the one-dimensional initial and boundary value diffusion problem in the presence of $`N`$ ideal traps and the set (4) is that in the presence of $`N`$ imperfect traps. The general solution of the set (2) is

$$\rho (x,t)=A\rho _1(x,t)+B\rho _2(x,t)$$
(5)
where $`\rho _1(x,t)`$ is the density of the ideal trap set $`(\text{3})`$ and $`\rho _2(x,t)`$ is that of the imperfect trap one $`(\text{4})`$. The appropriate $`f(x)`$ that satisfies the first and third equations of the set (3) is $`f(x)=sin(\frac{\pi x}{x_i})`$. Thus, using the separation of variables method  one may write for $`\rho _1(x,t)`$ and $`\rho _2(x,t)`$ that satisfy the appropriate initial and boundary value conditions

$$\rho _1(x,t)=\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi x}{x_i})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{Dt\pi ^2}{x_i^2})$$
(6)
$$\rho _2(x,t)=\rho _0[erf(\frac{x}{2\sqrt{Dt}})+\mathrm{exp}(k^2Dt+kx)erfc(k\sqrt{Dt}+\frac{x}{2\sqrt{Dt}})]$$
(7)
The $`erf(x)`$ and $`erfc(x)`$ are the error and complementary error functions respectively defined as

$`erf(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^x}e^{u^2}𝑑u`$
$`erfc(x)=1erf(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}e^{u^2}𝑑u`$
We use in the following, as in ), the transfer matrix method  an important element of which is the assumption that the density $`\rho (x,t)`$ and its partial derivative with respest to $`x`$ changes continously along the section $`L=(a+b)`$. Thus, one may equate at each of the $`2N`$ faces of the $`N`$ traps the $`\rho (x,t)`$ and $`\rho _x(x,t)`$ at one side of it to the corresponding quantities just at the other side as done in . In such a way one may obtain $`2N`$ two dimensional transfer matrices each of them relates the values of the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$ from Eq (5) at one side of a face of a trap to the corresponding values of these coefficients at the other side of this face. We multiply together any two transfer matrices related to the two faces of the same trap so as to have one two-dimensional transfer matrix for each trap. Thus, denoting these matrices by $`T`$ we may write the general transfer matrix equation for the one-dimensional $`N`$ trap system that relates the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$ at the left face of the first trap to those at the right face of the last trap assuming that the diffusing particles enter the traps through their left faces ).

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{2N+1}\\ B_{2N+1}\end{array}\right)=T(a+b)T({\displaystyle \frac{(N1)(a+b)}{N}})T({\displaystyle \frac{(N2)(a+b)}{N}})\mathrm{}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{}T({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}})T({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}})\mathrm{}T({\displaystyle \frac{2(a+b)}{N}})T({\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{N}})\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1\\ B_1\end{array}\right)`$ (13)
Each $`T`$ is, as remarked, a two-dimensional transfer matrix that relates the coeffiecients $`A`$ and $`B`$ of the ideal and imperfect trap density functions of the passing particles at one side of the relevant trap to those at the other side. The number of traps is $`N`$ and by $`n`$ we denote the general trap in this system. Note that each matrix $`T`$ depends also  upon the time $`t`$, the constant $`k`$ , and upon the two diffusion constants $`D_e`$ and $`D_i`$. But, as seen in  (see also Eq (10)), the matrices $`T`$ differ from each other by only the values of $`x`$ and share the same values of $`k`$, $`t`$, $`D_e`$ and $`D_i`$.

As seen in  the element $`T_{12}`$ in each $`T`$ is always zero and the other elements $`T_{11}`$, $`T_{21}`$ and $`T_{22}`$ are given, for the value of $`x=\frac{(a+b)}{N}`$, by

$$T_{11}(\frac{(a+b)}{N})=\frac{\alpha (D_e,\frac{b}{N},t)\alpha (D_i,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}{\alpha (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)\alpha (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}$$
(14)
$`T_{21}({\displaystyle \frac{(a+b)}{N}})=\rho _0({\displaystyle \frac{\eta (D_i,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}{\eta (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}}({\displaystyle \frac{\xi (D_e,\frac{b}{N},t)}{\eta (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (D_e,\frac{b}{N},t)\xi (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)}{\alpha (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)\eta (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)}}))+`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (D_e,\frac{b}{N},t)}{\alpha (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)}}({\displaystyle \frac{\xi (D_i,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}{\eta (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (D_i,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)\xi (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}{\alpha (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)\eta (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}})`$
$$T_{22}(\frac{(a+b)}{N})=\frac{\eta (D_e,\frac{b}{N},t)\eta (D_i,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)}{\eta (D_i,\frac{b}{N},t)\eta (D_e,\frac{(a+b)}{N},t)},$$
(16)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\eta `$ in the former equations are given as (we write them for $`D_e`$ )

$$\alpha (D_e,x,t)=erf(\frac{x}{2\sqrt{D_et}})+\mathrm{exp}(k^2D_et+kx)erfc(k\sqrt{D_et}+\frac{x}{2\sqrt{D_et}})$$
(17)
$$\xi (D_e,x,t)=k\mathrm{exp}(k^2D_et+kx)erfc(k\sqrt{D_et}+\frac{x}{2\sqrt{D_et}})$$
(18)
$$\eta (D_e,x,t)=\frac{\pi }{x}e^{(\frac{\pi }{x})^2D_et}$$
(19)
## 3 The one-dimensional small number of traps system

