text:
# Scattering of 𝐩𝝁 muonic atoms in solid hydrogen

## I Introduction

Negative muons stopping in hydrogen can form muonic hydrogen ($`\mathrm{p}\mu `$) atoms. Although created in excited states, such atoms cascade to the ground state quickly ($`10^{12}`$ s) where their kinetic energy is of the order of several eV, much higher than thermal equilibrium energies. The muonic hydrogen atom is about 200 times smaller (mμ/me scaling) than the size of ordinary electronic hydrogen. The small neutral atom can easily diffuse through the surrounding medium undergoing different types of interaction including elastic and inelastic scattering. Scattering of fast $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms in hydrogen is governed by a large cross section ($`\sigma _s>10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$) which is quite effective at slowing them down.

Only a few experiments have examined the scattering of muonic atoms on nuclei and molecules directly, although it is an important process in most muon physics phenomena such as muon catalyzed nuclear fusion ($`\mu `$CF) or muon nuclear capture by protons (see reviews Breunlich et al. (1989); Ponomarev (1990); Froelich (1992); Measday (2001)). The first experiments of $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$ scattering were performed in gaseous hydrogen and used the traditional diffusion method Dzhelepov et al. (1965); Bertin et al. (1975, 1982); Bystritsky et al. (1984).

Much more has been done to study the scattering theoretically. Many calculations of cross sections for scattering on bare nuclei, atoms, and hydrogen molecules have been made, however, solid state effects were not considered. The high accuracy calculations of the total cross sections for low energy scattering ($`\epsilon _{coll}<50`$ eV) for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ and other muonic atoms on bare hydrogen nuclei (called the “nuclear” cross sections) were done in Ref. Bracci et al. (1989) by solving the Coulomb three–body scattering problem using the adiabatic multichannel approach. Differential cross sections for that case were calculated in Ref. Melezhik and Woźniak (1992) using phase shift values from Ref. Bracci et al. (1989). For collision energies lower than about $`0.11`$ eV it is necessary to account for both electron screening and the molecular structure of the target. Total and differential cross sections for this case (called the “gas” cross sections) are given in Ref. Adamczak et al. (1996) and in Ref. Adamczak (1993), respectively. Another possible approach to including the molecular effects for epithermal energies uses the Sachs–Teller tensor–of–mass model and can be found in Refs. Cohen (1986); Boukour et al. (1996).

The scattering experiment results given in Refs. Dzhelepov et al. (1965); Bertin et al. (1975, 1982); Bystritsky et al. (1984) were sometimes inconsistent not only among themselves but with theory as well (see Bystritsky (1995) for a review). The latest and most advanced measurements in gaseous hydrogen were performed at PSI Abbott et al. (1997) where the cross sections for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering on $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ molecules Adamczak et al. (1996) were used for the analysis of the experimental data. Those measurements were not in full agreement with the theory. On the other hand, the $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{D}_2`$ scattering measurements performed by the same collaboration Abbott et al. (1997) were in agreement.

Until now, no experimental studies concerning $`\mu `$–atom scattering in solid hydrogen have been performed. Such experiments are complicated to analyze because the results for the cross section are not directly obtained but are only deduced by their effect on other results, such as time distributions or yield intensities, which themselves are often obscured by other background processes.

The development at TRIUMF of the multilayer thin frozen hydrogen film targets Marshall et al. (1993); Knowles et al. (1996); Mulhauser et al. (1996); Knowles et al. (1997); Fujiwara et al. (2000); Porcelli et al. (2001); Marshall et al. (2001), which produce muonic atom beams emitted into vacuum, permitted the cross sections to be probed in another way. We have studied several isolated muon induced processes using a time–of–flight (TOF) method permitted by the frozen target geometry Marshall et al. (2001). In particular it was used in TRIUMF experiment E742 for the cross section study of $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$ scattering and the Ramsauer–Townsend effect (RT) which is seen for these systems at collision energies between $`210`$ eV Jacot-Guillarmod et al. (1996); Mulhauser et al. (1999, 2001). During those measurements a strong emission of low energy $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms from the hydrogen layers into adjacent vacuum was observed. The yield was much higher than expected based on calculations which ignored the solid nature of the hydrogen target. Additional experimental studies Woźniak et al. (1999); Bystritsky et al. (2001) and new theoretical calculations of “solid” cross sections Adamczak (1999) have been performed in order to clarify and explain the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission behavior.

This paper summarizes our findings. In section II the theoretical background and new calculations of scattering cross sections in solid hydrogen are described. The experimental apparatus and the measurement method are given in section III. Section IV presents the measurement results and their analysis, whereas section V contains the discussion of the results and some concluding remarks.

## II Scattering cross sections

### II.1 Scattering on bare nuclei, atoms and molecules

Cross section calculations for the 1S state $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom scattering on bare protons

$$\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F})+\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F}^{})+\mathrm{p},$$
(1)
(where $`\mathrm{F}`$, $`\mathrm{F}^{}`$ are the initial and final muonic atom spins) were begun by Gershtein Gershtein (1958). He treated the process as a quantum mechanical Coulomb three–body problem. Figure 1 shows the diagram of the two isolated states of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$ system with the possible transitions.

Most of the following calculations were performed in the adiabatic representation which results from expanding the wave function of a three–body system over a complete set of solutions of the two–center Coulomb problem Vinitskiĭ and Ponomarev (1982), especially in the two–level approximation Matveenko et al. (1973) with further modifications Ponomarev et al. (1979); Bubak and Faifman (1987); Struense et al. (1986); Cohen and Struensee (1991). The progress in the effective potential calculation for the two–center problem permits the multichannel scattering equations to be solved even when there are a large number of closed channels Melezhik et al. (1983); Melezhik (1986). Accurate calculations of the total cross sections performed in this multichannel approach including $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$ scattering are presented in Ref. Bracci et al. (1989). Reactance T–matrices and phase shifts, also given in Ref. Bracci et al. (1989), for different values of the total orbital angular momentum and the total spin of the three–particle system have been used to calculate the differential cross sections Melezhik and Woźniak (1992). Cross sections (total and differential) for collisions with energies less than $`1\mathrm{eV}`$, where both electron screening and molecular binding are important (“gas” cross sections), are given in Refs. Adamczak et al. (1996); Adamczak (1993). The screening effect is described there in terms of the effective screening potential, and the Fermi pseudopotential method was applied to model the chemical binding.

### II.2 Cross sections for solid hydrogen

The TRIUMF experiments Marshall et al. (1993); Knowles et al. (1996); Mulhauser et al. (1996); Knowles et al. (1997); Fujiwara et al. (2000); Porcelli et al. (2001); Marshall et al. (2001) have stimulated theoretical studies of $`\mu `$–atom scattering in solids. Solid hydrogen at zero pressure is a quantum molecular crystal, which is characterized by a large amplitude of zero–point vibrations of the molecules. At 3 K, the vibration amplitude is approximately 18% of the nearest neighbor distance for the $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ molecule, and 15% for the $`\mathrm{D}_2`$ molecule Silvera (1980). Nevertheless, experiments show that quantum solids display typical crystal structures and that common crystal characteristics, such as the density of the vibrational states, are well defined. This proves that the molecular motion is correlated in such a manner that the crystalline structure is not destroyed. However, theoretical methods developed for a classical–crystal description, encounter certain problems when applied in the case of quantum crystals. Namely, the interaction potential between the hydrogen molecules has a highly repulsive anharmonic core and thus the standard lattice dynamics leads to imaginary vibration frequencies. Nevertheless, the standard dynamics can be used, after a renormalization of the interaction potential by accounting for the short–range correlations between neighboring–molecule movement.

Solid hydrogen can exist in both efficient–packing structures: face–centered cubic (fcc) and/or hexagonal close packed (hcp). Since the TRIUMF targets were formed by rapidly freezing hydrogen gas on a gold foil at 3 K and zero pressure, the solid layer has a polycrystalline fcc structure Silvera (1980). There is also experimental evidence that thin hydrogen films formed on fcc metal (e.g., gold or silver) will retain that same structure Souers (1986). Since the fcc and hcp crystals are very similar (e.g., the molar volumes are almost the same and the first three shells of neighbors of any fixed molecule are identical in both the structures), the fcc cross sections are also a good approximation to the hcp case. The hydrogen was purified by a palladium filter at 600 K immediately prior to freezing, so the resulting solid target had a statistical distribution (1:3) of molecular rotational states $`K=0`$ and $`K=1`$. Such a mixture of rotational states is often called “normal” hydrogen, $`\mathrm{nH}_2`$. The relevant lattice constant for the fcc structure at zero pressure is 0.5338 nm Silvera (1980).

A method to calculate the scattering cross sections of muonic hydrogen atoms in solid hydrogen (“solid” cross sections) based on Van Hove’s approach and using phase shifts for muonic atom scattering on bare nuclei Bracci et al. (1989); Chiccoli et al. (1992) has been proposed by Adamczak (see Adamczak (1999) for details). The calculated differential cross sections include incoherent and coherent effects. The impinging muonic atom can induce inelastic reactions, both in a single molecule (rovibrational transitions, or spin–flip) and in the whole target (excitations or deexcitations of the lattice vibrational states). The latter are usually interpreted as creation or annihilation of phonons. It is possible to create or annihilate one or more phonons in coherent or incoherent processes, but in practice, annihilation processes are strongly suppressed in a 3 K target because few phonons exist at low temperatures.

Figure 2 presents the calculated total cross sections for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering on 3–K solid fcc hydrogen for different initial and final spin states $`\mathrm{F}`$ of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom. Also are shown some details of the total cross section for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom scattering from the ground spin state $`\mathrm{F}=0`$. For the sake of comparison, the doubled cross section $`\sigma _{11}^{\mathrm{nuc}}`$ of $`\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F}=0)+\mathrm{p}`$ nuclear scattering is plotted. The cross sections are given for a single bound molecule. At energies greater than roughly 1 eV both the solid state and molecular binding effects are very small and therefore the cross section for a real hydrogen target is well described by the nuclear cross section.

In Fig. 2, there is an important difference between the singlet ($`\sigma _{11}`$, $`\mathrm{F}=0`$) and triplet ($`\sigma _{22}`$, $`\mathrm{F}=1`$) state scattering. For the singlet, only the state $`\mathrm{J}=\frac{1}{2}`$ of the total spin of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$ system is possible. As a result, the scattering in nH2 is almost fully coherent and thus interference effects determine the behavior of the singlet cross section at the lowest energies. Below the Bragg cutoff energy, $`\mathrm{E}_B2\mathrm{meV}`$, elastic and phonon–creation coherent scattering is impossible and the total cross section is determined by the weak incoherent processes, which gives rapid falloff of $`\sigma _{11}`$. Coherent phonon annihilation is present below $`\mathrm{E}_B`$, but its magnitude is very small at 3 K. The rotational deexcitation $`K=1K^{}=0`$ of an $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ molecule gives no contribution to the cross section since this transition is strictly forbidden for $`\mathrm{F}=0`$.

Scattering of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F}=1)`$ atom is possible in the two total–spin states: $`J=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`J=\frac{3}{2}`$. The nuclear amplitudes for these two processes are very different Bracci et al. (1989) and therefore averaging the molecular scattering amplitude over spins leads to a strong incoherent component. As a result, the cross section $`\sigma _{22}`$ in solid hydrogen has a large magnitude at $`\epsilon 0`$, though a small falloff of its value at $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ is still present. Significant contribution to $`\sigma _{22}`$ at lowest energies comes also from the rotational deexcitation $`K=1K^{}=0`$, which is possible (for $`\mathrm{F}=1`$) due to the exchange of the muon between the protons during the collision process.

