format: text

text:
# Pion Form Factor and Quark Mass Evolution in a Light-Front Bethe-Salpeter Model

## I Introduction

The pion electromagnetic (EM) form factor is of great interest for the study of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). At low momentum transfers ($`Q^2`$) nonperturbative QCD (NPQCD) dominates, while at large $`Q^2`$ perturbative QCD (PQCD) can be used to calculate the asymptotic form factor; and the transition from NPQCD to PQCD has long been of interest . Since PQCD can only be used for $`Q^2>`$ 1 GeV2, light-front (LF) quantization methods may be most useful . In the early work on the pion form factor using the light-front Bethe-Salpeter equation (LFBSE) the NPQCD (soft) part was separated from the PQCD (hard) part; and it was shown in a model calculation that the transition from NPQCD to PQCD is expected in the region 5.0 $`<Q^2<15.0`$ GeV2. This work was extended to include the Sudakov form factor , anomalous quark magnetic dipole moments, and a simple model for the running quark mass, $`m(Q^2)`$. Improved calculations of the pion EM form factor are motivated by the recent new and upgraded data (up to $`Q^2`$=1.6 GeV) from the Jefferson Laboratory(JLab) . While this $`Q^2`$ range may be too low to determine the transition to the PQCD region, these data are useful for studying NPQCD theoretical approaches. In the present work we restrict ourselves to the soft NPQCD part with models for the running mass that ensure gauge invariance and consistency with the partially conserved axial current (PCAC) relation

$$m_\pi ^2f_\pi =2m_{(\nu )}0|\overline{q}\gamma _5q|\pi _{(\nu )}=2m_{(\nu )}\frac{\overline{q}q_{(\nu )}}{f_\pi },$$
(1)
where $`m_{(\nu )}`$=$`m_0`$(current mass) in spacelike $`p^2`$=$`\nu ^2`$ region($`\nu `$ is the renormlization point) and $`\overline{q}q_{(\nu )}`$ is the quark condensate.

Since we are only considering the soft part of the pion form factor here, the LFBS amplitude can be modeled by a light-front wave function  based on LF Hamiltonian dynamics, such as the light-front constituent quark model(LFCQM) , but an essential ingredient is the use of a running quark mass, which is the main subject of the present paper. In LF quantization, a possible connection is anticipated between the constituent quark model(CQM) and QCD due to the rational energy-momentum dispersion relation that leads to a relatively simple vacuum structure. There is no spontaneous creation of massive fermions in the LF quantized vacuum. Thus, one can immediately obtain a constituent-type picture, in which all partons in a hadronic state are connected directly to the hadron instead of being simply disconnected excitations (or vacuum fluctuations) in a complicated medium. In particular, a systematic program has been laid out in the calculation of the spacelike EM form factor of pseudoscalar mesons because only parton-number-conserving Fock state (valence) contribution is needed when the “good” components of the current, $`J^+(=J^0+J^3)`$ and $`J_{}=(J_x,J_y)`$, are used in the Drell-Yan-West($`q^+`$=0) frame . The new data from the JLab  seem to be in good agreement with the previous CQM result  based on a QCD-motivated linear confining potential. However, a possible realization of chiral symmetry breaking in the LF vacuum is an underdeveloped aspect of LF quantization.

In contrast to quark models or LFCQM which use a phenomenological constant constituent quark mass, an approach based on QCD quantum field theory is the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation in conjuncton with Dyson-Schwinger (DS) equations for the quark propagators, gluon propagator and vertices. We note an important result of recent DS calculations, in which the effective running mass, $`m(p^2)`$, is calculated. In these DS calculations the parameters for model gluon propagators are fixed by fitting the quark condensate, the mixed condensate and even the form of the nonlocal condensate. It is particularly interesting to note that the DS quark propagator with running masses that decrease with respect to $`p^2`$ faster than quark models gives properties of the rho and pion that are in agreement with experiment. In all of these DS calculations it has been found that the effective quark mass drops very rapidly with increasing $`Q^2`$. Since the covariant BS/DS approach and the LF approach are not same but complementary, it may be necessary to examine if the previous LFCQM result  is intact even if the quark mass evolves as rapid as BS/DS approach found. This is a strong motivation for reformulating the LFCQM with a running quark mass, which we do in the present work.

In the present work, we analyze the effect of the mass evolution (from constituent to current quark mass) on the elastic pion form factor at low and intermediate $`Q^2`$. A correct theoretical approach to such a study is the LFBSE coupled to LFDS equatons. From the LFDS equations the running quark mass is obtained from the dressed quark propagator. Although the LFDS equation has recently been developed , only simple model solutions are available, and here we use a parameterization of the running quark mass that is consistent with known observations. While the asymptotic behavior of the running mass might require the crossing symmetry(under $`Q^2Q^2`$) at high momentum $`Q^2`$ analogous to that of pion form factor, there is no clue yet for the small momentum behavior in timelike region. Thus, we present the two different forms of mass evolution function; one is crossing asymmetric and the other is crossing symmetric. We then compare the results for the two cases. It should be noted that the recent LFDS results also show a rapid decrease of effective quark mass with momentum that puts the use of quark models for calculating any but static properties in question. In the present work we use forms for the quark mass evolution that are consistent with conventional quark models for calculating hadronic properties at momentum transfers less than about 800 MeV.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we review the formulation that underlies a description of the elastic pion form factor within a modeling of QCD through the LFBSE, which is a LFQM with a running mass. In Sec. III, we formulate the running quark mass in LF framework and discuss the local gauge invariance at the quark-photon vertex, i.e. Ward-Takahashi identity , due to the momentum dependent quark propagator. In Sec. IV, we analyze the running mass effect on the pion form factor, charge radius, and decay constant obtained from the previous CQM  calculation. We also show that our model with the running quark mass is consistent with the PCAC relation given by Eq. (1). This simply means that we obtain a quark condensate consistent with the phenomenological value given in Eq. (1), which is true in the DS calculations. A conclusion follows in Sec. V.

## II Model Description

The LFBSE introduced in Refs.  has the form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,𝐤_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[dy][d^2𝐥_{}][𝒦_\mathrm{c}(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})`$ (3)
$`+𝒦_\mathrm{g}(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})]\mathrm{\Psi }(y,𝐥_{}),`$
where $`𝒦_\mathrm{g}`$ is the gluon exchange kernel and $`𝒦_\mathrm{c}`$, the difference between the complete BS kernel and $`𝒦_\mathrm{g}`$, includes all confining effects. These kernels were obtained from the relativistic string and LF perturbative QCD (PQCD), respectively. Since NPQCD has not yet provided a form for the confining kernel, in Ref.  the problem of solving for the complete BS amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,𝐤_{})`$, was avoided by using a model for the soft amplitude. I.e., the soft BS amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s(x,𝐤_{})`$, can be considered to be the solution of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^s(x,𝐤_{})[dy][d^2𝐥_{}]𝒦_\mathrm{c}(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})\mathrm{\Psi }^s(y,𝐥_{}).$$
(4)
Iterating Eq. (3) by inserting $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s`$ for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, one obtains the approximate form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,𝐤_{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s(x,𝐤_{})`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle [dy][d^2𝐥_{}]𝒦_\mathrm{g}(x,𝐤_{};y,𝐥_{})\mathrm{\Psi }^s(y,𝐥_{})}.`$
This BS amplitude contains both soft and hard ingredients needed to take care of momentum transfer for all $`Q^2`$ therefore is correctly characterized as including both confinement and asymptotic features of a composite quark system. This approach to the pion form factor has been shown  to be in good agreement with the direct BS calculation , and to converge rapidly. The extension of Eq. (4) to the non-wave-function vertex in the particle-number-nonconserving Fock state contribution has recently been discussed in Ref. .