It was shown in  for the multitrap system that the transmission coefficient which was calculated as the ratio of the imperfect trap coefficient of the particles after passing through the system to that before this passage tends to unity for the cases of: 1) when the total length of the system $`L=a+b`$ grows. 2) when the total length $`L`$ is constant and the ratio $`\frac{b}{a}`$ of the total interval to the total width of the system increases. For these two cases the elements $`T_{21}`$ and $`T_{22}`$ tend to zero (as remarked, the value of the element $`T_{12}`$ is always zero) and $`T_{11}`$ tends to unity which are the required conditions to obtain a unity value for the transmission coefficient. Moreover, it has been shown  that these specific values of the elements $`T_{21}`$, $`T_{22}`$ and $`T_{11}`$ are, especially, obtained in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$. We, now, discuss, as noted, the ideal trap component of the transmission coefficient and find that this kind of behaviour may be discerned in small sections of the $`N`$ system that contain small number of traps. We show in the following that the transmission coefficient may indeed assume, under certain conditions, a unity value for this case also. Thus, refering to a two trap section in the $`N`$ system we may write, using Eq (10), the relevant matrix expression for it

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{2n+1}\\ B_{2n+1}\end{array}\right)=T({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}})T({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}})\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{2(n2)+1}\\ B_{2(n2)+1}\end{array}\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}T_{11}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})& 0\\ T_{21}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})& T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})\end{array}\right]`$ (26)
$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})& 0\\ T_{21}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})& T_{22}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{2(n2)+1}\\ B_{2(n2)+1}\end{array}\right)=`$ (31)
$`=\left[\begin{array}{cc}T_{11}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})& 0\\ T_{21}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})+T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N}T_{21}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})& T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N}T_{22}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})\end{array}\right]`$ (34)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{2(n2)+1}\\ B_{2(n2)+1}\end{array}\right)`$ (37)
$`B_{2(n2)+1}`$ is the ideal trap coefficient that refers to the trap just before the discussed two trap section and $`B_{2n+1}`$ is the one that refers to the second trap in this specific section. $`A_{2(n2)+1}`$ and $`A_{2n+1}`$ are the corresponding imperfect traps coefficients. The matrix equation (31) may be decomposed to yield the following expressions for the relevant coefficients.

$$A_{2n+1}=T_{11}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})A_{2(n2)+1}$$
(38)
$`B_{2n+1}=(T_{21}({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}})T_{11}({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}})+T_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}})T_{21}({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}}))`$
$`A_{2(n2)+1}+T_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}}T_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}})B_{2(n2)+1}`$ (39)
Using Eqs (31)-(38) we may write Eq (39) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(n2)+1}}}=({\displaystyle \frac{T_{21}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})+T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{21}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})}{T_{11}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})T_{11}(\frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N})}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{2n+1}}{B_{2(n2)+1}}}+T_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{n(a+b)}{N}}T_{22}({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(a+b)}{N}}`$ (40)
In order to be able to solve the last equation for $`\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(n2)+1}}`$ we use, for the ratio of the imperfect trap coefficient of the last trap to the ideal one of the first, an assumption analogous to that in . That is, when discussing the $`4NX4N`$ marix method after Eq (29) in  we assume that the larger is the number of imperfect traps the smaller is the ideal transmission coefficient at the last trap compared to the imperfect one at the first trap. We made here a similar assumption for the ratio of the imperfect trap coefficient at the last trap to the ideal one at the first. That is, the imperfect component of the density that remains after passing all the traps must be small compared to the ideal component of the density before approaching them. We discuss here the case of a small number $`m`$ so we may assume that this ratio depends on $`m`$ and $`\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}`$ as

$$\frac{A_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}=\frac{1}{(1+m^2)}\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}$$
(41)
The last expression ensures that the ratio at the left hand side vanishes in the limit of a very large $`m`$ where $`\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}`$ tend to unity . Denoting the expression that multiply $`\frac{A_{2n+1}}{B_{2(n2)+1}}`$ in the first term on the right hand side of Eq (40) as $`c_1^{(2)}`$ and the second term as $`c_2^{(2)}`$ we write Eq (40), using Eq (41) in which $`m=2`$, as

$$\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(n2)+1}}=\frac{c_2^{(2)}}{(1\frac{c_1^{(2)}}{5})}$$
(42)
We may generalize the last equation that was written for the two trap section for any finite number $`m`$ of traps so that the corresponding analog of Eq (42) is

$$\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}=\frac{c_2^{(m)}}{(1\frac{c_1^{(m)}}{(1+m^2)})},$$
(43)
where it may be shown that $`c_1^{(m)}`$ and $`c_2^{(m)}`$ are given by the following recursive equations