In Fig. 2 are shown contributions to $`\sigma _{11}`$ from different processes. The energy region $`210`$ meV is dominated by the strong elastic Bragg scattering. Phonon annihilation, denoted by the label $`\sigma _{11}^{\mathrm{gain}}`$, is the only mechanism of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ acceleration. Weak incoherent elastic scattering is most important below $`\mathrm{E}_B`$. Slowing of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ is possible through the lattice excitations and then, at sufficient incident energy, through subsequent rotational and vibrational excitations. The rovibrational transitions may take place with simultaneous one or multiphonon creation. The curve which shows the sum of contributions from all these processes is labeled by $`\sigma _{11}^{\mathrm{loss}}`$. At $`\epsilon \omega _D`$, the inelastic processes are most important and the cross section for the solid (per single molecule) approaches the corresponding one for a free $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ molecule.

Figure 3 illustrates the small differences between Bragg scattering of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ in the fcc and hcp polycrystalline nH2. The Bragg cutoff energy is slightly ($`0.2`$ meV) smaller in the hcp target. Different Bragg peak patterns in the total cross sections are distinct only below a few meV. The magnitudes of the cross sections are similar in the two lattices and, therefore, the theoretical estimation of cold–$`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission, obtained in this work for an fcc target, is also valid in the hcp case.

### II.3 Slowing down of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms in solid hydrogen

The slowing down of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ in solid hydrogen has been simulated by the Monte Carlo method using the new cross sections. The more important characteristics are shown in the following figures.

The simulations, performed with the Monte Carlo Woźniak et al. (1996), represent a real experimental situation where muons were stopped and formed $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms in a solid protium target of thickness $`3.4\text{mg}\text{cm}^2`$ (an experiment labeled later as #3 in Table 4). For this presentation only the histories of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ resulting in the upstream emission from the hydrogen layer have been chosen.

Scatterplots on Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the time dependence of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ slowing down (shown are 2376 histories ending by the emission from the hydrogen layer). Each point represents the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ energy after a scattering event at a given time. Figure 4a) shows a sampling of all events during slowing down, whereas Fig. 4b) shows only the final coordinates when $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission has occurred. One sees that the slowing down process is very fast and that after approximately 10 ns the $``$meV energy region is reached. Further decelerations of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ are then slower since the responsible inelastic cross sections become lower. This transient region extends to $`100200`$ ns when equilibrium energy is reached and $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom diffusion in hydrogen takes place. The equilibrium energy is established near the Bragg cutoff limit where both the phonon creation and annihilation components of $`\sigma _{11}`$ become equal (see Fig. 2).

Figure 5 represents contributions to slowing down from separate processes for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ in singlet and triplet states. In any experiment both $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atomic spin states will be initially populated, however, the downward spin–flip is so fast in the solid target that, after 0.1 ns, practically all $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms are in the ground spin state. Therefore, further slowing down is governed by the cross section $`\sigma _{11}`$ (Fig. 2). Efficient slowing down finishes after about 10 ns and subsequent $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion is determined by elastic Bragg scattering and inelastic phonon scattering. The competition between those two processes is shown in Fig. 6.

The elastic Bragg scattering does not change the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ kinetic energy in a solid hydrogen (contrary to a gas, where the elastic scattering is an effective deceleration process because the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom can always transfer a part of its energy to a recoiling free H2 molecule). Only inelastic scattering can cause $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ deceleration (or acceleration from the phonon annihilation process) but is a weak contribution at low energies and at low temperatures. Therefore, $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms spend a relatively long time in the diffusion stage before reaching the Bragg cutoff energy. In the case of a solid H2, rapid falloff of the phonon creation cross section at energy $`E_B`$ makes the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ thermalisation less deep than in a gaseous hydrogen. Indeed, the equilibrium energy defined by the intersection of $`\sigma _{11}^{\mathrm{gain}}`$ and $`\sigma _{11}^{\mathrm{loss}}`$ at $`2`$ meV (see Fig. 2) is still higher than thermal equilibrium in a 3–K gaseous H2.

The strong increase of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F}=0)`$ atom mean free path due to the sharp decrease of the cross section below the Bragg cutoff energy is shown in Fig. 7. Such behavior leads to an enhanced emission of cold $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s from the thin solid hydrogen layers. We note that a similar phenomenon is used in neutron physics to extract cold neutrons from beams produced in nuclear reactors (polycrystalline filters, see e.g., Egelstaff (1965)).

## III Description of the experiment

### III.1 The apparatus

The experiments studying $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering in solid hydrogen were performed at the M20B muon channel at TRIUMF. The layout of the apparatus is shown schematically in Fig. 8. Gaseous hydrogen (or neon) was sprayed, using a special diffusion system, onto the $`51\mu \text{m}`$ thick gold foil, maintained at 3 K, where it froze creating the thin solid films which could be maintained in high vacuum. The diffuser was inserted from below and could be used to deposit gas on either of the the two gold foils separately. The thickness of the film was controlled by adjusting the amount of gas injected. Multi–layered targets could be made in which the frozen material consisted of uniform layers, each made from different hydrogen isotopes or other gases such as neon. A versatile gas handling system allowed mixtures of different hydrogen isotopes to be prepared with high precision. The frozen film deposition uniformity has been measured independently via energy loss of alpha particles Fujiwara et al. (1997). The amount of gas injected into the system was conveniently measured in units of $`\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$, where the conversion factor between $`\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu \text{g}\text{cm}^2`$ has been determined Fujiwara et al. (1997) and is on average $`3.4\mu \text{g}\text{cm}^2`$ per $`\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ for $`\mathrm{H}_2`$. Details of the target construction and working procedure are given in Refs. Knowles et al. (1996); Marshall et al. (1996). Details of the data acquisition electronics can be found in Ref. Knowles et al. (1997).

Incident muons of momentum 26.70 (or 26.25) MeV/c ($`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p=0.07`$ FWHM) were detected by a $`127\mu \text{m}`$ scintillator (1) before traversing a $`25\mu \text{m}`$ stainless steel vacuum isolation window. The muons continued to lose energy while passing through the cryostat 70 K heat shield to eventually stop either in the gold target support foil (2) or in the $`400800\mu \text{m}`$ thick solid hydrogen target where they finally formed muonic atoms. The hydrogen target frozen on foil (2), which was placed perpendicularly to the muon beam axis, was called the upstream target (US), and was made of pure protium or of protium with a small admixture of deuterium (or tritium), depending on the experiment (see Figs. 9 and 10).

In the case of a pure protium US target, a thin neon layer was additionally deposited on top, as represented in Fig. 9. In other cases, when deuterium or tritium were present in the US target, we used an additional downstream target (DS) frozen on a second gold foil placed parallel to the first foil but 17.9 mm further along the beam axis ((3) in Fig. 8). Such an arrangement is presented in Fig. 10, where a thin layer of neon is shown sandwiched between a layer of pure protium and the DS gold foil, and was used for the TOF studies of the Ramsauer–Townsend effect. A low muon beam momentum was chosen to minimize the number of $`\mu `$ stops in the DS protium layer.

Neon was used to detect the scattered muonic atoms which left the hydrogen layer and subsequently transferred the muon to the neon. The resulting emission of 207 keV x rays from the 2p–1s $`\mu `$Ne transition was observed by two $``$100 cm3 germanium crystals (G1 and G2, Fig. 8) with a time resolution of $`1012`$ ns (FWHM). The G1 detector was used during the whole experiment, during both the deuterium and the tritium measurements. However, there were two physically different G2 detectors, one for each of the deuterium and tritium measurements. The plastic scintillators ((7) in Fig. 8) were located around the target to detect the muon decay electrons. The NaI detector was used to study $`\mu `$CF in hydrogen and deuterium mixtures Olin et al. (1999); Mulhauser et al. (1999).

### III.2 The method

Following muon capture and $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ formation, the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms slow down and diffuse in the hydrogen layer, with some significant fraction of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms escaping the layer. Analyzing the emission yield and the time distribution of the escaped $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s gives information about the scattering cross sections. The essential part of the analysis is the comparison of the experimental yields and time distributions with the ones calculated by Monte Carlo. The measurements were performed in two different ways; either by using the single pure protium target covered with a Ne layer (Fig. 9) or by using the parallel target scheme (Fig. 10).

The first method (Fig. 9) proved better for studying $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering for two reasons: (1) high stopping rate in the US target assured high $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission statistics, and (2) the time spectrum was “clean” in that it did not contain the overlapping RT part. Table 1 summarizes the different measurements performed for the study of the RT effect and $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$ scattering.

In the second case (Fig. 10), the US target was composed of protium with a small concentration of $`\mathrm{D}_2`$ (or $`\mathrm{T}_2`$), which served as a source of energetic $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ ($`\mathrm{t}\mu `$) atoms emitted from the layer into the adjacent vacuum with a mean energy of 3.5 eV (9 eV in the case of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$/$`\mathrm{T}_2`$ mixture) as a result of the RT effect. Due to the low deuterium (tritium) concentration, $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s were predominantly formed as a result of muon stops in the US layer. A small fraction of them survived their evolution in the US hydrogen (no muon transfer to the heavier hydrogen isotope, no $`\mathrm{pp}\mu `$ formation, or muon decay) and left the solid layer after multiple scattering. However, they were very slow ($`\epsilon `$ meV) and could not reach the downstream target before the muon decayed. In most cases the muon was transfered from $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ to a deuterium (tritium) atom. At formation, the muonic deuterium and tritium atoms had a relatively high kinetic energy, about 45 eV, which they subsequently lost in elastic collisions, mainly with protium, until the energy reached the range of the Ramsauer–Townsend (RT) minimum in the scattering cross section $`\sigma (\mu \mathrm{d}+\mathrm{H}_2`$). Then the mean distance between collisions increased and the hydrogen layer became effectively transparent for the $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ ($`\mathrm{t}\mu `$) atoms which were then easily emitted from the solid into the adjacent vacuum. Such energetic emitted muonic atoms traveled through vacuum toward the downstream hydrogen layer (DS) and a fraction passed, after possible interactions in hydrogen, to the Ne layer and produced x rays as a result of the muon transfer to neon and subsequent muonic neon deexcitation. Such $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ ($`\mathrm{t}\mu `$) atoms gave a characteristic peak in the TOF spectrum at $`1\mu \mathrm{s}`$ — a time determined by the distance between the foils and the position in energy of the Ramsauer–Townsend minimum.

Clearly, not all muons were stopped in the US target and thus those which reached the second foil created $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s in the DS protium. The $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s diffused to neon giving a contribution to the time spectrum at early times. Thus the resulting Ne time spectrum contained two relatively distinct components, one of them connected with the RT effect in $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ ($`\mathrm{t}\mu `$) scattering and the other with the diffusion of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms in the solid hydrogen. Despite the overlap of the two effects in the time spectra one should note there is an important advantage of such an experiment. Since the kinetic energy of the $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ ($`\mathrm{t}\mu `$) is relatively high, the delayed RT peak is not sensitive to the state of the target material and can be well described using either “gas” or “solid” scattering cross sections (see Mulhauser et al. (1999, 2001)). Due to this, the RT peak can be used as a reference in the analysis of the diffusion part where the effects of the solid state can be found.

### III.3 Monte Carlo simulations

The Monte Carlo code FOW Woźniak et al. (1996) was used in the planning stages of the experiment as well as for the analysis to simulate all physical processes occurring after muons pass through the entrance window of the apparatus. Muon stopping distributions along the beam axis in the different apparatus components, especially in the hydrogen layers of the target, have been taken from a special set of measurements Mulhauser et al. (1999) and from another Monte Carlo calculation Jacot-Guillarmod (1997) and used as an input to FOW. The FOW code gives the possibility of a full three–dimensional description of the target geometry.