One nice feature of this approach is that one determines the soft part and the hard part separately, so that one can determine the transition from soft to hard QCD within this LFBS approach. This will be the subject of our future work. For the present work of low- and medium-$`Q^2`$, we only consider the confining part of the BS amplitude. We thus may be able to use the LFCQM, which has inlcuded many important properties of the $`Q^2`$ range that we focus in this work. Therefore, in the rest of this work we use the LF wave function for the LFBS amplitude.

The elastic pion form factor is related to pion EM current by the following equation

$$P^{}|J^\mu (0)|P=(P^{}+P)^\mu F_\pi (Q^2).$$
(7)
As usual, our calculation will be carried out using the $`q^+=0`$ frame where $`q^2=(PP^{})^2=q^+q^{}𝐪_{}^2=Q^2`$, i.e. $`Q^2>0`$ is spacelike momentum transfer.

The matrix element of the current given by Eq. (7) can be expressed as a convolution integral in terms of LF wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s(x,𝐤_{})`$ as shown in Fig. 1:

$`P^{}|J^\mu (0)|P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _q\lambda _q^{}\lambda _{\overline{q}}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle d^2𝐤_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _q^{}\lambda \overline{q}}^s(x,𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{u}_{\lambda _q^{}}(p_q^{})}{\sqrt{p_q^+}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{u_{\lambda _q}(p_q)}{\sqrt{p_q^+}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _q\lambda \overline{q}}^s(x,𝐤_{}),`$ (9)
where $`p_q^+`$=$`p_q^+`$=$`(1x)P^+`$ and $`𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$=$`𝐤_{}x𝐪_{}`$ in the initial pion rest frame, $`𝐏_{}`$=0. The helicity of the quark(antiquark) is denoted as $`\lambda _{q(\overline{q})}`$. Since the matrix element of the current in Eq. (8) is symmetric under the exchange of $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}`$, we do not explicitly write the contribution of photon-antiquark interaction diagram as well as the charge factor.

Our LF wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }^s`$ in Eq. (8) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\lambda _q\lambda _{\overline{q}}}^s(x,𝐤_{})=\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐤_{})_{\lambda _q\lambda _{\overline{q}}}(x,𝐤_{}),$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $``$ are the radial and relativistic spin-orbit wave functions, respectively. Our radial wave function is given by the gaussian trial function for the variational principle to the QCD-motivated effective LF Hamiltonian:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤^2)=(\frac{1}{\pi ^{3/2}\beta ^3})^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(𝐤^2/2\beta ^2),$$
(11)
where $`𝐤`$=$`(k_z,𝐤_{})`$ is three vector and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤^2)`$ satisfies $`d^3k|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐤^2)|^2`$= 1. The LF variable ($`x,𝐤_{}`$) is introduced in Eq. (11) by the definition of the longitudinal momentum $`k_z`$ via $`k_z`$=$`(x1/2)M_0`$ with $`M_0^2`$=$`(m^2+𝐤_{}^2)/x(1x)`$. If the quark mass depends on $`x`$ and $`𝐤_{}`$, the Jacobian of the variable transformation $`(k_z,𝐤_{})`$$``$$`(x,𝐤_{})`$ in Eq. (10) is obtained as

$$\frac{k_z}{x}=\frac{M_0}{4x(1x)}+\frac{(2x1)m(x,𝐤_{})}{2x(1x)M_0}\frac{m(x,𝐤_{})}{x}.$$
(12)
The spin-orbit wave function for a pseudoscalar meson ($`J^{PC}=0^+`$) is obtained  by the interaction independent Melosh transformation as follows:

$$_{\lambda _q\lambda _{\overline{q}}}(p_q,p_{\overline{q}})=\frac{\overline{u}(p_q,\lambda _q)\gamma _5v(p_{\overline{q}},\lambda _{\overline{q}})}{\sqrt{2}M_0}.$$
(13)
## III Quark Mass Evolution and Local Gauge Invariance

The solution of the DSE for the renormalized dressed-quark propagator takes the form in Minkowski space

$$S(p)^1=A(p^2)\overline{)}pB(p^2),$$
(14)
where the quark mass evolution function $`m(p^2)`$ is defined as $`m(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)`$. Also, the gauge invariance requires that the quark-photon vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ given by Eq. (8) satisfy the vector Ward-Takahashi identity(WTI) (i.e. current conservation)

$$q^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (p;q)=S(p^{})^1S(p)^1,$$
(15)
where $`q=pp^{}`$. At zero momentum transfer $`q`$=0, the quark-photon vertex is also specified by the differential Ward identity (i.e. charge conservation) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (p;0)=S(p)^1/p_\mu `$. The bare quark-photon vertex, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^\mu `$, which is usually used in LFCQM , is inadequate when the quark propagator has momentum-dependent dressing because it violates WTI. As used in many DSE studies of EM interactions , we take the Ball-Chiu(BC) ansatz  for the quark-photon vertex

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{BC}}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{)}p+\overline{)}p^{})}{2}}(p+p^{})^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{A(p^2)A(p^2)}{p^2p^2}}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(p^2)+A(p^2)}{2}}\gamma ^\mu (p+p^{})^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{B(p^2)B(p^2)}{p^2p^2}}.`$ (17)
Here, we introduce two algebraic parametrizations of the quark running mass, i.e. crossing asymmetric(CA) and crossing symmetric(CS) mass functions proportional to $`p^2`$ and $`p^4`$, respectively. For the CA mass evolution function, we take

$$m(p^2)=m_0+(m_cm_0)\frac{1+\mathrm{exp}(\mu ^2/\lambda ^2)}{1+\mathrm{exp}[(p^2\mu ^2)/\lambda ^2]},$$
(18)
where $`m_0`$ and $`m_c`$ are the current and constituent quark masses, respectively. The parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are used to adjust the shape of the mass evolution. Similarly, the following form of the mass evolution function is used for the CS case

$$m(p^4)=m_0+(m_cm_0)\frac{1+\mathrm{exp}(\mu ^4/\lambda ^4)}{1+\mathrm{exp}[(p^4\mu ^4)/\lambda ^4]},$$
(19)
where we simply replace $`p^2`$ and $`\mu ^2(\lambda ^2)`$ in Eq. (18) with $`p^4`$ and $`\mu ^4(\lambda ^4)`$, respectively. In our case, we set $`A(p^2)`$=1, $`B(p^2)`$=$`m(p^2)`$ for CA and $`B(p^2)`$=$`m(p^4)`$ for the CS case, respectively. While Eqs. (18) and (19) are phenomenological, the results of our running mass in spacelike momentum region ($`p^2>0`$) yield a generic picture of the quark mass evolution from the low energy limit of the constituent quark mass to the high energy limit of the current quark mass. For comparison, we use in Fig. 2 two different parameter sets for each mass evolution function, i.e., $`(\mu ^2,\lambda ^2)=(0.9,0.2)`$ \[Set 1\] and $`(0.5,0.2)`$ \[Set 2\] (in unit of GeV2) for $`m(p^2)`$ and $`(\mu ^2,\lambda ^2)=(0.95,0.63)`$ \[Set 1\] and $`(0.28,0.55)`$ \[Set 2\] (in unit of GeV2) for $`m(p^4)`$, respectively (See Fig. 2 for the line code). The current and constituent quark masses used are $`m_0=5`$ MeV and $`m_c=220`$ MeV, respectively. Simulating the constituent picture at small momentum region, we have chosen these particular sets of parameters, \[Set 1\] and \[Set 2\] for each mass function, to keep the constituent mass up to $`(p^2)1`$ and 0.5 GeV2, respectively, before it drops exponentially.