$$c_1^{(m)}=\frac{T_{21}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})+T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})c_1^{(m1)}}{T_{11}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})}$$
(44)
$$c_2^{(m)}=c_2^{(m1)}T_{22}(\frac{n(a+b)}{N})$$
(45)
Note that the parameter $`m`$ refers to the finite $`m`$ trap system which is a susbsystem of the $`N`$ multitrap one whereas the parameter $`n`$ denotes the general term of the last system (it actually refers to the position of the last trap of the subsystem in the larger $`N`$ trap system). Now, it may be shown from the definitions of the variables $`c_1^{(m)}`$ and $`c_2^{(m)}`$ that the range of $`c_2^{(m)}`$ that involves the quantities $`T_{22}`$ is in the interval $`(0,1)`$ and that of $`c_1^{(m)}`$ that involves $`T_{11}`$ and $`T_{21}`$ is in $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. Also, it may be seen that $`c_1^{(m)}`$ grows in absolute value with $`m`$ and $`c_2^{(m)}`$ decreases to zero with increasing $`m`$ so that in the limit of very large $`m`$ the transmission amplitude tends to unity as shown in . The same result is obtained also for increasing $`c`$ where $`c_1^{(m)}`$ decreases to zero and $`c_2^{(m)}`$ increases to its maximum value of unity so that in the limit of very large $`c`$ the transmission amplitude tends to unity as may be seen from Eq (43) (see also ).

## 4  Results for some given values of the trap system parameters $`m`$, $`L`$, $`k`$, and $`t`$

Unlike the discussion in  which, especially, takes account of a large number of traps we discuss here, as remarked, the influence of a small number of them. First of all one finds, as expected, that the smaller is the number of traps $`m`$ the easier is for the classical particles to pass through them. The criterion for this transmission is, as remarked the ratio of the value of the ideal trap coefficient at the last trap (of the $`m`$ member subsystem) to its value at the first one. This is the ratio $`\frac{B_{2n+1}}{B_{2(nm)+1}}`$ from Eq (43) which may be regarded as a transmission amplitude. Note that this amplitude may have values outside the range of $`(0,1)`$. An easy passage through the trap system is obtained not only for small values of $`m`$ but also for large values of the total length $`L`$ of the system as we have found in  for the multitrap case. The same result is obtained also for large $`k`$. Note that the nature of the change of the transmission amplitude with time is opposite to that regarding $`k`$ and $`L`$. That is, this amplitude decreases with increasing time. Moreover, this decrease occurs in a very fast manner, especially at the initial time, compared to the remarked increase with $`k`$ and $`L`$ as may be seen in Figures 6-8.

Each of the following eight figures contains six curves of the transmission amplitude from Eq (43) as functions of the parameter $`c`$ for the six values of $`m=1,3,5,7,9,11`$. As remarked and shown in  with respect to the multitrap system this transmission amplitude tends to unity for large values of $`c`$. We find here the dependence of the transmission upon $`c`$ for small $`m`$ and the small range of $`0.001c20`$. All the curves in the eight figures are drawn for the specific values of $`D_e=0.5`$ and $`D_i=0.1`$. These values yield results that are qualitatively similar for a wide class of different applications that use the trap system as a model (for example, $`0.5\frac{cm^2}{sec}`$ is the order of magnitude one may find in the literature for the diffusion constant $`D`$ at room temperature and atmospheric pressure (p. 337 in )). We find that the larger is $`m`$ the slower is the approach of its corresponding curve to unity compared to that of the smaller $`m`$ curves. Thus, not all the six curves for $`m=1,3,5,7,9,11`$ are actually shown in each figure as in Figures 1 and 4 in which the larger $`m`$ curves are merged with the abcissa axis. The correct order of the curves in each figure is downward so that smaller values of $`m`$ fit the upper curves (the graph for $`m=1`$ is the upper one, that for $`m=3`$ is the second from above and so on).

The group of Figures 1-8 demonstrate this behaviour of the transmission amplitude from Eq (43) as function of $`c`$. The first three figures, each composed of six curves for $`m=1,3,5,7,9,11`$, show how the transmission amplitude changes with $`c`$ for the same values of $`k=1`$ and $`t=1`$ but three different values of $`L=5,13,27`$. Figure 1 is drawn for $`L=5`$ and shows only the curves for $`m=1,3,5,7`$ whereas those for $`m=9,11`$ are merged with the abcissa axis. Figure 2, which is for $`L=13`$, shows all the six curves approaching unity as $`c`$ grows but, as remarked, this approach is slower the larger is $`m`$. Figure 3, which is drawn for $`L=27`$, shows once again all the six curves approaching unity but now even the larger $`m`$-values curves tend to unity already at small values of $`c`$ compared to Figures 1-2. Thus, as remarked and as shown for the multitrap system in , the approach of the transmission amplitude to unity is more apparent and faster, even for small $`c`$, the larger is $`L`$.