The muonic processes considered are as follows:

* elastic scattering: $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{d}`$, $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{t}`$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{p}`$, $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{d}`$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{t}`$.
* spin–flip: $`\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F})\mathrm{p}\mu (\mathrm{F}^{})`$, $`\mathrm{d}\mu (\mathrm{F})\mathrm{d}\mu (\mathrm{F}^{})`$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu (\mathrm{F})\mathrm{t}\mu (\mathrm{F}^{})`$.
* charge transfer: $`\mathrm{p}\mu \mathrm{d}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{p}\mu \mathrm{t}\mu `$.
* molecular formation: $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{p}\mathrm{pp}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{d}\mathrm{dd}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{t}\mathrm{tt}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{p}\mathrm{pd}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{p}\mathrm{pt}\mu `$.

Energy–dependent values of the total and differential cross sections for the elastic scattering of muonic atoms, spin–flip, and charge transfer transitions were used in the calculations. For small collision energies (usually below 0.1 eV) the “solid” double differential cross sections Adamczak (1997) were used for the elastic scattering and spin–flip interactions. At higher energies, where the solid state effects become negligible, the total and single differential “gas” cross sections from Refs. Bracci et al. (1989); Melezhik and Woźniak (1992); Chiccoli et al. (1992); Melezhik and Woźniak (1998), corrected for molecular effects via the Sachs–Teller model, were applied. Using “gas” cross sections at higher energies saved computer time without incurring any loss in accuracy. The energy–dependent $`\mathrm{pd}\mu `$, $`\mathrm{pt}\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{dd}\mu `$ (resonant and nonresonant) formation rates were taken from the Faifman calculations Faifman (1989, 1988); Ponomarev and Faifman (1976). The $`\mathrm{pp}\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tt}\mu `$ formation rates were considered as energy independent ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{pp}\mu }=3.21\mu \text{s}^1`$ Mulhauser et al. (1996), $`\lambda _{\mathrm{t}t\mu }=1.80\mu \text{s}^1`$ Breunlich et al. (1987)). Thermal motion of the target molecules was also taken into account. Tables 2 and 3 show the main characteristics calculated for different upstream and downstream targets used for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission study. The values are based on at least $`10^6`$ simulated muons, so the statistical uncertainty is negligible.

Figure 11 shows the calculated energy spectrum of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms emitted from the PP target. A strong solid–state effect is evident both in yield intensity and spectral shapes when comparing the calculations which include or disregard the solid hydrogen structure (solid and dot–dashed lines, respectively). The details of the spectral tail above the Bragg cutoff limit are shown on a log–binned scale in the insert. The kinetic energy spectra for $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$ atoms emitted from DEm and TEm targets, respectively, are shown in Fig. 12 for the “solid” (solid line) and “gas” (dashed line) cross sections. The lack of solid state effects is not surprising given the high energy of the atoms involved. The muonic atom energy applies to atoms which have traveled the 17.9 mm distance between the US and DS layers.

Figure 13 shows the probability of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission from a hydrogen target as a function of the initial $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ formation position following the muon stop. The example is for the PP target and for the muon stopping distribution for the beam momentum 26.25 MeV/c. The difference between the results of the “solid” cross sections (solid line) and “gas” cross sections (dashed line) illustrates the strong increase of the mean free path in the final stage of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ slowing down when the solid state effects are considered. One can see that the volume from which emitted $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms can originate is much more extended in the solid case.

## IV Measurements

Muonic atom scattering in hydrogen was measured via the x–ray time spectra of $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s at 207 keV (see Fig. 14). The time spectra events were selected within the energy window $`205.6208.3`$ keV. The background time spectra under the 207 keV peak were created using time spectra from two neighboring energy windows, namely a left background at $`203.3205.6`$ keV and a right background at $`208.3210.2`$ keV. Two different background evaluation procedures were used. In the first, the left and right spectra were added, and then normalized by the energy window widths and the resulting spectrum subtracted from the time spectrum of the $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s peak. The second relied on a multi–parameter fit of the summed left and right backgrounds using two exponential functions (with lifetimes for muons in gold and neon) and the background predicted from the fit function was subtracted from the $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s peak. Since the background accounts for $`7085`$% of the total statistics, its removal plays an important role, especially for data at early times where the muon prompt capture in the neon layer and the gold foils bring a strong contribution. Another data cleaning method resulting in better signal to background was the requirement that the muon decay electron be seen after the $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s x ray, starting from a given time delay. Those delayed electrons were detected by the scintillators (see Fig. 8) during a time interval $`0.25.2\mu \text{s}`$ after the $`\mu `$Ne signal. This method, called the “dele” criterion, suppressed the background by a factor of about 300. However, useful statistics were reduced by about a factor ten.

### IV.1 Combined measurements with H/D and H/T targets

For the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering analysis only the few experiments from Table 1 in which the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion time spectrum have been seen are useful. Similar runs were summed whenever possible and Table 4 give the details. The other measurements were nevertheless necessary for the determination of detection efficiencies.

A typical TOF measurement (#1, Table 4), where both $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$’s from the US layer and $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s from the DS protium layer were detected when they reach the DS neon, is presented in Fig. 15 (points with error bars). The a) and b) graphs show the time spectra for the full statistics and for the events where the dele criterion has been applied for background suppression, respectively. That measurement was performed with a DEm upstream target (with $`0.05\%`$ $`\mathrm{D}_2`$) and a $`300\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ ($`\mathrm{H}_2`$) downstream layer. The events occurring at early times ($`t<600`$ ns) are due to $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ formed directly in the DS hydrogen which then diffuse to the neon layer. The peak in the TOF spectrum corresponds to the delayed $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ atoms which travel the distance between the two foils and are not stopped in the DS hydrogen due to the RT effect. Also plotted are the simulations using the “solid” scattering cross sections as well as the result of the calculation when one neglects the solid state effects and uses only the “gas” cross sections.

Another example of a similar TOF measurement (with a hydrogen/tritium mixture in the target upstream and $`500\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ protium covering the downstream Ne, #2) is shown in Fig. 16 for the full statistics and dele requirement cases. A relatively high muon stopping fraction in the downstream target (because the US target was only $`1000\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ and 9.3% of the muons stopped in the DS target) gives good statistics for the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ part in the time spectrum. The delayed peak from $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$ transfer events lies earlier in time than the corresponding deuterium case because of the higher $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$ energy (see Fig. 12), and hence the overlap of both diffusion and RT spectra parts is fairly strong. The “solid” cross section MC spectrum is also presented in the figure (solid line histogram). Dot–dashed and dotted lines show the predicted contributions from $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$, respectively.

Figure 17 shows the time spectrum of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ atoms emitted together from a DEm target (#4, Table 4). This case was analyzed using the different emission time dependences since the $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ part of the time spectrum decreases much faster than the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission spectrum; the mean diffusion time of $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ in the $`2000\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ target is $`100`$ ns, much less than for the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission ($`300`$ ns). The $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ contribution can be removed using the MC simulations since $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ emission is independent of solid state effects as one can see from Fig. 15. The subtraction leaves a clean $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ spectrum which can be compared to the MC including solid state effects.

Normalization of the simulated time spectra was done using the RT peak which is equally well described by both the “solid” and “gas” approaches. The normalization factor $`n=Y(exp)/Y(MC)`$, where the yields $`Y(exp)`$ and $`Y(MC)`$ were the total counts in the time interval $`5002500`$ ns, was calculated from all eight measurements given in Table 1 which deal with the RT effect. The mean weighted value for the germanium detector G1 (which was the same in all experimental runs) was $`n=(5.8\pm 0.3)\times 10^4`$. This normalization factor, which is effectively the detector efficiency, applies to Ne x rays detected from the DS neon layer. For experiments #3 and 4 (see Table 4) where x rays were detected from neon on the US target (shifted by 17.9 mm compared to the DS target) the efficiency was $`40`$% higher (established by comparing the total counts in the prompt Ne x–ray peaks in experiments D1 and D5) and the value for detector G1 was $`n=(8.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$. No efficiency was determined for the G2 germanium detector, because it was changed between the deuterium and tritium measurements.

### IV.2 Emission of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms from a layer of solid hydrogen

Although $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom emission was a parasitic process in the RT experiments, those runs were still useful for the analysis of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ scattering in solid hydrogen. In particular, the profound disagreement between experimental data and theory using “gas” cross sections and the relative correctness of the “solid” cross sections can be seen.

The observation of enhanced $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission from solid hydrogen stimulated additional measurements specifically intended to study the phenomenon more precisely with higher statistics. A target similar to the one shown in Fig. 9 was made from $`1000\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$ pure protium covered with a thin ($`1020\text{Torr}\mathrm{}`$) neon layer. The resulting time spectrum of $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s x rays described the diffusion of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms in hydrogen from the moment of the muon stop to the moment of emission.

The measured time spectra (#3, Table 4) of $`\mu `$Ne 2p–1s x rays are shown in Fig. 18 for the full statistics and dele criteria. MC spectra also shown on the figures describe well the experimental data when the “solid” cross sections are used (solid lines). Normalization to the experimental data is based on the conclusions from the TOF measurements (see Sec. IV.1). The calculation with the “gas” cross sections (dotted lines) gives a suppressed yield although the lifetimes representing the diffusion are not dramatically different.

## V Analysis and discussion

As is seen from the comparison between the experimental results and the simulations performed using both the “solid” and “gas” cross sections presented on Fig. 15, both types of cross section describe the RT part of the spectrum equally well. That agreement is due to the fact that solid state effects are negligible for the energies of the $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ atoms which are responsible for those spectra. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the measurements with $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$.

In contrast, there is a big difference in yields as well as in time dependence between the calculated $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion spectra and measurements where an agreement with the experiment is obtained only for the “solid” cross sections; the discrepancy seen in Fig. 15 a) for first points from times $`0150`$ ns has an artificial source and will be explained later in this section. The “gas” cross sections predict a total yield of emitted $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s two times smaller than required for a correct description of the experimental results. If one excludes the first channel (Fig. 15), which contains events connected with fast $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms from the slowing down stage, the “gas” approach gives three times less emission.

The good agreement between experiment and calculation based on the “solid” cross sections is also visible in Fig. 16 where the emission spectrum of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$’s from the DS target and the transmission spectrum of the delayed $`\mathrm{t}\mu `$’s from the sTEm US target are presented. The $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission is enhanced 2.3 times for the total emission and and 3.8 times for emission at times $`t>30`$ ns. Accurate results, especially from the point of view of the emitted $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion time analysis, are obtained from the experiment with the sPP target (Fig. 18). In that case there were no ambiguities between signals from diffusion and those from RT events, which was a problem present in the measurements with the combined H/D and H/T targets. However such combined target measurements were necessary because they gave the RT peak which was used as the reference for the yield normalization of the MC spectra. The time distribution of the emitted $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms has some nontrivial behavior and depends not only on the cross sections but also on the target thickness, the muon stop distribution in the target, and the initial energy of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms. In the limit of long times and for a given $`\mu `$–stop distribution, the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission time distribution can be well modeled by a one–exponential approximation. In that limit, the constant factor in the exponent represents the mean time needed for the equilibrated $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms to reach the layer boundary (we call that parameter the diffusion time, $`\tau _d`$). Such a $`\tau _d`$ depends on the target thickness but should reach an asymptotic value for high thickness simply because the $`\mu `$–stop distribution is effectively exponential decreasing in the thickness (c.f. Fig 1 of Ref Woźniak et al. (1996)). When convoluted with the escape probability of Fig. 13, and the associated escape time from any given depth, this exponential behaviour of the stopping yields a constant emission time. In light of the remarks presented above, we chose a unique time region $`t>200\mathrm{ns}`$ for the analysis of the four experimental time spectra (see Table 4) to determine the diffusion time, $`\tau _d`$ and compare it with the MC simulation.