In order to express the four momentum $`p^2`$ in terms of LF variables $`(x,𝐤_{})`$, we use the on-mass shell condition, $`p^2=m^2(p^2)`$. It implies zero binding energy of a mock meson, i.e. $`P^{}=p_q^{}+p_{\overline{q}}^{}`$ where $`P^{}(=P^0P^3)`$ and $`p_q^{}(p_{\overline{q}}^{})`$ are the LF energies of the mock meson and the quark(antiquark), respectively. It leads to the following identity for the pion case ($`m_q=m_{\overline{q}}`$)

$$p^2=x(1x)\stackrel{~}{M}^2𝐤_{}^2.$$
(20)
For the mock meson mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, we take the average value(so called spin-averaged meson mass) of $`\pi (m_\pi )`$ and $`\rho (m_\rho )`$ masses with appropriate weighting factors from the spin degrees of freedom, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$=$`(m_\pi +3m_\rho )_{\mathrm{exp}}/4`$=612 MeV, which is consistent with quark model calculations with typical constituent quark masses and been used in some constituent LFQM calculations . Note that the spacelike form factor $`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ is weakly dependent on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, i.e. the numerical result with the mock meson mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}=612`$ MeV is not much different from that with the physical pion mass $`m_\pi =140`$ MeV, which would be used in the LFBS-LFDS approach. Using Eq. (20), we can now express the mass evolution functions $`m(p^2)`$ and $`m(p^4)`$ in terms of LF variables $`x`$ and $`𝐤_{}`$.

Using the good component of the current, $`J^+`$, the pion EM form factor in Eq. (7) is obtained as

$`F_\pi (Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`N_\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑xd^2𝐤_{}\sqrt{\frac{k_z^{}}{x}}\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\mathrm{\Phi }_f^{}(x,𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,𝐤_{})}`$ (21)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+m_km_k^{}}{x(1x)M_0M_0^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_k\mathrm{\Delta }m_k(2\stackrel{~}{M}^2+𝐪_{}^2)}{M_0M_0^{}\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_{}^2}}\right\},`$ (22)
where $`N_\pi `$ is the normalization constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_k=m(x,𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})m(x,𝐤_{})`$=$`m_k^{}m_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐤_{}^2=𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐤_{}^2`$. The other primed terms, $`k_z^{}`$ and $`M_0^{}`$, are obtained from $`k_z(x,𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ and $`M_0(x,𝐤_{}𝐤_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$, respectively. The terms in the curly bracket are obtained from the trace of spin-orbit wave function, i.e. $`^{}(\overline{u}/\sqrt{p_q^+})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{BC}}^+(u/\sqrt{p_q^+})`$. Note that the normalization constant $`N_\pi `$ at $`Q^2=0`$ is exactly one in chiral limit ($`m_0=\stackrel{~}{M}=0`$).

We also obtain the quark condensate from the PCAC relation given by Eq. (1) as follows:

$`\overline{q}q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi \sqrt{N_c}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dxd^2𝐤_{}}{x(1x)}\sqrt{\frac{k_z}{x}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐤_{})\sqrt{m_k^2+𝐤_{}^2}},`$ (24)
where $`N_c`$=3 is the color factor. This is equivalent to the expression in DS models for A(p2) = 1. The quark condensate is normally evaluated at the spacelike momentum scale $`p1`$ GeV(corresponding to the renormalization point $`\nu `$ ) where $`m_km_0`$(see Fig. 2).

## IV Numerical Results

In our numerical calculations, we use the model parameters $`(m_c,\beta )`$=(0.22,0.3659) \[GeV\] obtained in Ref.  for the linear confining potential model where the charge radius($`r_\pi ^2`$=$`6dF_\pi (Q^2)/dQ^2|_{Q^2=0}`$) and decay constant($`0|\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5q|P=if_\pi P^\mu `$) of the pion were predicted as $`r_\pi ^2`$=0.425 \[fm2\](Exp. = 0.432$`\pm `$0.016 ) and $`f_\pi `$=130 MeV (Exp. = 131 MeV ), respectively. The change of the charge radius and decay constant from the CQM result due to the running mass formulae are within 2$`\%`$ and 5$`\%`$, respectively. For the calculation of the quark condensate, we obtain, for example, $`f_\pi `$= 127 MeV from the \[Set 1\] of the CA mass function. Consequently, we obtain from Eqs. (1) and (24) the pion mass and the quark condensate as $`m_\pi `$=164 MeV and $`\overline{q}q`$=(0.3 GeV)3 while the experimental values of $`m_\pi `$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ are 140 MeV and (0.236 GeV)3 , respectively. This shows the PCAC relation is reasonably well satisfied in LFQM with our mass evolution function. The results from other parameter sets are not much different from the above \[Set 1\] of CA case.

In Fig. 3, we show our results of the pion EM form factor for small $`Q^2`$ region using the \[Set 2\] with BC vertex for both CA and CS mass evolution functions and compare with the experimental data  as well as the CQM result given by Ref. . The line code is in the figure. The small momentum($`Q^2`$) behavior of the form factor with CA and CS mass functions are not only close to each other but also close to the experimental data  as well as the CQM result . The results of \[Set 1\] for both CA and CS mass functions are even closer to the CQM result.

We also show in Fig. 4 our results of the form factor for the intermediate $`Q^2`$ region for CA \[Fig. 4(a)\] and CS \[Fig. 4(b)\] mass functions compared with the experimental data  as well as the CQM result . The line code is given in each figure. As one can see from Fig. 4, (1) the difference between the bare vertex and BC ansatz indicates the breakdown of the local gauge invariance from the usage of the bare vertex, (2) the \[Set 2\] for both CA and CS mass functions show larger deviation from the CQM result than the \[Set 1\] case for the momentum transfer $`Q^2`$2 GeV2 and above region, (3) the results with BC vertex fall off faster (at around $`Q^2`$=2 GeV2) than the CQM result does, (4) the mass evolution effects from \[Set 1\] for both CA and CS cases are not much different from the constituent result up to $`Q^2`$=8 GeV2, and (5) the CA mass evolution function is more sensitive to the variation of the momentum dependence than the CS mass evoluton function.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we have reexamined the soft contribution to the pion elastic form factor in the framework of the LFBS with a $`Q^2`$-dependent quark mass that could be obtained from a LFDSE. This is equivalent to the LFQM with a running quark mass. The Ball-Chiu ansatz was used for the dressed quark-photon vertex. We showed that the PCAC relation in Eq. (1) is satisfied in LFQM with our running mass formulae. The CQM result is not affected too much by the quark mass evolution for the small momentum transfer region up to $`Q^2`$=1$``$2 GeV2.