Figures 4-5 show how the transmission amplitude as a function of $`c`$ changes with $`k`$. Each curve from the total six curves of each figure in the group of Figures 4-5 is drawn for $`L=5`$ and $`t=1`$. Figure 4 is for $`k=5`$ and one may see only the curves for the 4 smaller values of $`m`$ that tend to unity for increasing $`c`$. The other two curves for $`m=9,11`$ are merged with the abcissa axis. Figure 5, which is drawn for $`k=27`$, shows now all the six curves approaching unity for increasing values of $`c`$. Thus, as remarked, the higher $`k`$ values guarantees an easy transmission of the passing particles through the system. Note that, as remarked, this high transmission for increasing $`k`$ is contrary to what one may expect that large $`k`$ entails a large absorption  of the passing particles. The deviation of the obtained results from the expected ones is because the trap problem we try to solve here, as in , is the imperfect trap one and not the ideal one. Thus, the initial and boundary-value conditions employed are not the ideal ones (the set (3)) but the imperfect (the set (4)) and these may cause a large transmission even at the ideal trap limit of $`k\mathrm{}`$ as actually shown in  (see Figure 2 there). The presence of the time factor in the initial and boundary-value conditions introduces interesting results that do not appear in the absence of it. For example, the analogous quantum one-dimensional multibarrier system along a finite section  does not involve any time variation and as a consequence the kind of change with time found here is not encountered there . This kind of change is especially realized in the much more apparent and conspicuous manner, compared to that encountered for $`L`$ and $`k`$, by which the transmission amplitude as function of $`c`$ changes for different values of the time $`t`$. First of all, unlike the cases for $`k`$ and $`L`$, this amplitude decreases with increasing $`t`$ especially at the initial values of it. This is seen in Figures 6-8 where all the six curves in each figure is drawn for $`L=13`$ and $`k=7`$. The curves of Figure 6 are graphed for $`t=0.01`$ and one may see that all the six curves tend uniformly as a single graph to unity already at small values of $`c`$. Figure 7 is drawn for $`t=1.6`$ and one may see how at the small time span of 1.59 the curves become widely separated from each other so as those that correspond to the higher $`m`$ values tend slowly to unity compared to those of the lower $`m`$. This form of the figure generally remains stabilized with time and change only slightly by further increasing the time. In other words, a very large change in the behaviour of the transmission amplitude, as a function of $`c`$, occurs during the initial time and then it remains almost stabilized. To further demonstrate the large influence of time we show in Figure 8 the transmission amplitude, as function of $`c`$, for $`L=13`$, $`k=7`$ and $`t=1`$ and for $`m=1,3,5,7,9,11`$. A very similar figure is shown in Figure 2 which is drawn for the same values of $`L`$, $`t`$ and $`m`$ but for $`k=1`$. That is, increasing $`k`$ from $`k=1`$ by 6 units, keeping the same values of $`L=13`$ and $`t=1`$, have a negligible influence upon the transmission amplitude. But increasing the time by only 0.6, keeping the former values of $`L`$, $`m`$ and $`k`$, results in a discernable effect upon the transmission amplitude as shown in Figure 7 which is drawn for the same values of $`L`$, $`k`$ and $`m`$ as in Figure 8 but at $`t=1.6`$ (compare the two figures 7-8).

## 5 Concluding Remarks

We have discussed in this work the effects of a one dimensional trap system upon the density of the passing classical particles. We have limit our discussion to the case of small number of traps (the large number case was discussed in ). As our analytical means we use the transfer matrix method discussed in  with respect to the one-dimensional multitrap system. We have shown that the transmission amplitude tends to unity, for growing $`c`$, not only in the limit of a very large number of traps as in  but also, under certain conditions, for the small number of them. These conditions involve either a large value of the parameter $`k`$ or of the total length $`L`$ of the system. These results have been exemplified for specific values of $`k`$ and $`L`$ and demonstrated by the attached figures.

Unlike the remarked change of this amplitude with respect to $`k`$ and $`L`$ it has an opposite behaviour regarding the time $`t`$. That is, it decreases for all values of $`m`$ as $`t`$ increases where this decrease is larger for large $`m`$. Also, compared to $`k`$ and $`L`$, this change with time is very fast especially at the initial time and then the transmission amplitude stabilizes and changes only slightly with time. We have also shown for small $`m`$, as for the multitrap system in , that the imperfect character of the system which is expressed in its initial and boundary-value conditions causes it to behave contrary to what is expected for large $`k`$. That is, although large value of $`k`$ indicates, as remarked, a large absorption of the passing particles, nevertheless, we find a high transmission for large $`k`$ due to the appearance of time in the initial and boundary-value conditions. The large influence of the time upon the transmission amplitude have been shown and demonstrated in Figures 6-8.