Such a choice had the additional advantage that it avoided problems with the early parts of the time spectrum. The problem is clearly visible in Fig. 15 a) for times less than 200 ns in a measurement made with a thick US layer plus an $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ DS layer. The early time signal was only a few percent of the total counts so the background subtraction for those time regions was significant, as can be seen from the resulting uncertainties, and hence any small irregularities in the thresholds and in the detection of secondary muons as well as in the background estimation itself can result in an poor estimation of the background. It also exists, but is less important, in measurements with an $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ US layer, where the percentage of incident muons stopped US was significantly higher than in the downstream layer. It is worth noting that for the spectra cleaned with the dele condition, and hence, where problems with background vanish, the theory (via Monte Carlo simulations) agrees with the early time region, but a more sophisticated analysis was not possible because of poor statistics and the complicated form of the time spectra.

The measured and calculated values of $`\tau _d`$, fitted using a single–exponential distribution, are given in Table 5 for both data treatments (i.e., with and without dele). Good agreement between the experimental values of $`\tau _d`$ and the calculations using the “solid” cross sections is observed for each experiment. The results are also shown in Fig. 19 where the points with error bars represent the experimental values of $`\tau _d`$ from Table 5. The lines are the results from the Monte Carlo calculations using the “solid” and “gas” cross sections (solid and dotted lines, respectively). The MC results from Table 5 were obtained strictly for the given experimental conditions whereas the calculations represented by the continuous lines in Fig. 19 were made assuming pure protium layers of increasing thickness and using the same muon stopping distribution (beam momentum of 26.25 MeV/c) in order to show the smooth dependence of $`\tau _d`$ on the target thickness.

The analysis of the emission yields of the slow $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms supports also the use of the “solid” cross sections. This is seen by comparing the experimental results with the simulations when the “solid” and “gas” cross sections were used. The results for the G1 detector are presented in Table 6. The comparison was performed for the time interval $`200600`$ ns, characteristic for the diffusion process, using the efficiencies established from the RT time domain (see Section IV.1). The agreement between the experiments and “solid” cross sections is excellent.

Despite the general agreement between the experimental data and the theoretical description of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion in fully modeled solid hydrogen, the question of the sensitivity of the calculated diffusion time and emission yield on the cross sections is important. The influence of an inaccuracy in the $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{D}_2`$ ($`\mathrm{T}_2`$) and $`\mathrm{d}\mu (\mathrm{t}\mu )+\mathrm{X}`$ (X is any hydrogen isotope) cross sections is negligible in the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion study because of the very small concentration of deuterium (tritium) admixtures in the targets. The question of $`\mathrm{d}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$, $`\mathrm{t}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$ cross sections in the Ramsauer–Townsend region is discussed elsewhere Mulhauser et al. (1999, 2001).

To study the sensitivity of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu +\mathrm{H}_2`$ scattering simulation on the cross sections we performed calculations with the “solid” scattering cross sections scaled in the low energy region (i.e., collision energy $`<0.1`$ eV). When applying a constant scaling factor, between 0.7 and 1.3, it only changes the character of the slowing down process by a very small amount at short times. However, it does not change the diffusion process in any practical way. Variations in the diffusion time $`\tau _d`$ and the total emission yield do not exceed $`0.51`$% for the mentioned scaling range. This is not surprising since the scaling does not change the characteristic equilibrium energy of the diffused $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ which is established by the deceleration and acceleration processes (i.e., creation and annihilations of phonons, respectively). That energy is close to the Bragg cutoff energy $`\mathrm{E}_B`$, because the coherent phonon creation for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$($`\mathrm{F}=0`$) vanishes below $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ (a weak incoherent scattering remains) and the inelastic scattering cross sections for the acceleration ($`\sigma _{11}^{gain}`$) and deceleration ($`\sigma _{11}^{loss}`$) cross over near $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ (Fig. 2). Following these remarks, the value of $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ may have an influence on the cold $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission (but not on the diffusion time). However, the $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ value is defined by the geometrical structure of the hydrogen crystal (lattice constant) and thus is known relatively precisely (better than 5%). One result of the simulations was that such a 5% shift of $`\mathrm{E}_B`$ (0.1 meV) gives an increase (or decrease) of the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission yield by 1.2%.

Another important factor which can influence the $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion parameters is the $`\mathrm{pp}\mu `$ molecular formation rate, which is the most frequent $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ disappearance channel following muon decay. Both parameters — the diffusion time, $`\tau _d`$, and the emission yield, $`Y`$ — are sensitive to that process. The value $`\lambda _{pp\mu }=3.21\pm 0.18\mu s^1`$ Mulhauser et al. (1996) used in our simulations is the more accurate value of the two existing measurements performed in solid hydrogen to date. Decreasing $`\lambda _{pp\mu }`$ by one standard deviation resulted in a 4% increase of the calculated diffusion time and a similar increase of the emission yield from a thick hydrogen layer. Nevertheless, when one takes into account all above systematic errors, the comparison presented in Tables 5 and 6 allows us to conclude that theory based on the “solid” cross section is still consistent with the experimental results, contrary to that of the “gas” approach.

In this work we tried to confront the experimental results obtained for $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atom scattering in solid hydrogen with the theory of low energy scattering including solid state effects. Agreement has been obtained between experiment and that theory with respect to $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ diffusion. In particular, the diffusion time has been found and the enhanced yield of $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ emission from the thin solid hydrogen layers has been explained. The results of the study proved that the observed solid effects in the scattering at low energies (collision energy $`<0.1`$ eV) are correctly described by the calculated “solid” scattering cross sections. The experimentally observed enhancement in the emission of cold $`\mathrm{p}\mu `$ atoms creates the possibility of using such neutral atomic beams as a tool in further studies of muonic processes.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank V.E. Markushin, J.L. Douglas and M. Maier for fruitful discussions and for their help during the data acquisition period. This work is supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, TRIUMF, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 01–02–16483), and the NATO Linkage Grant No. LG9301162.


format: text

text:
# High-𝑝_𝑇 Pion Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions at RHIC energies

## 1 Introduction

The calculation of high-$`p_T`$ particle production at SPS and RHIC energies requires solid theoretical background, based on perturbative QCD (pQCD). In these calculations, the choice of renormalization, factorization and fragmentation scales are typically chosen in the range $`p_T/3Q2p_T`$. Earlier we have found  that the theoretical reproduction of the measured nuclear effects in $`pA`$ and $`AA`$ collisions (specifically the Cronin effect ) strongly depends on the choice of the above scales. In the following we display new results analysing preliminary RHIC data  on pion production in $`AuAu\pi ^0`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV and $`200`$ AGeV.

## 2 Perturbative QCD calculations with intrinsic $`k_T`$

In pQCD-improved parton model (including intrinsic $`k_T`$) pion production was calculated in leading order (LO)  and next-to-leading order (NLO) . An intermediate solution to speed up the time consuming full NLO calculations is to determine a $`K_{jet}(s,p_{T,jet},Q)`$ factor corresponds to higher order contributions at jet level in $`pp`$ collisions  and apply it in the factorized pQCD equation. In this case the pion production in $`AA`$ collision can be described as:

$`E_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma _\pi ^{AA}}{\text{d}^3p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{abcd}{}}{\displaystyle }\text{d}^2b\text{d}^2rt_A(r)t_B(|\stackrel{}{b}\stackrel{}{r}|){\displaystyle }\text{d}^2k_{T,a}\text{d}^2k_{T,b}\text{d}x_a\text{d}x_b\text{d}z_c\times `$
$`\times `$ $`g_{pA}(\stackrel{}{k}_{T,a})f_{a/A}(x_a,Q^2)g_{pA}(\stackrel{}{k}_{T,b})f_{b/A}(x_b,Q^2)\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\left[K_{jet}(s,p_{T,jet},Q){\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\sigma }{\text{d}\widehat{t}}}^{abcd}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{D_{\pi /c}(z_c,Q^2)}{\pi z_c^2}}\widehat{s}\delta (\widehat{s}+\widehat{t}+\widehat{u}).`$ (1)
The partonic cross section, $`\text{d}\sigma /\text{d}\widehat{t}`$, is the LO Born term, which is multiplied by $`K_{jet}(s,p_{T,jet},Q)`$ in eq. (1). ($`\widehat{s}`$, $`\widehat{t}`$ and $`\widehat{u}`$ are parton-level Mandelstam variables.) The nuclear thickness function, $`t_A(b)=\text{d}z\rho (b,z)`$, is normalized as $`\text{d}^2bt_A(b)=A`$. The nuclear parton distribution functions (PDF) $`f_{a/A}(x,Q^2)`$ are based on the nucleon PDFs ($`f_{a/p}(x_a,Q^2)`$) and modified in the nuclear environment (“shadowing”) . We are using NLO MRST  PDF set with $`Q=p_{T,jet}`$ scale, where $`p_{T,jet}=p_T/z_c`$.

In a phenomenological approach, we introduced an extra 2-dimensional Gaussian transverse momentum distribution as the PDF’s extension :

$$g_{pA}(\stackrel{}{k}_T)=\frac{1}{\pi k_T^2_{pA}}e^{k_T^2/k_T^2_{pA}},\text{where}k_T^2_{pA}=k_T^2_{pp}+Ch_{pA}(b).$$
(2)
We have found the Gaussian width ($`k_T^2_{pp}`$) to be $`p_T`$ independent in the window $`2`$ GeV $`p_T6`$ GeV. Nuclear multiscatterings yield an extra broadening in $`pA`$ collision, which can be related to the number of nucleon-nucleon (NN) collisions in the medium and denoted by $`Ch_{pA}(b)`$. Here $`C`$ means the average increase in the transverse momentum width in one NN collision and $`h_{pA}(b)`$ is a geometrical effectivity function. This latter quantity can be saturated . The $`D_{\pi /c}(z_c,Q^2)`$ is the fragmentation function (FF), which gives the probability for parton $`c`$ to fragment into $`\pi `$ at momentum fraction $`z_c`$ and fragmentation scale $`Q^{}`$. In this paper we fix $`Q^{}=p_T/2`$ and use the KKP parametrization.

## 3 pQCD result on $`pp`$ and $`AuAu`$ at RHIC energies

In Figure 1 we display our results at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV (left panels) and $`200`$ AGeV (right panels). In the upper panels the dashed curves indicate the $`pp`$ results which can be compared to the preliminary PHENIX data (full triangles) at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ GeV. Full dots indicate the $`\pi ^0`$ data from peripheral $`AuAu`$ collisions, the calculated pion spectra (solid lines) approximately overlap with the data. We obtained $`N_{bin,p}^{130}=19`$ binary collisions for $`6080\%`$ peripheral case and $`N_{bin,p}^{200}=10`$ for $`7080\%`$ peripheral case. A satisfactory agreement between the data and the calculations demonstrate the validity of the improved pQCD calculation111Parameters: $`k_T^2_{pp}^{130}=1.8`$ GeV2, $`k_T^2_{pp}^{200}=1.5`$ GeV2, $`C_{sat}=0.4`$ and $`\nu _{max}=3`$..

Full squares indicate the data for central collisions. The number of binary collisions are $`N_{bin,c}^{130}=857`$ for $`10\%`$ central $`AuAu`$ case at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV, and $`N_{bin,c}^{200}=940`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$ AGeV. One can find a large difference between central data and theoretical spectra (full lines), a suppression factor of $`45`$ appeared.