However, the form factor is sensitive to the shape of the mass evolution for the intermediate ranges, e.g. the \[Set 1\] for both CA and CS cases are not much different from the LFQM result but the \[Set 2\] show a sizable effect on the soft pion elastic form factor for $`Q^2`$ 2 GeV2 and above. It may be interesting to observe from \[Set 2\] that the form factor may distinguish the mass evolution respecting CS from the one not respecting CS even though they show similar momentum dependent behavior as shown in Fig. 2. While our calculation employed a phenomenological mass evolution functions and the quark-photon vertex modification, the qualitative feature presented in this work might not be significantly modified even if one were to use the more realistic solutions obtained from the first principle. However, it may be interesting to check further whether the soft part would fall more rapidly if the present results of DS and LFDS models were used. The “hard-scattering” contribution to the pion form factor, i.e. the second term in Eq. (6), is under investigation.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Otto Linsuain and Pieter Maris. The work of L.S.K. and H-M.C was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-00070888 and that of C-R. Ji by the US DOE under grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40947. The North Carolina Supercomputing Center and the National Energy Research Scientific Computer Center are also acknowledged for the grant of Cray time.


text:
# 1 How UHE 𝜈̄_𝑒, 𝜈_𝜏, 𝜈̄_𝜏 are in-written by Tau Air-showers

## 1 How UHE $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ are in-written by Tau Air-showers

Ultra high energy astrophysical neutrino (UHE$`\nu `$) from PeVs ($`>10^{15}`$ eV) up to ($`10^{18}`$ eV) EeV and GZK cut off energies ($`>10^{19}`$ eV) might be traced by $`\tau `$ induced air showers and by their millions to hundred billions multiplicity in secondaries particles. Indeed astrophysical PeVs UHE anti-neutrino electrons, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, near the Glashow W resonance peak, $`E_{\overline{\nu _e}}=M_W^2/2m_e6.310^{15}eV`$, (dominant over expected UHE PeV atmospheric neutrino signals), may be observable by their secondary horizontal $`\tau `$ air showers originated by UHE chain reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+eW^{}\overline{\nu }_\tau +\tau ^{}`$ inside the concrete rock of a high mountain and their consequent escape and decay in air flight. Also UHE $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ at ($`10^{16}`$ \- $`10^{17}`$eV) interacting with nuclear matter ($`\nu _\tau `$ $`N`$) must be observable because of flavor mixing $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ shown by Superkamiokande data; indeed huge astrophysical distances are larger than the oscillation ones even for small mass differences (below $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^210^4`$ eV 2). Therefore UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\overline{\nu _\tau }`$ may be converted and they may reach us from high energy galactic sources, as pulsars, Supernova remnants or galactic micro-quasars and SGRs , as well as from powerful extra-galactic AGNs, QSRs or GRBs, even at highest (GZK) energy because of the large galactic (Kpcs) and extreme cosmic (Mpcs) distances:

$$L_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }=410^3pc\left(\frac{E_\nu }{10^{16}eV}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2}{(10^2eV)^2}\right)^1$$
(1)
These Tau air-showers are detectable in deep valleys or on front of large mountain chains as Alps , Rocky Mountains, Ande, (Fargion,Aiello,Conversano) $`(1999)`$. The mountain and the air act as a fine tuning multi filter detector: as a screen of undesirable noisy horizontal UHECR showers (mainly electro-magnetic ones, Cherenkov photons, X,gamma and most of muons); as a dense calorimeter for UHE$`\overline{\nu _\tau }`$ nuclear events (three order of magnitude denser than air); as a distance meter target correlating $`\tau `$ birth place and its horizontal air-shower opening origination with the cosmic ray energy density; as a characteristic anti neutrino detector by the extreme resonant cross section $`\overline{\nu _e}e`$ and the consequent fine-tuned energy (few $`PeV`$) shower events; as a very unique source of dense muon bundles from a mountain by main tau hadronic air-showering.
The vertical up-ward tau air-showers (by small arrival nadir angle) occur preferentially at low energies nearly transparent to the Earth ($`E_\nu 10^{15}10^{16}`$ eV). The oblique $`\tau `$ air showers (whose arrival directions have large nadir angle), may be related also to higher energy $`\nu _\tau `$, or $`\overline{\nu _\tau }`$ nuclear interactions ($`E_{\overline{\nu _\tau }}10^{17}10^{19}`$ eV). Indeed these horizontal - upward UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ cross a smaller fraction of the Earth volume and consequently they suffer less absorption toward the horizon. Moreover the consequent ultra-relativistic ($`E_{\overline{\nu _\tau }}10^{17}10^{19}`$ eV) tau may travel in atmosphere for few or even hundred $`Kms`$ with no absorption before the decay to the detector located at few Kms distance. On the contrary the horizontal gamma, electron pairs and muon showers by primary (down-ward nearly horizontal) UHECR proton are severely suppressed ($`10^3`$) after crossing ($`210^3`$)$`gm.cm^2`$,or equivalent at one atmosphere, ($`16Kms`$) of horizontal atmosphere target.

These huge horizontal or upward air-shower signals being at least million to billion times more abundant than the original and unique UHE $`\tau `$ or UHE $`\mu `$ track in underground Km cube detectors are much easier to be discovered with no ambiguity. These high energy PeVs tau air-shower are mainly of astrophysical nature. Indeed they cannot be produced by PeV atmospheric neutrino secondaries born in atmospheric muon flavour and oscillating in tau state, because their high PeV energy and their consequent large oscillation lengths are much (hundred times) longer than the Earth diameter. We remind that on the contrary the expected long tracks of upward muons in underground km3 detectors are mostly noisy signals by TeVs to tens of TeVs muons secondaries generated by atmospheric neutrinos born by common cosmic ray interactions in upper atmosphere. The real (looked for) astrophysical signals are upward PeV neutrino muons which are, unfortunately, suppressed by Earth opacity. This make cube Km detector , in our opinion, less favorite than our Tau up-ward air-shower detection. Let us remind that upward $`\nu _\tau `$ at same energies as noted by different authors are less (an order of magnitude) suppressed. Present $`\tau `$ air shower is analogous to the well-known Learned and Pakwasa $`(1995)`$ ”double bang” in underground neutrino detectors. The novelty of the present ”one bang in” (the rock, the mountain, the Earth) - ”one bang out” (the air) lays in the self-triggered explosive nature of $`\tau `$ decay in flight and its consequent huge amplified air shower signal at a characteristic few Kms distance.