## Acknowledgement

I wish to thank S. A. Gurvitz for discussions on this subject


text:
# Dilepton-tagged jets in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions: A case study

## I Introduction

The study of dilepton production through the Drell-Yan process dy , $`h_1+h_2\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}+X`$ has remained a useful tool to sound out concepts about the parton model, QCD, and the structure functions of hadrons. If the initial state partons have no transverse momentum, the lowest-order process $`q\overline{q}\gamma ^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ produces a lepton pair with a net $`q_T`$=0. Experiments, however, show that the net transverse momentum of the dileptons produced by the Drell-Yan process are of the order 1 GeV for a dilepton having a mass $`M`$ 10 GeV field . This fact outlines the importance of the NLO Drell-Yan contributions. Also, one could assign an intrinsic spread to the transverse momenta of the partons. This momentum can have many origins, and a confinement argument along those lines only accounts for $`<q_T^2>`$ (0.3 GeV)2 gale .

It is therefore clear that the dileptons acquire additional transverse momenta from production mechanisms beyond leading order in perturbation theory:

$$qgq\gamma ^{}\mathrm{and}q\overline{q}g\gamma ^{}.$$
(1)
These Compton and annihilation processes are analogous to the ones responsible for the production of real photons where the recoiling final state quark or gluon balances the $`q_T`$ of the dilepton. An important point kaj  is that the dileptons thus produced are always accompanied by a recoiling quark or gluon. If the energy of the quark or the gluon is several tens of GeV, it will lead to a jet of hadrons in a narrow cone around the leading hadron in the jet.

Now consider a collision of two heavy nuclei at relativistic energies, which could lead to the formation of a quark gluon plasma (QGP). The dilepton and the jet produced in the above process will pass through the plasma. The dileptons will not interact, while the jet will lose energy through collisions and radiation in the plasma and provide valuable information about these mechanisms in the medium. The dilepton can thus be used to tag the jet in the same manner that photon-tagged jet measurements have been suggested as a precise probe for the study of jet-quenching xnw .

We recall that jet-quenching can manifest itself in various ways; there would be a suppression of hadrons having large transverse momenta, when compared to the results for $`pp`$ collisions, and the fragmentation function in $`AA`$ collision may be different from those seen in $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`pp`$ collisions, etc xnw . A precise determination of these effects will require knowledge of the energy of the parton produced in the hard collision which fragmented into the jet. Note that the inclusive transverse momentum distribution of the hadrons will not permit us to deduce the value for the parton $`dE/dx`$ unambiguously, as a hadron with a given $`p_T^{\mathrm{hadron}}`$ can arise from the fragmentation of any parton having $`p_T^{\mathrm{parton}}=p_T^{\mathrm{hadron}}/z`$, where $`p_T^{\mathrm{parton}}`$ is the momentum of the parton at the time of fragmentation, and $`z`$ $`(<1)`$, is the fragmentation variable. Recall also that the vast amount of theoretical activity dedx  in the last decade has yielded varying predictions for the dependence of $`dE/dx`$ on the energy of the parton and the properties of the medium. A precise knowledge of the energy of the progenitor of the jet of hadrons will provide the information necessary to settle these issues.

The very large background of hadrons in $`AA`$ collisions makes it very difficult to characterize the jet through canonical jet algorithms which typically prescribe energy measurements in some cone around the jet-axis. To minimize contributions from the large non-jet background, particles emitted beyond the cone or having an energy below some threshold are excluded in the jet measurement. This excluded energy, as well as the non-jet background energy, must be estimated and taken into account. Because of the difficulty of making these corrections, photon tagging of the jet is a valuable alternative or complement to the jet energy measurement, as the transverse momentum of the photon (real or virtual) is equal to that of the high energy parton produced in the collision.

In this work, a measurement of dilepton-tagged jets is suggested and given quantitative support. We argue that these measurements could have advantages over measurements of real photons, even though they are similar in philosophy. In measurements of real photons, photons from the radiative decays of mesons, predominantly $`\pi ^0`$’s, constitute a huge background which overwhelms the real photon yield except at very high transverse momenta. The real photon sample can be enhanced by rejecting photons for which an accompanying photon is measured with the two photons having a photon-pair mass which falls within the $`\pi ^0`$ mass window. However, this method fails at low transverse momentum for central heavy ion collisions due to the need for a large acceptance in order to measure both photons with high probability, and due to the high $`\pi ^0`$ multiplicity and the corresponding large number of combinatorial photon-pairs which results in the rejection of essentially all photons as possible decay photons. As the transverse momentum of the $`\pi ^0`$ increases, such as when it is the leading hadron in the jet, the opening angle between the two decay photons decreases, making it possible to identify and reject the decay photons with high probability and with fewer false combinatorial possibilities. However, for photon measurements using calorimeters, at large transverse momentum the opening angle becomes so small that the symmetric decay photons will merge into a single shower cluster and appear as a single isolated photon, making it impossible to isolate them and discriminate between a single real photon and two overlapping photons from the decay of the $`\pi ^0`$. This then leaves a narrow window of photon (jet) energies where the real photons can be identified and such studies may be conducted. Of course, quantitative limits will depend on actual detector characteristics of geometry and granularity, and on the particle multiplicity. Typical calorimeter geometries have $`\pi ^0`$-photon shower merging limits as low as 20 GeV/c.