Lower panels display the nuclear modification factor, defined as

$$R_{AA}^\pi =\frac{1}{N_{bin}}\frac{\sigma _{in}^{pp}}{\sigma _{in}^{AA}(b)}\frac{\text{d}\sigma _{AA}/\text{d}^3p_\pi }{\text{d}\sigma _{pp}/\text{d}^3p_\pi }.$$
(3)
This expression magnifies the enhancement of particle production in $`AuAu`$, relatively to the $`N_{bin}`$ upscaled $`pp`$ collision on a linear scale. Applying shadowing and multiscattering, the Cronin peak can be seen clearly in both peripheral (dotted lines) and central (solid lines) collisions. The position of Cronin peak depends on the $`k_T^2_{pp}`$ value, and the height depends on the extra broadening, $`Ch_{pA}(b)`$. One can see that the height of the peak in central case is larger than in peripheral one, which effect is caused by the number of nucleon-nucleon collisions inside a nucleus. We have fixed the PDF scale $`Q=p_{T,jet}`$ and FF scale $`Q^{}=p_T/2`$ to obtain the peak’s maximum at $`p_T3`$ GeV/c. The comparison of PHENIX data (full squares) with theoretical calculations display a difference of $`5`$. This suppression value is indicated on lower panels with a dashed lines. The origin of this suppression is jet quenching.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-86ER40251, NSF grant INT-0000211, FKFP220/2000, Hungarian grants OTKA T032796, T034842, and the HAS $``$ Dubna agreement. Supercomputer time provided by BCPL in Norway and the EC $``$ Access to Research Infrastructure action of the Improving Human Potential Programme is gratefully acknowledged, together with the ITOL at Eötvös University.


text:
# Heitmann’s Proof of the Direct Summand Conjecture in Dimension 3

## 1. An outline of the methods used in the proof

Let $`R`$ be a Noetherian local ring of mixed characteristic $`p`$ of dimension 3. We assume that $`R`$ is an integrally closed domain and is a homomorphic image of a regular local ring. In fact, the questions we consider can be reduced to the case of a complete integrally closed domain, and complete local rings are homomorphic images of regular local rings by the Cohen structure theorems.

Let $`(p,x,y)`$ be a system of parameters for $`R`$. Let $`z`$ be an element of $`R`$ such that $`p^Nz(x,y)`$. The aim is to find a finite extension of $`R`$ in which $`z`$ is in the ideal generated by $`x`$ and $`y`$. If this is always possible, then it is not difficult to prove the Direct Summand Conjecture (or any of several equivalent conjectures). This aim is not quite reached, but a weaker result, which is also enough to prove these conjectures, is proven instead. However, to motivate the construction in the proof, we first discuss the question of attempting to find an extension in which $`z(x,y)`$. We assume throughout that $`R`$ is an integrally closed domain.

The equation for which we are trying to find a solution is

$$z=wx+vy,$$

where $`w`$ and $`v`$ are in a finite extension of $`R`$. This means that $`w`$ is integral over $`R`$, so it is a root of a polynomial

$$f(T)=T^n+a_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n$$

with coefficients in $`R`$. Since $`z,x,`$ and $`y`$ are in $`R`$, we can solve the equation $`z=wx+vy`$ for $`v`$, and $`v`$ will be in the field generated by $`w`$ over the quotient field of $`R`$:

$$v=\frac{zwx}{y}.$$

From this equation we can use Taylor’s formula to find a polynomial $`h(T)`$ whose root is $`v`$, as we show below. If we can find a polynomial $`f(T)`$ such that the corresponding polynomial $`h(T)`$ with root $`v`$ also has coefficients in $`R`$, we have solved the problem, since then both $`w`$ and $`v`$ are integral over $`R`$.

Suppose that $`f(T)=T^n+a_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n`$ is a polynomial such that $`f(w)=0`$. We show how to find the polynomial $`h(T)`$ with root $`v`$. Let $`F(S,U)`$ be $`f(T)`$ made homogeneous; that is, if $`f(T)=T^n+a_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n`$, we let

$$F(S,U)=S^n+a_1S^{n1}U+\mathrm{}+a_nU^n.$$

By Taylor’s Theorem, we have

$$F(ST,U)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i\frac{1}{i!}F^{(i)}(S,U)T^i,$$

where $`F^{(i)}(S,U)`$ denotes the $`i`$th derivative of $`F(S,T)`$ with respect to the first variable. We will use this notation for the derivative of a homogeneous polynomial with respect to the first variable, and we will refer to it as the derivative of the polynomial, throughout the paper. Applying this equation with $`S=z,T=zwx,`$ and $`U=x`$ we obtain

$$F(z(zwx),x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i\frac{1}{i!}F^{(i)}(z,x)(zwx)^i.$$

On the other hand, we have

$$F(z(zwx),x)=F(wx,x)=x^nF(w,1)=x^nf(w)=0.$$

Hence if we let

$$b_i=(1)^{ni}\frac{1}{(ni)!}F^{(ni)}(z,x)$$

and let

$$g(T)=T^n+b_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+b_n,$$

then $`g(zwx)=0`$. Finally, if we let $`c_i=b_i/y^i`$ and $`h(T)=T^n+c_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+c_n`$, then $`h((zwx)/y)=0`$.

To summarize, we wish to find a polynomial $`f(T)`$ with coefficients in $`R`$ so that the resulting polynomial $`h(T)`$ also has coefficients in $`R`$. Tracing back through the construction of $`h(T)`$, we see that this means that

$$\frac{1}{(ni)!}F^{(ni)}(z,x)y^iR$$

for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$.

The strategy is to start with $`\frac{1}{(n1)!}F^{(n1)}(z,x)`$, which is the next to the last term in the Taylor expansion, and construct the previous terms inductively, essentially by integration, finally ending up with a polynomial of degree $`n`$ with the required properties.

Before continuing the discussion, we recall some facts about the coefficients which arise in the Taylor expansion and introduce some notation. Let $`f(T)=_{k=0}^na_kT^{nk}`$ as above. Then

$`(1)`$
$$\frac{1}{(ni)!}f^{(ni)}(T)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}\right)a_jT^{ij}.$$

To see this, simply compute both sides for $`f(T)=a_jT^{nj}`$: in computing the left hand side we obtain

$$\frac{(nj)(nj1)\mathrm{}(nj(ni)+1)}{(ni)!}a_jT^{nj(ni)}=$$

$$=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ni}\right)a_jT^{ij}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}\right)a_jT^{ij}.$$

While this fact is quite straightforward, we mention it explicitly to explain our interest in binomial coefficients of the form $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}}\right)`$, for example in Lemma 3.

Applying equation (1) to the polynomial $`F(S,U)`$ evaluated at $`z,x`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{(ni)!}F^{(ni)}(z,x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^j.$$

Since the main step in the construction involves integration and adjusting constants, we introduce special notation for it. Given a homogeneous polynomial $`G(S,U)=_{j=0}^ia_jS^{ij}U^j`$ of degree $`i`$ and an integer $`n>i`$, we let

$$\text{Int}_n(G)(S,U)=(ni)\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}a_j\left(\frac{S^{ij+1}}{ij+1}\right)U^j.$$

This definition depends not only on $`G(S,U)`$, but also on $`n`$; in fact, we are thinking of $`G(S,U)`$ as the $`(ni)`$th term in the Taylor expansion of a polynomial of degree $`n`$, and Int$`{}_{n}{}^{}(G)(S,U)`$ is then a candidate for the previous term; it is in fact the unique choice with coefficient of $`U^{i+1}`$ equal to zero. That is the reason for including the factor $`ni`$.

We now return to the main discussion. We have a system of parameters $`p,x,y`$ for $`R`$ and an element $`z`$ with $`p^Nz(x,y)`$ for some integer $`N`$. Thus there exists an element $`a`$ of $`R`$ such that $`p^Nz+axyR`$. We want to find a homogeneous polynomial $`F(S,U)`$ of degree $`n=p^L`$ for some $`L`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{(ni)!}F^{(ni)}(z,x)y^iR$$

for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`n=p^L`$, for $`i=1`$ this expression becomes

$$\frac{1}{(n1)!}F^{(n1)}(z,x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L}{1}\right)z+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L1}{0}\right)a_1x=p^Lz+a_1x.$$

From the above condition on $`z`$, if we let $`L=N`$ and $`a_1=a`$, we have

$$p^Lz+a_1xyR,$$

which is the required condition for $`i=1`$. We let $`F_1(S,U)=p^LS+a_1U.`$

As stated above, we wish to construct $`F(S,U)`$ by repeated integration. If we knew that Int$`{}_{p^L}{}^{}(F_1)(z,x)`$ were in the ideal $`(x^2,y^2)`$, we could find an element $`a_2`$ such that

$$\text{Int}_{p^L}(F_1)(z,x)+a_2x^2=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L}{2}\right)z^2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L1}{1}\right)a_1zx+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L2}{0}\right)a_2x^2y^2R.$$

and continue the construction. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily possible (we recall that although we are discussing the question of trying to show that $`z(x,y)R^{}`$ for a finite extension $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$, the actual result we prove is somewhat weaker). However, the next lemma shows that although we cannot solve this problem in $`R`$, we can solve it in $`R[p^1]`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ be a ring which contains a field of characteristic zero, and let $`H(S,T)`$ be a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`n`$ with coefficients in $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$. Suppose that $`x,y,z`$ are elements of $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ such that $`z(x,y)`$ and such that

$$H^{(ni)}(z,x)y^i\stackrel{~}{R}\text{for}i=0,\mathrm{},n1.$$

Then

$$H(z,x)(x^n,y^n).$$

Proof. Since $`z(x,y)`$, we can write $`z=cxdy`$ for some $`c`$ and $`d`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$. Using Taylor’s formula, we have

$$H(S+T,U)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{(ni)!}H^{(ni)}(S,U)T^{ni}.$$

We apply this formula with $`S=z`$, $`U=x`$, and $`T=dy`$, giving

$$H(z+dy,x)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{(ni)!}H^{(ni)}(z,x)(dy)^{ni}.$$

Since $`H^{(ni)}(z,x)y^i\stackrel{~}{R}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, each term in the sum on the right is in $`y^n\stackrel{~}{R}`$ except possibly the term with $`i=n`$, which is $`H(z,x)`$. Hence we can write

$$H(z+dy,x)=H(z,x)+ay^n$$

for some $`a\stackrel{~}{R}`$. Since $`z=cxdy`$, we also have

$$H(z+dy,x)=H(cx,x)=x^nH(c,1)x^n\stackrel{~}{R}.$$

Thus

$$H(z,x)=H(z+dy,x)ay^n(x^n,y^n).$$

Let $`u_2=\text{Int}_{p^L}(F_1)(z,x)`$ as above. Then Lemma 1 implies that $`u_2(x^2,y^2)R[p^1]`$, so there is an integer $`D`$ such that $`p^Du_2(x^2,y^2).`$ The main part of the proof consists of adjusting $`u_2`$ so that it lies in $`(x^2,y^2)`$ (and similarly adjusting the corresponding element at the $`i`$th stage so that it lies in $`(x^i,y^i)`$. There are essentially three possibilities:

1. The element $`u_2`$ itself lies in $`(x^2,y^2)`$. In this case, as outlined above, there is no problem.
2. There is an element $`cR`$ such that $`u_2cxyz\text{modulo}(x^2,y^2)`$. We recall that we had $`p^Lz(x,y)`$, so $`p^Lxyz(x^2,y^2)`$. In this case, we can add $`(c)xyz`$ to $`u_2`$ and proceed as before (we will explain this in detail below).
3. The first two possibilities do not apply. In this case we have to multiply $`u_2`$ by a power of $`p`$. We recall that $`L`$ was chosen so that $`p^Lz(x,y)`$. Now we are raising the power of $`p`$ needed, and we have to increase $`L`$. Thus we are now looking for a polynomial of larger degree.

These three procedures form the basis of the construction. One of the main facts which makes this construction work is that after a certain point the third case will no longer occur. The lemma we use here is the following.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`R`$ be a ring as above. For each $`i`$, let

$$J_i=\{rR|p^Nr(x^i,y^i)\text{for\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}some}N\}.$$

Let $`Q_i=J_i/(x^i,y^i)`$. Then

1. $`Q_i`$ has finite length for all $`i`$.
2. There exists an integer $`n`$ such that for all $`kn`$, the map from $`Q_n`$ to $`Q_k`$ induced by multiplication by $`x^{kn}y^{kn}`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof. The fact that $`Q_i`$ has finite length follows immediately from the fact that $`p,x,y`$ is a system of parameters.