## 2 The peculiar UHE $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ and $`\tau `$ interactions

Moreover the expected $`\nu _\tau `$ signals, by their secondary tau tracks at highest cosmic ray energy window $`1.710^{21}eV>E_\tau >1.610^{17}eV`$, must exceed the corresponding $`\nu _\mu `$ (or muonic) ones, making UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ above $`0.1`$ EeV the most probable UHE signal. Indeed, the Lorentz-boosted tau range length grows (linearly) above muon range, for $`E_\tau 1.610^8GeV`$; (see Fig (1) eq.3): the tau track reaches its maxima extension, bounded not by bremsstrahlung radiation length nor by pair production (eq. 2), but by growing nuclear (mainly photo-nuclear) and mainly ,later, by electro-weak interactions (eq. 4), $`R_{\tau _{\mathrm{max}}}191Km`$, at energy $`E_\tau 3.810^9GeV`$ in water.

$$R_{R_\tau }1033Km\left(\frac{\rho _r}{5}\right)^1\left\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{E_\tau }{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{E_\tau ^{\mathrm{min}}}{10^4\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^1\right]}{(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4)}\right\}.$$
(2)
$$R_{\tau _o}=c\tau _\tau \gamma _\tau =5\mathrm{Km}\left(\frac{E_\tau }{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right).$$
(3)
$$R_{W_\tau }=\frac{1}{\sigma N_A\rho _r}\frac{2.610^3\mathrm{Km}}{\rho _r}\left(\frac{E_\tau }{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^{0.363}.$$
(4)
It should be noticed that the radiative $`\tau `$ length estimated above has been considered for bremsstrahlung radiation length only. Pair production energy loss is more restrictive in the final $`R_{R_\tau }`$ length (by an approximate factor $`\frac{m_\tau }{m_\mu }`$) as well as the growing photo-nuclear interactions at highest ( tens $`EeV`$) energies. However the very dominant electro-weak interactions at these energies are already suppressing the $`\tau `$ growth and the combined interaction length are slightly less, but almost comparable to the one shown in figure above.

At the peak maxima the tau range is nearly $`10`$-$`20`$ times longer than the corresponding muon range (at the same energy) implying, for comparable fluxes, a ratio $`10`$ times larger in $`\nu _\tau `$ over $`\nu _\mu `$ detection probability. This dominance, may lead to a few rare spectacular event a year (if flavor mixing occurs) preferentially in horizontal plane in underground $`Km^3`$ detectors. The Earth opacity at those UHE regimes at large nadir angles (nearly horizontal, few degree upward direction) is exponentially different for UHE muons respect to tau at GZK energies (corresponding to hundreds Kms UHE Tau lengths), making the muon/tau flux ratio of such lengths severely suppressed. Unfortunately there are not yet in underground detector such possible tests; maybe in new generation horizontal slice detectors of tens Km sizes the UHE GZK $`\tau `$ may dominate by such lengths and huge showering. The ratio among these $`\nu _\tau `$ over $`\nu _\mu `$ tens Kms signals is exponentially high $`>\mathrm{exp}(10)`$.

## 3 The key role of UHE $`\nu `$, interactions with the relic $`\overline{\nu }`$ at Z resonance in hot dark haloes

In the frame-work of UHE neutrino astrophysics it is important to remind the very peculiar role that heaviest light neutrino (most probably of tau nature) may play in the puzzling GZK problem in modern high energy astrophysics.Indeed let us remind here a possible additional (and parental) role of UHE $`\nu `$ above GZK discussed in this article. UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ at energies near or above GZK energies are transparent to BBR cosmic photons (contrary to common nucleons, nuclei, photons UHECR); therefore neutrinos may easily reach us from far cosmological distances. Then the puzzle of UHECR above GZK cut off may be solved assuming that neutrinos (possibly of heaviest muon-tau nature) share a light mass of few eV , in the frame-work of Hot Dark Matter halos clustered around galaxies or local group. Such light neutrinos may form a huge hidden dark calorimeter able to beam dump UHE $`\nu `$ via $`Z`$ (s-channel), via virtual $`W`$ ($`t`$ channel) or $`W`$ and $`Z`$ pair productions. The latter cross-sections are less efficient than the $`Z`$ (s-channel) but are not fine tuned or restricted on a (very light, nearly half $`eV`$) relic neutrino mass. The corresponding cross sections for such $`\nu `$ $`\nu `$ interactions are shown in Fig. 2; their secondaries may be final UHE anti-protons (or anti-neutrons) or UHE protons (or neutrons) (Fargion,Mele,Salis 1997-1999) responsible of final observed UHECR above GZK cut off. The interaction efficiency by relic light neutrinos via UHE $`\nu `$ at GZK cut off is thousands times larger than UHE $`\nu `$ interactions on Earth atmosphere and/or direct UHECR (nucleons,nuclei) propagation above GZK distances. Therefore light neutrino mass may explain both hot dark matter and UHECR above GZK (as well as their recent arrival clustering in triplets or doublets). If this solution is correct we are already testing both the neutrino mass the relic neutrino density and the $`UHE`$ neutrino flux. Just to underline the $`\nu `$ mass roles of a few $`eV`$ in modern high energy astrophysics we remind also the important case of a SN ejected neutrino burst (at $`MeVs`$ energies) arriving slowed by its mass relativistic flight and delayed respect to the arrival of the massless prompt super-nova gravitational burst. The expected time delay between the massive neutrino with the massless graviton wave burst, offer an additional test to the elusive neutrino mass detection:
$`\mathrm{\Delta }t50`$ sec $`\left(\frac{E_\nu }{5MeV}\right)^2\left(\frac{m_\nu }{5eV}\right)^2\left(\frac{L}{Mpc}\right)`$. (Fargion 1981).

### 3.1  Horizontal $`\tau `$ air-shower born on front of mountain chain: UHE PeVs neutrino trace

Therefore UHE Tau $`E_\tau 10^5GeV510^7GeV`$ air-shower in front of high mountains chains will be easily induce peculiar horizontal UHE $`\tau `$ (Fargion, Aiello, Conversano 1999). Energies above will be probably missed. An hybrid detector (gamma/optical air-shower array) would get precise signal and arrival direction. Because of the different neutrino interactions with energy it will be possible to estimate, by stereoscopic, directional and time structure signature, the spatial air-shower origination in air, the primary tau distance decay from the mountain (tens or a hundred of meters for fine tuned PeVs UHE $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and meters up to few Kms for UHE $`\nu _\tau `$,$`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ at wider energy window $`E_\tau 10^5GeV510^7GeV`$. Additional energy calibration may be derived sampling shower intensities.
Hundreds of array (scintillator,Cherenkov) detectors in deep wide valley horizontally oriented would be necessary to get tens $`\tau `$ air–showers events a year. Screening by undesirable lateral or downward noisy cosmic rays or natural radiation is achieved by directional and time clustering filter; the induced $`\overline{\nu }_ee\tau `$ air shower even in absence of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation should be well identified and detectable. The atmospheric $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ ones (secondary by common UHECR) are suppressed by a severe power law . Its unique $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ origin is marked by the peaked W resonance, and by the small mountain $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ opacity and its high neutrino cross-section. Its identity is marked by the expected fine tuned PeV energy at W peak.
More copious ($`>5`$ times more) events by PeV up to tens PeV charged current $`\nu _\tau N`$ interaction occur following Super Kamiokande flavour mixing discover.