Now consider the case of a dilepton recoiling against the jet. The $`\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ are easily separated for arbitrarily large momenta. There are no other sources of dileptons having large $`q_T`$ (see later). Furthermore, the mass of the lepton-pair $`M`$ gives an additional handle on the initial state scattering xnw , as we can study dileptons which have the same transverse momentum (i.e. the recoiling jets have the same transverse momentum) but different masses. One pays the price of a low counting rate, but if the signal can be separated from the background and if luminosities are sufficient, we have a versatile tag.

To repeat, the dileptons produced through the process $`q\overline{q}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ will have only a modest $`q_T`$ resulting from the intrinsic transverse momentum of the partons. The correlated charm and bottom decays, which offer a huge contribution to the dilepton production, will also be governed by the same order of $`q_T`$ given from the intrinsic momenta of the partons, in lowest order. Even though the $`c\overline{c}`$ and the $`b\overline{b}`$ will have a vanishing $`q_T`$ in the lowest order, the random transverse momenta of the leptons in the semi-leptonic decay of the resulting D and B mesons could still result in a net $`q_T`$ for the lepton-pair. At the NLO, the heavy-quark pairs will have additional $`q_T`$, which would then get translated into the $`q_T`$ of the lepton-pair. One can see that the heavy quark will transfer only a part of its momentum to the lepton, (the semi-leptonic decays B $``$ D$`\mathrm{}\nu `$ and D $``$ K$`\mathrm{}\nu `$ have three-body final states) and thus there is hope that for large $`q_T`$ of the pair, the contribution of the heavy-quark decays may become smaller than the NLO Drell-Yan contribution. It is also likely that one may be able to suppress or account for these contributions explicitly if one can identify the vertex of the decaying D or B meson, or reject leptons within a region of jet-like activity. Moreover, if the charm and the bottom quarks lose energy due to collisions or radiations in the plasma ben , their contribution will again be reduced shur , as the individual momenta of the quarks will be reduced, leading to a reduction in the net $`q_T`$ of the resulting lepton-pair.

These hopeful considerations are quantitatively tested in the following. Our goal here is to perform simple phenomenological estimates, and to identify kinematical domains appropriate to RHIC and to the LHC where our tag would shine through the background. Note in passing that the CMS experiment has considered the possibility of observing jets tagged by W and Z bosons, which are governed by the same criteria cms\_note , and are thus open to similar vulnerabilities. See also kks .

## II  Dilepton production

At the outset, we add that the thermal radiation of dileptons from the QGP and the hot hadronic matter, a subject of considerable research gale  will not be important ramona  in the domain of very large $`q_T`$ of interest here. The dileptons from the annihilation of jets passing through the QGP jet\_dil , could however have some contribution, at least at the LHC. We shall report on this in a future publication. In the following we consider only the Drell-Yan process and the correlated decay of heavy mesons.

### II.1  Drell-Yan : Lowest Order

The cross section for the lowest-order Drell-Yan process is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dM^2dy}=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{9M^4}F(x_1,x_2,M^2)$$
(2)
where

$`F(x_1,x_2,M^2)=x_1x_2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}`$ $`e_i^2[q_i^A(x_1,M^2)\overline{q}_i^B(x_2,M^2)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\overline{q}_i^B(x_1,M^2)q_i^A(x_2,M^2)],`$
$`q_i`$ are quark structure functions, and the sum runs over the quark flavours. We further have,

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`Me^y/\sqrt{s},`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`Me^y/\sqrt{s}.`$ (4)
In the above $`s`$ is the square of the centre of mass energy per nucleon. The parton cross sections are scaled by the nuclear thickness function $`T_{AB}(b=0)`$ to obtain $`dN/dM^2dy`$ for the Drell-Yan production of dileptons in central (impact parameter b=0) A+B nuclear collisions. As observed in the introduction, if the partons do not have any intrinsic momentum then the net $`q_T`$ of these lepton pairs would be identically zero. The effect of including the intrinsic transverse momentum of the partons, to the LO Drell-Yan can be seen through the standard practice of folding-in a Gaussian distribution in $`q_T`$ with a width of $``$ 400 MeV. In the following we use the CTEQ4M parametrization cteq5  of the parton distributions.

### II.2 NLO Drell-Yan : Annihilation

The NLO process for dilepton production has several interesting features relevant to the present study which we recall here. We reiterate that we are interested only in large $`q_T`$ processes, and thus the treatment discussed here is sufficient for this purpose berger . A full treatment kaufmann  which regularizes the behaviour of the cross section as $`q_T0`$ is of course available. First consider the annihilation process, $`q+\overline{q}g+\gamma ^{}`$. The differential cross section for the production of a dilepton having mass $`M`$, transverse momentum $`q_T`$, rapidity $`y`$, with a jet associated at the rapidity $`y_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ through the annihilation process is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma ^\mathrm{A}}{dM^2d^2q_Tdydy_{\mathrm{jet}}}=F(x_1,x_2,\mu _F)\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^A}{dM^2d\widehat{t}}.$$
(5)
We have kaj

$$\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^A}{dM^2d\widehat{t}}=\frac{4}{9}\frac{2\alpha ^2\alpha _s(\mu _R)}{3M^2}\frac{(\widehat{t}M^2)^2+(\widehat{u}M^2)^2}{\widehat{s}^2\widehat{t}\widehat{u}},$$
(6)
where