Since $`x,y`$ form part of a system of parameters and $`R`$ is assumed to be integrally closed, $`x,y`$ form a regular sequence. It follows that the map from $`Q_n`$ to $`Q_k`$ induced by multiplication by $`x^{kn}y^{kn}`$ is always injective. To prove the second statement it must be shown that this map is also surjective for large enough $`n`$.

To prove this assertion we use the fact that the local cohomology module $`H_𝔪^2(R)`$ has finite length, which follows from the assumptions we have made on $`R`$. More specifically, since $`R`$ is an integrally closed domain of dimension three, its non-Cohen-Macaulay locus is supported at the maximal ideal. It then follows from local duality and the assumption that $`R`$ is a homomorphic image of a regular local ring that the local cohomology module $`H_𝔪^2(R)`$ has finite length (see , section 3.5). We remark that this is the only place where the assumption that $`R`$ is a homomorphic image of a regular local ring is used.

The local cohomology module can be computed as the homology of the sequence

$$R_p\times R_x\times R_y\stackrel{d_1}{}R_{px}\times R_{py}\times R_{xy}\stackrel{d_2}{}R_{pxy},$$

where the first map sends $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)`$ to $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2,\alpha _3\alpha _1,\alpha _2\alpha _3)`$, and the second map sends $`(\beta _1,\beta _2,\beta _3)`$ to $`\beta _1+\beta _2+\beta _3`$. Since $`H_𝔪^2(R)`$ is finitely generated, there is an integer $`n`$ such that $`H_𝔪^2(R)`$ is generated by elements which can be written in the form

$$(\frac{a}{(px)^n},\frac{b}{(py)^n},\frac{c}{(xy)^n}).$$

Let $`kn`$. Let $`r`$ be an element of $`R`$ and $`N`$ an integer such that

$$p^Nr=sx^k+ty^k$$

for $`s`$ and $`t`$ in $`R`$. We then have that the element

$$(\frac{t}{p^Nx^k},\frac{s}{p^Ny^k},\frac{r}{x^ky^k})R_{px}\times R_{py}\times R_{xy}$$

is in the kernel of $`d_2`$. By our choice of $`n`$, there is an element of the form

$$(\frac{a}{(px)^n},\frac{b}{(py)^n},\frac{c}{(xy)^n})$$

such that the difference between this element and our original one is in the image of $`d_1`$. Looking at the third component, we can thus find an integer $`m`$ and $`e,fR`$ with

$$\frac{r}{x^ky^k}\frac{c}{(xy)^n}=\frac{e}{x^m}\frac{f}{y^m}.$$

Multiplying this equation by $`x^{k+m}y^{k+m}`$, we obtain

$$x^my^m(rcx^{kn}y^{kn})(x^{k+m},y^{k+m}).$$

Since the map induced by multiplication by $`x^my^m`$ from $`R/(x^k,y^k)`$ to $`R/(x^{k+m}y^{k+m})`$ is injective, we can thus conclude that the image of $`r`$ in $`R/(x^k,y^k)=Q_k`$ is equal to $`x^{kn}y^{kn}`$ times the image of $`c`$ in $`R/(x^n,y^n)=Q_n`$. Thus the map induced by multiplication by $`x^{kn}y^{kn}`$ from $`Q_n`$ to $`Q_k`$ is surjective.

The proof of the main theorem of this paper proceeds by repeating the process of integrating as we have outlined in the construction of $`F_2`$ from $`F_1`$ above. In the process, we obtain elements $`z_i`$ at stage $`i`$ and attempt to add a $`U^i`$ term in such a way to assure that if $`F_i(S,U)`$ is the new polynomial, we have $`F_i(z,x)y^iR`$. At each stage there are three cases as above. If the first case holds, there is no problem. If the second case holds, we adjust $`z_i`$ and show that we can still continue as before. If we are in the third case, we have to multiply by a power of $`p`$ and it is necessary to increase $`L`$. Using lemma 2, we can show that eventually the third case will not occur.

The other thing we have to keep track of is the divisibility of binomial coefficients by powers of $`p`$. For this we introduce the function $`\tau `$ defined as follows. Let $`\overline{\tau }(n)`$ equal the sum of digits of $`n1`$ in its $`p`$-adic expansion. Then let $`\tau (n)=\overline{\tau }(n)/(p1)`$. We let $`\tau (1)=0`$. We note that $`\tau (n)`$ is a rational number with denominator dividing $`p1`$, and we emphasize the fact that $`\tau (n)`$ is defined by the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`n1`$ rather than that of $`n`$.

As an example. we compute $`\tau (p^n)`$ and $`\tau (p^n+1)`$. Since the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`p^n1`$ consists of $`n`$ digits each equal to $`p1`$, we have $`\tau (p^n)=n(p1)/(p1)=n`$. The $`p`$-adic expansion of $`p^n`$ consists of a 1 followed by $`n`$ zeros, so $`\tau (p^n+1)=1/(p1)`$.

We next compute the difference $`\tau (n)\tau (n1)`$ for any $`n>1`$. Let $`a`$ be the largest integer for which $`p^a`$ divides $`n1`$ ($`a`$ will be zero if $`p`$ does not divide $`n1`$). Then the last $`a`$ digits of the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`n2`$ are equal to $`p1`$ and the $`a+1`$ digit is less than $`p1`$. Thus when we add 1 to $`n2`$, the last $`a`$ digits are replaced with zeros and the $`a+1`$ digit is increased by 1. Hence we have

(1)
$$\tau (n)\tau (n1)=\frac{1}{p1}a.$$

The connection between $`\tau `$ and binomial coefficients comes from the following lemma. In this lemma and the following discussion we use the notation $`p^kn`$ to mean that $`p^k`$ is the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`n`$.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`0<jip^L`$ be integers. Then $`p^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}}\right)`$, where

$$k=\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i).$$

Proof We fix $`j`$ and $`L`$ and prove the result by induction on $`i`$. If $`j=i`$, then $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}}\right)=1`$ and $`\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)=\tau (j)+\tau (1)\tau (j)=0`$; since the highest power of $`p`$ which divides 1 is $`p^0`$, the result is true in this case.

Now assume that $`j<ip^L`$ and that the result is true for $`i1`$. We compute how each side of the equation changes when we go from $`i1`$ to $`i`$.

For the left hand side, we compute

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{(i1)j}\right)\times \left[\frac{p^Lj(ij)+1}{ij}\right]=$$

$$=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{(i1)j}\right)\times \left[\frac{p^Li+1}{ij}\right].$$

Hence the highest power of $`p`$ which divides this binomial coefficient remains the same unless $`p`$ divides $`p^Li+1`$ or $`p`$ divides $`ij`$. Let $`p^a(p^Li+1)`$ and $`p^b(ij)`$. Then we obtain the highest power of $`p`$ dividing $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}}\right)`$ from that for $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{(i1)j}}\right)`$ by adding $`ab`$.

We now compute how $`\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)`$ changes as we pass from $`i1`$ to $`i`$. We have

$$[\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)][\tau (j)+\tau ((i1)j+1)\tau (i1)]$$

$$=[\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)][\tau (j)+\tau (ij)\tau (i1)]$$

$$=[\tau (ij+1)\tau (ij)][\tau (i)\tau (i1)].$$

We will now express this difference using the $`a`$ and $`b`$ defined earlier in the proof. We have defined $`b`$ by the condition $`p^b(ij)`$ and $`a`$ by the condition $`p^a(p^Li+1)`$. However, since $`0<j<ip^L`$, we have $`0<i1<p^L`$, and thus we also have $`p^a(i1)`$. Hence from equation 1 we obtain

$$[\tau (ij+1)\tau (ij)][\tau (i)\tau (i1)]$$

$$=\frac{1}{p1}b\left(\frac{1}{p1}a\right)=ab.$$

This is the same quantity as we computed for the left hand side of the equation, so this proves the lemma by induction.

The above proof of Lemma 3 is the shortest way to obtain the result we need for binomial coefficients that appear in Taylor expansions but it may appear somewhat unmotivated. We outline the steps of a more natural approach to this result.

We let $`\sigma _p`$ denote the function given by $`\sigma _p(n)=`$ the sum of the digits in the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`n`$ for an integer $`n0`$; note that we thus have $`\tau (n)=\sigma _p(n1)/(p1)`$.

1. Show by induction that $`p^an!`$ where $`a=(n\sigma _p(n))/(p1)`$.
2. Use step 1 to derive a formula for the highest power of $`p`$ that divides the binomial coefficient $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}\right)`$ for integers $`0kn`$.
3. Apply the formula from step 2 to compute the highest power of $`p`$ that divides $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}}\right)`$ and prove Lemma 3.

## 2. Proof of the Main Theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

(Heitmann) Let $`R`$ be an integrally closed local domain of mixed characteristic $`p`$ and of dimension 3. Let $`p,x,y`$ be a system of parameters for $`R`$. Assume that $`R`$ contains an element $`\sigma `$ such that $`\sigma ^{p1}=p`$. Let $`z`$ be an element of $`R`$ and $`N`$ a positive integer such that $`p^Nz(x,y)`$. Then for any rational number $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a finite extension $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$ in which

$$p^ϵz(x,y)R^{}.$$

The main idea, as in the analogous situation explained in the previous section, is to prove the existence of a monic polynomial $`f(T)`$ satisfying conditions which imply that if $`w`$ is a root of $`f(T)`$, then $`p^ϵw`$ will be integral over $`R`$, and if we let $`v`$ be the element such that $`p^ϵz=p^ϵwx+p^ϵvy`$, then $`p^ϵv`$ is also integral over $`R`$. We next prove the main lemma which shows that this can be done.

We remark that the reason for requiring that $`R`$ contain the element $`\sigma `$ is that we will need to define powers $`p^r`$ of $`p`$ where $`r`$ is a rational number of the form $`n/(p1)`$ for some integer $`n`$. We can then define $`p^r=p^{n/(p1)}=\sigma ^n`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`R,p,x,y,`$ and $`z`$ be as in the statement of Theorem 1, and let $`K`$ be a positive integer. Then there exists an integer $`L`$ and a polynomial

$$f(T)=T^{p^L}+a_1T^{p^L1}+\mathrm{}+a_{p^L}$$

satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},p^L.`$
2. If we let $`F(S,U)=S^{p^L}+a_1S^{p^L1}U+\mathrm{}+a_{p^L}U^{p^L}`$ as in the previous section, we have

$$F^{(k)}(z,x)y^{p^Lk}R[p^1]$$

for $`k=0,\mathrm{},p^L`$.

Proof. We fix a positive integer $`K`$.

As outlined in the previous section, we construct the polynomial $`F(S,U)`$ inductively starting with degree 1. Throughout the construction we will make use of the quantity $`E_i`$ defined by the formula

$$E_i=K\tau (i)+\tau (2).$$

Note the $`E_i`$ is a rational number with denominator dividing $`p1`$ and that it can be positive or negative.

We now state the situation we have after the $`i`$th step precisely. We assume that we have, for each integer $`k`$ with $`1ki`$,

1. A homogeneous polynomial $`F_k(S,U)`$ of degree $`k`$,
2. an integer $`L_k>K`$ with $`p^{L_k}>k`$ for all $`k<i`$ (we may have $`p^{L_i}=i`$; in that case $`L_i`$ will be the $`L`$ of the Lemma and we will be done),
3. an element $`z_k`$ in $`R`$ with $`p^{N_k}z_k(x^k,y^k)`$ for some integer $`N_k`$.

Furthermore, these polynomials, elements of $`R`$, and integers will satisfy the following conditions:

1. The coefficient of $`S^k`$ in $`F_k(S,U)`$ is $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}}{k}}\right)`$. Thus we can write

$$F_k(S,U)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}}{k}\right)S^k+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}1}{k1}\right)a_{k1}S^{k1}U+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_kk}}{0}\right)a_{kk}U^k,$$

where the $`a_{kj}`$ are elements of $`R[p^1]`$ but may not be in $`R`$.
2. For $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ we have $`a_{kj}p^{K\tau (j)}`$.
3. $`F_k^{(m)}(z,x)y^{km}R[p^1]`$ for $`m=0,\mathrm{},k`$.
4. If we let $`G_1(S,U)=S`$ and $`G_k(S,U)=p^{E_k}\text{Int}_{p^{L_{k1}}}F_{k1}(S,U)`$ for $`2ki`$, then $`G_i(z,x)=z_i`$.