### 3.2  Upward $`\tau `$ PeV-EeV air-showers flashing to high mountains, balloons and satellites

It will be also possible to observe UHE $`\nu _\tau `$, by the upward tau air-shower arriving from tens or hundred Kilometers away (near horizontal edges) from high mountains, high balloon and satellites; such UHE tau created within a wide (tens thousands to millions square km2 wide and hundred meter UHE Tau depth in Earth crust) target would discover only UHE $`\nu _\tau `$,$`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ neutrinos at PeV up to EeV energies and above, just within the mysterious GZK frontiers. The discover will need capable gamma, optical and mainly muon bundle detectors within present technology .
From the same highest mountains, balloons and near orbit satellite, looking more downward toward the Earth it is possible to discover more frequent but lower energetic astrophysical $``$ PeV - tens PeV neutrinos still nearly transparent to the Earth volume (Gandhi et al. 1998), (see Fig.3).

The UHE neutrinos $`\overline{\nu _e}`$,$`\nu _\mu `$ $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ are default and expected UHECR ( $`>10^{16}`$ eV) secondary products near AGN or micro-quasars by common photo-pion decay relics by optical photons nearby the source (PSRs, AGNs) ($`p+\gamma n+\pi ^+,\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu ,\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$), or by proton proton scattering in galactic interstellar matter. The maximal observational distances from mountains, balloons or satellites, may reach $``$ 110 Km $`(h/Km)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ toward the horizon, corresponding to a UHE $`\tau `$ energy $`210^{18}`$ eV $`(h/Km)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Therefore we propose to consider such upward shower nearly horizontal detection from high mountains to test this highest $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu _\tau }`$ energy window almost opaque to Glashow UHE $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ fluxes just comparable to the GZK cut off energies.

The expected downward muon number of events $`N_{ev}(\overline{\nu }_ee\overline{\nu }_\mu \mu )`$ in the resonant energy range, in Km3, \[Table 7,The Gandhi et all,1998\] was found to be $`N_{ev}=6`$ a year. One expect a comparable number of reactions $`(\overline{\nu }_ee\overline{\nu }_\tau \tau )`$. However the presence of primordial $`\nu _\tau ,\overline{\nu _\tau }`$ by flavor mixing and $`\nu _\tau ,\overline{\nu _\tau }N`$ charged current interactions lead to a factor 5 larger rate, $`N_{ev}=29`$ event/year.
If one imagines a gamma/optical detector at 5 km far in front of a chain mountain as the Alps Argentier valley (size 10 km, height 1 km) one finds a $`\tau `$ air shower volume observable within a narrow beamed cone (Moliere radius $`80`$ m / distance $`5`$ Km): ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1^o`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }210^5`$) and an effective volume $`V_{eff}910^5`$ Km3 for each observational detector. Each single detector is comparable to roughly twice a Super Kamiokande detector. Following common AGN - SS91 model \[The Gandhi et all,1998\] we foresee a total event rate of: (6) ($`\overline{\nu _e}e`$) + (29) ($`\nu _\tau N`$) = 35 UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ event/year/Km3. At energies above 3 PeV we may expect a total rate of Nev $``$ 158 event/year in this Alps Argentiere mountains valley and nearly 3.2 $`10^3`$ event/year for each m2 size detector. In a first approximation, neglecting Earth opacity, it is possible to show that the Earth volume observable from the top of a mountain at height $`h`$, due to UHE $`\tau `$ at 3 PeV crossing from below, is approximately V $`510^4`$ Km3 $`\left(\frac{h}{Km}\right)\left(\frac{E_\tau }{3PeV}\right)`$. These upward shower would hit the top of the mountain. For the same $`\tau `$ air shower beaming ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta 1^o`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }210^5`$) we derive now an effective volume $``$ 1 Km3. Therefore a detector open at $`2\pi `$ angle on a top of a 2 Km height mountain may observe nearly an event every two month from below the Earth. The gamma signal above few MeV would be (depending on arrival nadir angle) between $`310^2`$ cm-2 (for small nadir angle) to $`10^5`$ cm-2 at far distance within 3 PeV energies. A contemporaneous (microsecond) optical flash ($`>300÷0.1cm^2`$) must occur. Keeping care of the Earth opacity, at large nadir angle ($`>60^0`$) where an average Earth density may be assumed ($`<\rho >5`$) the transmission probability and creation of upward UHE $`\tau `$ is approximately

$$P(\theta ,E_\nu )=e^{\frac{2R_{Earth}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{R_{\nu _\tau }(E_\nu )}}(1e^{\frac{R_\tau (E_\tau )}{R_{\nu _\tau }(E_\nu )}}).$$
(5)
This value, at PeV is within a fraction of a million($`\theta 60^0`$) to a tenth of thousands ($`\theta 90^0`$). The corresponding angular integral effective volume observable from a high mountain (or balloon) at height $`h`$ (assuming a final target terrestrial density $`\rho =3`$) is:

$$V_{eff}0.3Km^3\left(\frac{\rho }{3}\right)\left(\frac{h}{Km}\right)e^{\left(\frac{E}{3PeV}\right)}\left(\frac{E}{3PeV}\right)^{1.363}$$
(6)
A popular ”blazar” neutrino flux model (like Stecker Salomon, Berezinsky ones) normalized within a flat spectra (at an energy fluence $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3eVcm^2`$) is leading, above 3 PeV, to $``$ 10 UHE $`\nu _\tau `$ upward event/Km3 year. Therefore we must expect an average upward effective event rate observed on a top of a mountain (h $`2Km`$) (Fig. 4):

$$N_{eff}8\frac{\mathrm{events}}{\mathrm{year}}\left(\frac{\rho }{3}\right)\left(\frac{h}{2Km}\right)e^{\left(\frac{E}{3PeV}\right)}\left(\frac{E}{3PeV}\right)^{1.363}$$
(7)
This rate is quite large and one expected $`\tau `$ air air-shower signal (gamma burst at energies $`>10MeV`$) should be $`\varphi _\gamma 10^4÷10^5`$ cm-2, while the gamma flux at ($`10^5eV`$) or lower energies (from electron pair bremsstrahlung) may be two order of magnitude larger. The optical Cherenkov flux is large $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{opt}1`$ cm-2.

## 4 Upward $`\tau `$ Air Shower in Terrestrial Gamma Flash: first evidences of UHE neutrinos

The tau upward air showers born in a narrow energy window, $`10^{15}`$ eV $`<E_\nu <510^{16}`$ eV (Fig.3) may penetrate high altitude leaving rare beamed upward gamma shower bursts whose sharp ($``$ hundreds $`\mu `$sec because of the hundred kms high altitude shower distances) time structure and whose hard ($`>10^5`$eV) spectra may hit near terrestrial satellites. We claim (Fargion 2000) that such gamma upward events originated by tau air showers produce gamma bursts at the edge of GRO-BATSE sensitivity threshold. In particular we argue that very probably such upward gamma events have been already detected since April 1991 as serendipitous sharp ($`<10^3`$ sec) and hard ($`>10^5`$ eV) BATSE gamma triggers originated from the Earth and named consequently as Terrestrial Gamma Flashes (TGF).