$`\widehat{s}M^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2sM^2`$
$`\widehat{t}M^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s\overline{x}_Tx_1e^y`$
$`\widehat{u}M^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s\overline{x}_Tx_2e^y`$
$`\widehat{t}\widehat{u}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{s}q_T^2`$ (7)
and

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{x}_Te^y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_Te^{y_{\mathrm{jet}}}`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{x}_Te^y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_Te^{y_{\mathrm{jet}}}.`$ (8)
Above, any quantity under a caret (e.g. $`\widehat{\sigma }`$) is associated with a parton-parton process. We set the renormalization and the factorization scales to $`\mu _R=\mu _F=M^2+q_T^2`$, as appropriate for the study of the transverse momentum of the lepton-pairs. It is obvious that if one decides to choose $`\mu _F=\mu _R=M^2`$, the production of NLO Drell-Yan dileptons will change. We further have

$$\overline{x}_T^2=x_T^2+4\tau ,x_T=\frac{2q_T}{\sqrt{s}},\tau =\frac{M^2}{s}.$$
(9)
We also add that the momenta of the lepton pair $`q`$, the incoming partons ($`p_i`$), and the recoiling parton ($`k`$), in the nucleon-nucleon centre of mass system are given by:

$`p_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{s}(1,0,0,+1),`$
$`p_2`$ $`=`$ $`x_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{s}(1,0,0,1),`$
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`(q_0,𝐪_T,q_L),`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`(k_0,𝐪_T,k_L).`$ (10)
### II.3 NLO Drell-Yan : Compton

The expression for the Compton contribution to the Drell-Yan process at NLO is a little more involved. We have kaj

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^\mathrm{C}}{dM^2d^2q_Tdydy_{\mathrm{jet}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(x_1,x_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^C(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})}{dM^2d\widehat{u}}}+`$ (11)
$`F_2(x_1,x_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^C(\widehat{s},\widehat{t})}{dM^2d\widehat{u}}},`$
where

$`F_1(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2g^A(x_1){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2\left[q_i^B(x_2)+\overline{q}_i^B(x_2)\right],`$
$`F_2(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}e_i^2\left[q_i^A(x_1)+\overline{q}_i^A(x_1)\right]g^B(x_2),`$
$$\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^C(\widehat{s},\widehat{u})}{dM^2d\widehat{u}}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{2\alpha ^2\alpha _s}{3M^2}\frac{(\widehat{s}M^2)^2+(\widehat{u}M^2)^2}{\widehat{s}^3(\widehat{u})},$$
(13)
and

$$\frac{d\widehat{\sigma }^C(\widehat{s},\widehat{t})}{dM^2d\widehat{u}}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{2\alpha ^2\alpha _s}{3M^2}\frac{(\widehat{s}M^2)^2+(\widehat{t}M^2)^2}{\widehat{s}^3(\widehat{t})}.$$
(14)
In the above, we have not explicitly shown the factorization and the renormalization scales, which are taken as $`\mu _F=\mu _R=M^2+q_T^2`$ as for the NLO annihilation term.

### II.4 Heavy-Quark Production

We consider the production of heavy quarks at NLO. The lowest order contributions come from the processes $`q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}`$, $`ggQ\overline{Q}`$. The NLO terms originate from $`q\overline{q}Q\overline{Q}g`$, $`gq(\overline{q})Q\overline{Q}q(\overline{q})`$, and $`ggQ\overline{Q}g`$. The general expression for the production can be written as

$$d\sigma =\underset{i,j}{}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}(\widehat{s},M_Q^2,Q^2)f_i^A(x_1,Q^2)f_j^B(x_2,Q^2)$$
(15)
where $`f_i^A`$ are the distribution functions for the partons in the nucleon in the nucleus A, $`x_i`$ are the fractional momenta of the incoming partons, and $`\widehat{s}=x_1x_2s`$ is the parton-parton centre of mass energy. The parton cross-section $`\widehat{\sigma }_{i,j}(\widehat{s},M_Q^2,Q^2)`$ can be written as:

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{i,j}(\widehat{s},M_Q^2,Q^2)=\frac{\alpha _s^2(Q^2)}{M_Q^2}f_{i,j}(\rho ,\frac{Q^2}{M_Q^2}),$$
(16)
where

$$\rho =\frac{4M_Q^2}{x_1x_2s}$$
(17)
and

$`f_{i,j}(\rho ,Q^2/M_Q^2)=`$ $`f_{i,j}^{(0)}(\rho )+4\pi \alpha _s(Q^2)[f_{i,j}^{(1)}(\rho )+`$ (18)
$`\overline{f}_{i,j}^{(1)}(\rho )\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/M_Q^2)],`$
are taken from Ref. mnr . We have used the factorization and the renormalization scales as $`Q^2=M_Q^2+<p_T^2>`$, where $`<p_T^2>`$ is the average of the transverse momentum of the produced quark and anti-quark. The correlated semi-leptonic decay of the heavy (D or B) mesons is then estimated by fragmentation of the heavy-quarks to produce the meson and then estimating its decay in the quark model alta . The branching ratios to leptons for the decay of the D and B mesons are taken as 12% and 10% ramona , respectively. Even though more sophisticated approaches exist isgur , that outlined above is sufficient for our purpose, as we only wish to know where these contributions are small. We have verified that our results are quantitatively similar to those obtained from PYTHIA pythia  and also by Gavin et al. ramona , where parametrizations of the measured lepton spectra from semi-leptonic decay of B and D mesons are used to generate the lepton momenta. The total cross sections for heavy $`q\overline{q}`$ we thus obtain are shown in Table 1. These values do depend on the choice of structure functions and scales gavai .