This is a lengthy induction hypothesis; however, the induction step is itself quite complicated and this information from previous steps is used.

We now do the first step, where $`i=1`$. By hypothesis, there is nonnegative integer $`N_1>0`$ such that $`p^{N_1}z(x,y)`$, so we can find an $`aR`$ such that $`p^{N_1}z+axyR`$. Multiplying this expression by $`p^K`$ we have that $`p^{N_1+K}z+p^KayR`$. We let $`L_1=N_1+K`$ and $`a_{11}=p^Ka`$, and we define

$$F_1(S,U)=p^{N_1+K}S+p^KaU=p^{L_1}S+a_{11}U.$$

Then $`F_1`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree 1 as required. Let $`z_1=z`$. Then we have $`L_1>K`$, $`p^{L_1}>1`$, and $`p^{N_1}z_1(x,y)`$, so conditions 1 through 3 are satisfied.

The coefficient of $`S`$ in $`F_1`$ is $`p^{L_1}=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_1}}{1}}\right)`$, so condition A holds. Since $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{0}}\right)=1`$, we have

$$F_1(S,U)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_1}}{1}\right)S+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_1}}{0}\right)a_{11}U.$$

Condition B states that $`a_{11}p^{K\tau (1)}R=p^KR`$, which is true since we defined $`a_{11}=p^Ka`$. Condition C states that

$$F_1(z,x)=p^{L_1}z+a_1x=p^{N+K}z+p^KaxyR[p^1],$$

which is also true by construction (in fact, we have $`p^{N+K}z+p^KaxyR`$ in this case). Finally, since $`G_1(S,U)=S`$, we have $`z_1=z=G_1(z,x)`$. Hence all the necessary conditions are satisfied for $`i=1`$.

We now suppose that $`L_k`$, $`z_k`$, and $`F_k(S,U)`$ have been defined for $`1k<i`$ and define $`F_i(S,U)`$, $`L_i`$, and $`z_i`$.

As stated in the previous section, the main idea is to integrate $`F_{i1}(S,U)`$ and modify it so that it will satisfy the conditions listed above. However, to make the construction work it is also necessary to multiply the integral by a power of $`p`$ using the number $`E_i=K\tau (i)+\tau (2)`$ defined above.

As a first approximation to $`F_i`$, we let

$$G_i(S,U)=p^{E_i}\text{Int}_{p^{L_{i1}}}(F_{i1}(S,U)).$$

(This is the same polynomial as in condition D for $`i2`$.)

Let

$$z_i=G_i(z,x).$$

We claim that $`z_i`$ is an element of $`R`$. To simplify notation we let $`a_j=a_{i1,j}`$ for $`j=0,\mathrm{},i1`$ (with $`a_0=1`$), so that we have

$$F_{i1}(S,U)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{i1j}\right)a_jS^{i1j}U^j.$$

We then have that $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},i1`$ by induction.

By the definitions of $`z_i`$ and $`G_i(S,U)`$, we have that

$$z_i=p^{E_i}\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^j.$$

We show that each term of this sum is in $`R`$; to do so we distinguish two cases.

If $`j=0`$, then $`a_j=1`$, and we must show that $`p^{E_i}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}}{i}}\right)R`$. To see this, we note that the highest power of $`p`$ dividing $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}}{i}}\right)`$ is $`p^{L_{i1}k}`$, where $`p^ki`$ (of course, $`k`$ can be zero). Thus to show that $`p^{E_i}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}}{i}}\right)R`$ we must show that

$$E_i+L_ik=K+\tau (i)\tau (2)+L_{i1}k0.$$

Since $`L_{i1}>K`$, this reduces to showing that $`\tau (i)+1\tau (2)+k`$. Since $`p^k`$ divides $`i`$, the $`p`$-adic expansion of $`i1`$ ends with $`k`$ digits equal to $`p1`$. Hence

$$\tau (i)+1k+1k+(1/(p1))=k+\tau (2),$$

so the inequality holds.

We now consider the general case, where $`ip^{L_{i1}}`$ and $`0<j<i`$. In this case we use Lemma 3. We must show that $`p^{E_i}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}}\right)a_jR`$. Putting together the powers of $`p`$ dividing the factors in this product, and using the fact that the highest power of $`p`$ that divides $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}}\right)`$ is $`\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)`$, the inequality to be proven is

$$K+\tau (i)\tau (2)+\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)+K\tau (j)0.$$

This expression simplifies to

$$\tau (ij+1)\tau (2)0,$$

which is true since $`i>j`$, so that $`ij+12`$ and thus $`\tau (ij+1)\tau (2)`$.

Thus we have shown that $`z_iR`$. We claim that we also have that $`p^{N_i}z_i(x^i,y^i)R`$ for some $`N_i`$. If we can show that $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]`$, then we can conclude that $`p^{N_i}z_i(x^i,y^i)R`$ for some $`N_i`$ by clearing denominators. To show that $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]`$ we use the fact that $`G_i(S,U)`$ is, up to a constant which is a unit in $`R[p^1]`$, the integral of $`F_{i1}(S,U)`$, and $`z_i=G_i(z,x)`$. Hence, again up to constants which again are units in $`R[p^1]`$, we have that $`G_i^{(k)}(z,x)`$ agrees with $`F_{i1}^{(k1)}(z,x)`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},i`$. By induction we have that $`F_{i1}^{(k1)}(z,x)y^{(i1)(k1)})R[p^1]`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},i`$. It thus follows that $`G_i^{(k)}(z,x)y^{ik}R[p^1]`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},i`$. Hence Lemma 1 implies that $`G_i(z,x)(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]`$ as was to be shown.

To summarize the argument up to this point, we have defined

$$G_i(S,U)=p^{E_i}\text{Int}_{p^{L_{i1}}}(F_{i1}(S,U)),$$

defined $`z_i=G_i(z,x)`$, and shown that $`z_i`$ is an element of $`R`$ such that $`p^{N_i}z_i(x^i,y^i)`$ for some integer $`N_i`$. We now wish to add a $`U^i`$ term to $`G_i(S,U)`$ so that if we evaluate the resulting polynomial at $`(z,x)`$ the result is in $`y^iR[p^1]`$ and continue the induction. In fact, $`G_i(S,U)`$ may have to be modified first as we show below. We distinguish three cases.

Case 1. The first, and easiest, case, is when $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R`$. We then know that there exists an element $`a`$ such that

$$z_i+ax^iy^iR.$$

We now let

$$F_i(S,U)=p^{E_i}(G_i(S,U)+aU^i).$$

It is clear that $`F_i(z,x)=p^{E_i}(z_i+ax^i)y^iR[p^1]`$. Furthermore, since the derivatives of $`F_i`$ with respect to $`S`$ are, up to a constant which is a unit in $`R[p^1]`$, the same as those of $`G_i`$, it follows from the argument in the next to the last paragraph that

$$F_i^{(k)}(z,x)y^{ik}R[p^1]$$

for $`k=1,\mathrm{},i`$, and hence, since this condition also holds for $`k=0`$, it holds for $`k=0,\mathrm{},i`$.

We let $`L_i=L_{i1}`$. Then $`L_i>K`$, and conditions (1) through (3) are satisfied except that we may have $`p^{L_i}=i`$, which would mean that we could not continue the induction to $`i+1`$. However, we claim that in this case the polynomial

$$f(T)=F_i(T,1)$$

satisfies the conditions required in the conclusion of Lemma 4 and we are done. However, we first verify that conditions A through D hold.

Conditions A and D hold by construction, and we have already checked condition C. That leaves condition B, that the coefficients $`a_{ij}`$ are in $`p^{K\tau (j)}R`$. For $`j<i`$, we have $`a_{ij}=a_{i1,j}`$, and this condition follows by induction. Thus we must check that $`a_ip^{K\tau (i)}R`$. Since $`aR`$, we have $`a_i=p^{E_i}ap^{E_i}R=p^{K\tau (i)+\tau (2)}Rp^{K\tau (i)}R`$, which proves that the condition holds in this case as well.

We now return to the case in which $`p^{L_i}=i`$. If we let $`f(T)=F_i(T,1)`$, then the leading coefficient of $`f(T)`$ is $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{i}}\right)`$, which is 1, so $`f(T)`$ is monic as required. Furthermore, conditions (1) and (2) of Lemma 4 follow immediately from conditions B and C of the induction hypothesis. Thus if $`p^{L_i}=i`$, the proof of Lemma 4 is complete.

If $`p^{L_i}>i`$, we continue the induction. We remark that the argument that $`a_{ii}p^{K\tau (i)}R`$ and the fact that the proof of Lemma 4 is complete when $`p^{L_i}=i`$ will be used in the other cases as well.

Case 2. We assume now that $`z_i`$ is not in $`(x^i,y^i)`$, but that we can write $`z_i`$ modulo $`(x^i,y^i)`$ in terms of $`z_k`$ for $`1k<i`$ in the following sense: there exist $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{i1}`$ such that

$$z_i+c_{i1}xyz_{i1}+\mathrm{}+c_1x^{i1}y^{i1}z_1(x^i,y^i)R.$$

We recall that for each $`k=1,\mathrm{}i1`$ we have

$$z_k=G_k(z,x),$$

where $`G_k`$ is the homogeneous polynomial of degree $`k`$ defined above. We now let

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i(S,U)=G_i(S,U)+c_{i1}yUG_{i1}(S,U)+\mathrm{}+c_1y^{i1}U^{i1}G_1(S,U).$$

From the above equation we thus have

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i(z,x)(x^i,y^i),$$

so we can find an element $`aR`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i(z,x)+ax^iy^iR.$$

We define

$$F_i(S,U)=p^{E_i}(\stackrel{~}{F}_i(S,U)+aU^i).$$

We must now check that $`F_i`$ has the required properties. We let $`L_i=L_{i1}`$ as in the previous case. Since the coefficient of $`S^i`$ in $`F_i`$ is the same as that of $`p^{E_i}G_i=\text{Int}_{p^{L_{i1}}}(F_{i1})`$, we have by induction that this coefficient is $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{i}}\right)`$ as required. We now check that $`a_{ij}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},i1`$; the verification that $`a_{ii}p^{K\tau (i)}R`$ is the same as in the previous case. We must show that the coefficients of $`p^{E_i}\stackrel{~}{F}(S,U)`$ satisfy Condition B, and, since the coefficients of $`p^{E_i}G_i(S,U)`$ satisfy this condition, it suffices to show that the contributions of the coefficients of $`p^{E_i}y^{ik}U^{ik}G_k`$ satisfy the condition for each $`k=1,\mathrm{},i1`$.