### 4.1 Time asymmetry in down-ward and up-ward Tau Air-shower

Upward and Downward air-showers are not symmetric event at all because the different atmosphere densities at sea level and high altitude. Indeed at sea level $`\tau `$ air-shower holds just a $`\mu `$seconds. But at high level $`\tau `$ decays to produce millisecond showers.
The arrival time of $`\gamma `$ air-shower (bremsstrahlung photons) is ruled by the last atmosphere distances where the gamma emission has been originated (while being nearly unabsorbed). The mean energy deposition profile in air shower is given by a common gamma distribution:

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{E_0b(bt)^{a1}e^{bt}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}$$
(8)
where the a-dimensional shower depth distance $`t=\frac{x}{X_0}`$ and the a-dimensional energy $`y=\frac{E}{E_c}`$, are well known variables. The characteristic critical energy $`E_c`$ (see B. Rossi or Longair text book) is, in air, around 100 MeV value. The air shower maxima occurs at an a-dimensional depth $`t_{max}=\frac{a1}{b}`$, while the characteristic shower distance $`X_s\frac{X_0}{b}`$, being $`b0.5`$, is $`X_s2X_0`$; (note that $`t_{max}=\frac{a1}{b}(\mathrm{ln}y+\frac{1}{2}`$) defines $`a`$ for a photon-induced cascades). Naturally the radiation length $`X_0`$ is the same for upward and downward air showers. However the corresponding length distances are very different because the different altitudes (sea level and high altitude) where the shower takes place, have extremely different densities. The air density decreases, respect to the sea level height, with altitude z as $`\rho =\rho _0e^{\frac{z}{h_0}}`$, $`h_08.55`$ $`Km`$. If one considers the sea level case $`X_0=36.6`$ g/cm2 and the radiation distance is $`X_0=304.2`$ m, the shower length is $`X_s608.4`$ m and the corresponding shower scale time is (as it is well known and as it is observed in common downward air showers) $`t_s=\frac{X_s}{c}2\mu s`$. If now we consider upward $`\tau `$ air shower arising on the top atmosphere altitude, than the same $`X_0=36.6`$ g/cm2 corresponds, in a more diluted upward atmosphere to distances $`X_0^{}22`$ km and in a first approximation to a shower length $`X_s^{}44`$ km leading to $`t_s^{}75t_s0.15`$ ms. Additional time dilution must be considered for the arrival nadir angle $`\theta `$: $`t_s^{}\frac{0.2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ $`ms`$ and for geo-magnetic Larmor precession of relativistic electrons. More precisely, the $`\tau `$ air shower timing is related to the total distance from the earliest atmosphere last scattering ($`X_036.6`$ g/cm2 and $`h22`$ km) up to the BATSE satellite height ($`500`$ km). To summarize the maximal upward $`\tau `$ air shower extend up to $`t_s^{}\frac{500}{c\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$ km $`>2`$ ms.
The exponential density decay in upper atmosphere makes most of the bremsstrahlung radiation generated at lowest (tens of kms altitudes) implying a fast raise of the gamma flash within a few tens of millisecond, (as the observed TGF ones) even if the gamma signal must also extend up to few millisecond times as indeed observed in TGFs. Different Tau Air-shower Channel (as well known in particle data text) and their consequent bifurcation may lead to rapid TGF millisecond timing modulations as the observed ones.

### 4.2  Why the Terrestrial Gamma Flash are Tau Air-Showers

The visible Earth surface from a satellite, like BATSE, at height $`h400`$ Km and the consequent effective volume for UHE $`\nu _\tau N`$ PeVs interaction and $`\tau `$ air shower beamed within $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }210^5rad^2`$ is: (note $`<\rho >1.6`$ because 70 % of the Earth is covered by seas) $`V_{eff}=V_{TOT}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }60Km^3.`$ The effective volume and the event rate should be reduced, at large nadir angle ($`\theta >60^o`$) by the atmosphere depth and opacity (for a given $`E_\tau `$ energy). Therefore the observable volume may be reduced approximately to within 15 Km3 values and the expected UHE PeV event rate is

$$N_{ev}150e^{\left(\frac{E_\tau }{3PeV}\right)}\left(\frac{E_\tau }{3PeV}\right)^{1.363}\left(\frac{h}{400Km}\right)\frac{\mathrm{events}}{\mathrm{year}}$$
(9)
The TGF signals would be mainly $`\gamma `$ at flux $`10^2`$ cm-2 at X hundred keV energies. The observed TGF rate is lower than the expected one (eq. 7) by nearly an order of magnitude, and this suggests higher $`E_\nu `$ energies (to overcome BATSE threshold) and consequently small additional probability suppression fitting the observed TGF events rate. However since 1994 (Fishman et al.) TGF understanding of presently known 75 records over nearly eight thousand BATSE triggers is based on an unexpected and mysterious high latitude lightening of geophysical nature (the so called ”Sprites” or ”Blue Jets”). We do not believe in that interpretation. We notice that among the 75 records only 47 are published in their details, while 28 TGF are still unpublished. Their data release is therefore urgent and critical. While Blue Jets might be in principle triggered by upward tau air showers in the atmosphere (a giant ”Wilson” room) we believe they are not themselves source of TGF. In particular their observed characteristic propagation velocity ($`<100`$ Km/s) from distances $``$ 500 Km, disagree with short TGF millisecond timing and would favor a characteristic TGF time of few seconds.
Moreover TGF data strongly dis-favor by its hard spectra the terrestrial Sprites connection. On the contrary the expected UHE tau upward air showers lead to a gamma burst flux, spectra, and fine time structure fluence in agreement with the observed TGF ones and in agreement with the expected flux models. The correlations of these clustered TGFs directions toward
(1) well known and maximal powerful galactic and extra-galactic sources either at TeV, GeV-MeV, X band ,(2) recent first anisotropy discovered on UHECR at EeV by AGASA, (see Fig.4, from Hayashida et al. 1999) (3) the Milky Way Galactic Plane (Fig. 4), support and make compelling the TGF identification as secondary gamma burst tail of UHE $`\tau `$ induced upward air shower. The present TGF-$`\tau `$ air-shower identification could not be produced by UHE $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ charged current resonant event at ($`E_{\overline{\nu _e}}=M_W^2/2m_e=6.310^{15}`$ eV), because of the severe Earth opacity for such resonant $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, and therefore it stand for the UHE $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu _\tau }`$ existence. Consequently it gives support to the Superkamiokande evidences for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ flavor mixing from far PSRs or AGNs sources toward the Earth. At the present the very probable $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu _\tau }`$ source of TGFs and their probable partial galactic location infer a first lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }}`$ ($`L<4`$ Kpc, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{m_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }}>10^8`$ eV2) and it offers a first direct test of the same existence of the last evanescent (hardly observed only recently), fundamental neutral lepton particle: $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\overline{\nu _\tau }`$.


text:
# CONDUCTANCE OF A MOLECULAR WIRE ATTACHED TO MESOSCOPIC LEADS: CONTACT EFFECTS

## Abstract

We study linear electron transport through a molecular wire sandwiched between nanotube leads. We show that the presence of such electrodes strongly influences the calculated conductance. We find that depending on the quality and geometry of the contacts between the molecule and the tubular reservoirs, linear transport can be tuned between an effective Newns spectral behavior and a more structured one. The latter strongly depends on the topology of the leads. We also provide analytical evidence for an anomalous behavior of the conductance as a function of the contact strength.