Finally, the momentum lost by the heavy quarks during fragmentation is taken to be negligible vbh .

## III Results

As a first step we explore the range of fractional momenta of the partons (Eq. 8) which are relevant for our purpose (see Fig. 1). The diagonal provides the values for the situation when the rapidity of the dilepton ($`y`$) as well as that of the recoiling jet ($`y_{\mathrm{jet}}`$) is zero. The squares denote the point when the $`y_{\mathrm{jet}}=+0.5,`$ while the point $`y_{\mathrm{jet}}=0.5`$ is indicated by the diamonds, when the dilepton $`y=0`$. Thus large $`M`$ and very large $`q_T`$ of the lepton pair do not sample very small values of $`x`$, and the nuclear modification of the parton distribution functions will hence not play a large role.

Next we study the rapidity correlation between the dilepton and the jet. We see (Figs. 2 and 3) that there is a strong positive correlation between the rapidity of the dilepton and the recoiling jet; i.e. when the dilepton has a positive rapidity the jet also has a positive rapidity, and the correlation has a width of about 2 units of rapidity.

This aspect has been discussed in detail by Kajantie et al. kaj  and has been attributed to the dominance of the Compton term through the $`1/\widehat{s}`$ term in the scattering cross section. Note that the finite $`y`$ values are chosen as the mid-points of the forward/backward rapidity coverage of PHENIX at RHIC, and they fall within those for the ALICE and CMS experiments at the LHC.

We now study the jet-rapidity integrated dilepton rates at RHIC (Fig. 4) and at the LHC (Fig. 5) due to the NLO processes discussed above. We have also given the results for the LO Drell-Yan contribution, supplemented with a modest intrinsic $`k_T`$ for the partons. As expected, the NLO processes dominate as the transverse momentum of the pair (which is also the transverse momentum of the recoiling jet) increases. The NLO contributions to the Drell-Yan and also the heavy-quark production (see below) have been calculated ignoring the intrinsic momenta of the partons. Including it will increase the $`<q_T>`$ of the resulting lepton-pair and may enhance the yield by 50–100% depending on the value of the intrinsic momentum.

The semi-leptonic decay of D and B mesons gives a large contribution to the dilepton production ramona . We show the results of our calculations, which extend up to large lepton pair masses. The LO Drell-Yan contribution has been scaled by a factor of 1.5 to account for the NLO terms as our exploratory calculations will be inadequate at low $`q_T`$, and a momentum integral has to be performed in order to obtain the mass distributions.

Figs. 6 and 7 suggest that it may be very difficult to observe the dileptons recoiling against a jet in the background of the correlated decay of charm and bottom. This indeed is the case for dileptons radiated from thermal sources ramona . However, this conclusion changes when the $`q_T`$ distribution of the dileptons is studied for large pair masses, as shown in Fig. 8 for mass windows of 2 and 4 GeV at RHIC energies. We find that dileptons originating from the NLO Drell-Yan process dominate at large $`q_T`$, and with anticipated total sampled event sizes of $`10^{10}`$ events, open a window for a clean measurement of dilepton-tagged-jets. This window shifts to higher $`q_T`$ at the LHC (Fig.9), and identification becomes more difficult than at RHIC. The situation may improve if the heavy-quarks lose energy in the medium, degrading the D and B meson decay contributions to lower dilepton $`q_T`$. Furthermore, the background can be reduced if the contributions of the heavy-meson decays can be isolated and rejected, such as by determination of the decay vertices, or by jet-like isolation cuts.

## IV Conclusions

In brief, we have estimated the production of jets recoiling against a dilepton produced in the Drell-Yan process at NLO in relativistic heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC energies. The dileptons could be used to tag the jet and give the energy of the progenitor parton, which would provide precise information with which to determine the rate of energy loss of partons during their passage through quark gluon plasma. The background from the correlated decay of charm and bottom mesons, which plagues the identification of thermal dileptons ramona , is found to be unimportant for large jet (or dilepton) transverse momenta, that is, in the kinematical region of interest for jet-quenching studies. Even though the counting rates will be small, the anticipated event samples suggest that dilepton jet-tagging is feasible. This method could thus prove useful in the resolution of several issues of fundamental importance in the physics of high energy partons traversing a plasma of quarks and gluons.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Mangano for providing us with his code for heavy-quark production mnr  and for many helpful communications. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.