Let $`k`$ be an integer with $`1ki1`$. By construction, we can write

$$G_k(S,U)=p^{E_k}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}j}{kj}\right)a_{kj}S^{kj}U^j\right),$$

where $`a_{kj}p^{K\tau (j)}R.`$ What we have to show is that if we write

$$p^{E_i}U^{ik}G_k(S,U)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}m}{im}\right)a_m^{}S^{im}U^m,$$

then we have $`a_m^{}p^{K\tau (m)}R.`$

We note that the since we are multiplying by $`U^{ik}`$, the term of $`G_k(S,U)`$ which contains $`a_{kj}`$ corresponds to the term of $`p^{E_i}U^{ik}G_k(S,U)`$ which contains $`a_{j+ik}^{}`$. Thus we have to show that if $`a_{kj}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$ and

$$p^{E_i}p^{E_k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}j}{kj}\right)a_{kj}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}(j+ik)}{i(j+ik)}\right)a_{j+ik}^{},$$

then $`a_{j+ik}^{}p^{K\tau (j+ki)}R`$. Dividing by the binomial coefficient on the right, this means that

$$p^{E_i}p^{E_k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_k}j}{kj}\right)p^{K\tau (j)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}(j+ik)}{i(j+ik)}\right)^1p^{K\tau (j+ik)}R.$$

To verify this statement we use Lemma 3 to determine the power of $`p`$ dividing the binomial coefficients in this expression. We also use the above expressions for $`E_i`$ and $`E_k`$. What results is that we must prove the inequality

$$(K\tau (i)+\tau (2))(K\tau (k)+\tau (2))+(\tau (j)+\tau (kj+1)\tau (k))$$

$$+(K\tau (j))(\tau (j+ik)+\tau (kj+1)\tau (i))K\tau (j+ik).$$

When this is worked out, it is seen that the two sides of the equation are in fact equal.

We must now prove the Condition C on derivatives. By construction, we have

$$F_i(z,x)y^iR[p^1].$$

To prove that $`F_i^{(k)}(z,x)y^{ik}R[p^1]`$ for $`k1`$ it suffices to prove the corresponding condition for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$, and to prove this it suffices to prove it for each term in the sum defining $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$. For $`G_i`$ the proof is the same as in the previous case. For $`c_my^{im}U^{im}G_m(S,U)`$, it suffices to show that if we let $`H(S,U)=y^{im}G_m(S,U)`$, then $`H^{(k)}(z,x)y^{ik}R[p^1]`$ for $`k0`$. By construction, we have that $`G_m^{(k)}(z,x)y^{mk}R[p^1]`$ for $`k0`$. Hence

$$H^{(k)}(z,x)=y^{im}G_m^{(k)}(z,x)y^{im}y^{mk}R[p^1]=y^{ik}R[p^1]$$

as was to be shown.

This finishes the second case.

Case 3. This is the case in which $`z_i`$ cannot be forced into $`(x^i,y^i)R`$ even after modifying it by multiples of $`x^{ik}y^{ik}z_k`$. Let $`N_i`$ be a positive integer such that $`p^{N_i}z_i(x^i,y^i)R`$. We now let $`L_i=L_{i1}+N_i`$. Note that this is the only case where we increase $`L_i`$. We now let

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_i(S,U)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}}{i}\right)^1G_i(S,U).$$

Regardless of what $`i`$ is, the highest power of $`p`$ dividing $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}}{i}}\right)^1`$ is $`p^{L_iL_{i1}}=p^{N_i}`$. Hence, since $`p^{N_i}z_i(x^i,y^i)R`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i(z,x)(x^i,y^i)`$, and we can find an element $`a`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i(z,x)+ax^iy^iR`$. We now let

$$F_i(S,U)=p^{E_i}(\stackrel{~}{F}_i(S,U)+aU^i).$$

Since $`F_i`$ is, apart from the $`U^i`$ term, a constant multiple of $`G_i`$ by a unit in $`R[p^1]`$, the condition on derivatives is clear in this case. Furthermore, we have constructed $`F_i`$ so that the coefficient of $`S^i`$ is $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}}{i}}\right)`$, so it satisfies the Condition A. We now check the Condition B on the $`a_{ij}`$. In fact, it follows from Lemma 3 that the highest power of $`p`$ dividing $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}}\right)`$ is the same as the highest power of $`p`$ dividing $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}}\right)`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},i1`$. Hence the divisibility conditions on $`a_{ij}`$ for $`G_i`$ are the same as those for $`F_i`$. Thus, since the $`a_{ij}`$ are, up to units in $`R`$, multiples of $`a_{i1,j}`$ by $`p^{N_i}`$, the condition follows. Thus all the conditions hold, and this completes the proof of Case 3.

To finish the proof of the lemma, we invoke Lemma 2. As in that lemma, we let $`Q_i`$ denote the submodule of $`R/(x^i,y^i)`$ consisting of elements $`u`$ annihilated by $`p^N`$ for some $`N`$. Lemma 2 states that for large $`i`$ multiplication by $`x^ky^k`$ identifies $`Q_i`$ with $`Q_{i+k}`$ for all $`k0`$. Let $`i`$ be large enough so that this holds. For each $`n`$ let $`M_n`$ denote the submodule of $`Q_n`$ generated by $`z_n,xyz_{n1},\mathrm{},x^{n1}y^{n1}z_1`$, and for each $`k0`$ let $`N_k`$ be the submodule of $`Q_i`$ corresponding to $`M_{i+k}`$ under the above identification. Since the $`N_k`$ form an increasing sequence of submodules of $`Q_i`$, we must have $`N_k=N_{k+1}`$ for sufficiently large $`k`$. It follows that multiplication by $`xy`$ identifies $`M_i`$ with $`M_{i+1}`$ for large $`i`$. Thus for large $`i`$ it is always possible to write $`z_i`$ in terms of $`z_{i1},\mathrm{}z_1`$ as in Case 2, and Case 3 will not occur. Thus we will eventually reach the situation where $`i=p^{L_i}`$, and at that point $`F_i(S,U)`$ will satisfy the required conditions.

We now prove the theorem. Assume that $`p^Nz(x,y)`$, where $`p,x,y`$ form a system of parameters. We wish to show that for all rational $`ϵ>0`$, we have $`p^ϵz(x,y)R^{}`$ for some finite extension $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$. Choose $`K>0`$ such that $`1/p^K<ϵ`$; we can in fact assume that $`ϵ=1/p^K.`$ Let $`f(T)`$ be a polynomial such that

1. $`f(T)=T^n+a_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n`$, where
2. $`F^{(k)}(z,x)y^{nk}R[p^1]`$ for $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$, and
3. $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}R`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

We claim that if we let $`g(T)=_{i=0}^np^{ϵj}a_jT^{nj}`$, then $`g(T)`$ has coefficients in $`R`$. This amounts to the statement that

$$jϵ+K\tau (j)=j/p^K+K\tau (j)0$$

for all $`j`$.

To prove this inequality, we first note that if $`jp^K`$, then $`\tau (j)K`$ and the inequality is clear. Thus we may assume that $`j>p^K`$, and this implies that there is a nonnegative integer $`M`$ such that $`p^{K+M}jp^{K+M+1}`$.

The inequalities $`p^{K+M}jp^{K+M+1}`$ imply that $`j/p^Kp^M`$ and $`\tau (j)K+M+1`$. We thus have

$$j/p^K+K\tau (j)p^M+K(K+M+1)=p^MM1.$$

It thus suffices to show that for all nonnegative integers $`M`$ and all prime numbers $`p`$ we have $`p^MM+1`$. For $`M=0`$ this states that $`p^01`$, and for $`M=1`$ it states that $`p2`$, and both of these statements are true. The general case can be shown by an easy induction on $`M`$.

Thus $`g(T)`$ has coefficients in $`R`$. Let $`w`$ be a root of $`f(T)`$; we then have that $`p^ϵw`$ is a root of $`g(T)`$ so is integral over $`R`$. The condition on derivatives in Lemma 4 implies that if we let $`v=(zwx)/y`$, then $`v`$ is integral over $`R[p^1]`$, and hence $`p^ϵv`$ is also integral over $`R[p^1]`$. Furthermore, $`p^ϵv=(p^ϵz(p^ϵw)x)/y`$ is a quotient of an element integral over $`R`$ by $`y`$ so is clearly integral over $`R[y^1]`$. Thus $`p^ϵv`$ is integral over $`R[p^1]`$ and $`R[y^1]`$, so, since $`p`$ and $`y`$ generate an ideal of height 2 in $`R`$ and $`R`$ is a normal domain, $`p^ϵv`$ is integral over $`R`$. We now have

$$p^ϵz=(p^ϵw)x+(p^ϵv)y,$$

so $`p^ϵz`$ is in the ideal generated by $`x`$ and $`y`$ in a finite extension of $`R`$. This concludes the proof of the theorem.

## 3. A proof of the Canonical Element Conjecture in dimension 3

In this section we show how Heitmann’s theorem can be used to give a direct proof of the Canonical Element Conjecture in dimension 3. We recall the statement of one version of this conjecture.

Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_d`$ be a system of parameters for $`R`$. Let $`K_{}`$ be the Koszul complex on $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_d`$, and let $`F_{}`$ be a minimal free resolution of $`R/(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$. Since $`K_{}`$ is a complex of free modules and $`F_{}`$ is exact, there is a map of complexes $`\varphi _{}:K_{}F_{}`$ which is the identity map in degrees $`0`$ and $`1`$ (note that the maps $`K_1K_0`$ and $`F_1F_0`$ are the same). The Canonical Element Conjecture states that

$$\varphi _d(1)𝔪F_d.$$

In dimension 3 in mixed characteristic, we can assume that the system of parameters is of the form $`p^N,x,y`$, where $`x,y`$ form a regular sequence. Then the homology of the Koszul complex $`K_{}`$ in degree 1 is isomorphic to $`Q/(x,y)`$, where $`Q=\{rR|p^Nr(x,y)\}`$. If $`sR`$ is such that $`sQ(x,y)`$, then $`s`$ annihilates the homology of $`K_{}`$ in degree 1, and, since $`K_{}`$ is exact in degrees 2 and 3, we can construct a map $`\psi _{}:F_{}K_{}`$ such that $`\psi _{}`$ is multiplication by $`s`$ in degrees 0 and 1.

Now suppose that we had $`\varphi _d(1)𝔪F_d`$. We take $`s=p^e`$ for some small rational number $`e`$. Let $`R^{}`$ be a finite integrally closed extension of $`R`$ containing $`p^e`$ and such that $`p^e(QR^{})(x,y)R^{}`$; the existence of such an extension $`R^{}`$ is guaranteed by Heitmann’s Theorem. By the previous paragraph, there is a map $`\psi _{}:F_{}R^{}K_{}R^{}`$ which is multiplication by $`p^e`$ in degrees 0 and 1. Thus the composition $`\psi _{}\varphi _{}`$ is a map from $`K_{}R^{}`$ to itself which is also given by multiplication by $`p^e`$ in degrees 0 and 1 (we use the notation $`\varphi _{}`$ also to denote the extension of the original $`\varphi _{}`$ to $`R^{}`$). Since $`K_{}R^{}`$ is exact in degrees 2 and 3, we can conclude that multiplication by $`p^e`$ is homotopic to $`\psi _{}\varphi _{}`$. Thus there is a map $`\sigma `$ from $`K_2R^{}`$ to $`K_3R^{}`$ such that for all $`aK_3R^{}`$ we have

$$p^ea=\psi _{}\varphi _{}(a)+\sigma (d_3^K(a)).$$

Since we are assuming that $`\varphi _d(a)𝔪R^{}`$, and $`d_3^K(a)`$ is clearly in $`𝔪R^{}`$, this implies that $`p^e𝔪R^{}`$. The next lemma shows that this is impossible if we take $`e`$ small enough.

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`R`$ be a local integral domain with maximal ideal $`𝔪`$, and let $`c`$ be a nonzero element of $`R`$. Then for sufficiently small rational $`e>0`$, for any finite extension $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$, we have $`c^e𝔪.`$

Proof We use the fact that there is a discrete valuation $`v`$ on $`R`$ such that $`v(m)>0`$ for all $`m𝔪`$. Let $`u`$ be the minimum of $`v(m)`$ for a set of generators $`m`$ of $`𝔪`$. Then if we choose $`e<u/v(c)`$, since $`v`$ can be extended to any finite extension $`R^{}`$ of $`R`$, we have that $`v(c^e)=ev(c)<uv(m)`$ for all $`m`$ in a set of generators for $`𝔪R^{}`$. Thus $`v(c^e)<v(m)`$ for all $`m𝔪R^{}`$, so $`c^e𝔪R^{}`$.