The success of semiconductor industry is evidently represented by the empirical exponential “law” for the transistors density as a function of time (known as Moore’s law ). Its extrapolation would predict an atomic size gate length in less than two decades. The length domain in between is manifestly quantum mechanically dominated: here conventional methods adopted to characterize electronic devices  have to be updated to more sophisticated ones, including a microscopic treatment of electronics at the molecular scale .

The interest in the basic mechanisms of conduction across molecular junctions bridging metallic pads, already object of scanning tunneling microscope oriented research, has been intensified by recent experimental achievements. For example, $`I`$$`V`$ characteristics of a benzene–1,4–dithiol ring , and a poly(G)–poly(C) 30 base pair long double stranded DNA  have been reported. In a parallel development the use of networks of carbon nanotubes (CNT) has been the focus of intense experimental and theoretical activity as another promising direction for building blocks of molecular circuits . CNT are known to exhibit a wealth of novel properties depending on their nano–metrical diameter, orientation of graphene roll up, which is conventionally characterized by means of the chiral couple $`(n,m)`$, and whether they consist of a single (single–wall) or many (multi–wall) cylindrical surfaces . Recent experiments also confirm the possibility of producing heterojunctions made of nanotubes . When such junctions involve different materials , the characterization of contacts becomes a fundamental issue. This could be the case when CNT are attached to a single molecule or a molecular cluster with a privileged direction along the current flow, namely a molecular wire. CNT have also been recently employed in similar configurations for enhancing the resolution of scanning probe tips . In such systems the traditional picture of electron transfer between continuum state donor and acceptor species has to be reconsidered in view of the fact that the electrodes are mesoscopic and the molecule can bear an electric current .

In this paper we drop the conventional assumption of a continuum of (free or quasi–free) lead states. This is a reasonable assumption for mimicking the presence of large reservoirs provided by bulky electrodes, but it may be inadequate when the lead lateral dimensions are of the order of the bridged molecule. This is indeed the case for CNT.

In what follows, we assume a homogeneous tight binding chain as a model molecular wire to isolate contact effects. Electrodes are taken as either square lattice tubes (SLT), obtained by imposing periodic boundary conditions on the longitudinal cuts parallel to the lattice bonds, or CNT. The latter consist of a rolled stripe of a graphene honeycomb lattice, also parallel to the lattice bonds. This configuration generates armchair single–wall CNT, $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. The consideration of SLT delivers additional analytical insight to the numerically studied model of CNT .

The electronic Hamiltonian $`H=H_{\mathrm{tubes}}+H_{\mathrm{wire}}+H_{\mathrm{coupling}}`$ of the system reads

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R},\mathrm{wire}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_\alpha ^{},n_\alpha ^{}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{n_\alpha }^\alpha }{2}}\delta _{n_\alpha ^{},n_\alpha ^{}}\gamma _{n_\alpha ^{},n_\alpha ^{}}^\alpha \right)|n_\alpha ^{}n_\alpha ^{}|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_\mathrm{L}M_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }|m_\mathrm{L}n_{\mathrm{wire}}=1\left|{\displaystyle \underset{m_\mathrm{R}M_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|m_\mathrm{R}n_{\mathrm{wire}}=N|+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$
Here, $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}`$, $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are nearest neighbour hopping terms between atoms of the left (L) or right (R) leads, molecular bridge, and the bridge/lead interface, respectively; $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{wire}}`$ is the on–site or orbital energy of each of the $`n_{\mathrm{wire}}=1,\mathrm{},N`$ chain–atoms relative to that of the leads, $`\epsilon ^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}`$. Note that $`n_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}`$ is a two–dimensional coordinate spanning the tube lattice. Summations over $`m_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{R}`$ run over interfacial end–atoms of the leads. In general, there are $`M`$ such atomic positions depending on the perimeter of the tubes, whereas, the number of hybridization contacts ranges from a single contact (SC) $`M_\mathrm{c}=1`$, to multiple contacts (MC) $`M_\mathrm{c}=M`$.

In order to derive transport properties, we make use of the Landauer theory  which relates the conductance of the system to an independent–electron scattering problem . The electron wavefunction is assumed to extend coherently across the device and the two–terminal, linear–response conductance $`g`$ at zero temperature is simply proportional to the total transmittance for injected electrons at the Fermi energy $`E_\mathrm{F}`$. That is, $`g=(2e^2/h)T(E_\mathrm{F})`$, where $`T=_{j_\mathrm{L}j_\mathrm{R}}\left|S_{j_\mathrm{L}j_\mathrm{R}}\right|^2`$ is a sum over scattering matrix elements labelled by open channels in the leads $`j_{L,R}`$. The factor two accounts for spin degeneracy. The transmission function can be calculated from the knowledge of the molecular energy levels, the nature, and the geometry of the contacts. It can be obtained by solving the Lippman–Schwinger equation for $`H`$ and can be written in the following convenient form ,

$`T(E)=4\mathrm{\Delta }_1^\mathrm{L}(E)\mathrm{\Delta }_N^\mathrm{R}(E)\left|G_{1N}\left(E\right)\right|^2,`$ (2)
where $`G_{1N}`$ is the Green function element connecting the two ends of the $`N`$–atom–molecule and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{L(R)}`$ is the left (right) lead spectral density. The latter is related to the semi–infinite lead Green function matrix $`G_{\mathrm{lead}}`$ and is minus the imaginary part of the self–energy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_{\mathrm{wire}}}^{\alpha =L,R}={\displaystyle \underset{n_\alpha ,n_\alpha ^{}}{}}n_{\mathrm{wire}}|H|n_\alpha G_{\mathrm{lead}}(n_\alpha ,n_\alpha ^{})n_\alpha ^{}|H|n_{\mathrm{wire}}.`$ (3)
The calculation of the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n_{\mathrm{wire}}}^{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}`$ simplifies due to the form of the interfacial coupling in our model. Assuming identical electrodes, lead-indices are dropped. Hence, the self–energy becomes

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^2}{M_\mathrm{c}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,m^{}M_\mathrm{c}}{}}G_{\mathrm{lead}}(m,m^{}),`$
where only surface terms enter in the sum over the states in the leads and the effective coupling is defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{M_\mathrm{c}}`$.

In Fig. 1

the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is plotted for both SLT and CNT leads in the SC and MC multiple contact configurations. As a function of the number of contacts $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ the system interpolates two different scenarios. In the MC case the spectral density is effectively the spectral density of one–dimensional leads, obtained by Newns in his theory of chemisorption . Only the channel without modulation in the transverse profile of its wavefunction contributes to transport . The two–dimensional character of the leads enters as an energy shift of $`2\gamma ^{L,R}`$ for SLT and of $`\gamma ^{L,R}`$ for CNT, yielding an asymmetric density profile with respect to the atom on–site energy $`\epsilon ^{L,R}`$. In contrast, the SC spectrum is symmetric and richer due to the contribution of all available channels. Additional features characterize CNT leads. The minima in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (upper right panel of Fig. 1) are responsible for antiresonances observed in the conductance spectrum .

In eq. (2) $`G_{1N}`$ can be expressed in the following form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}G_{1N}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (N)}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (N1)}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\zeta (N2)}},`$
where $`\zeta (N)/\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}`$ is the matrix element $`G_{1N}`$ for the isolated $`N`$–atom molecule. It is given in closed form as a function of the normalized energy $`=(E\epsilon ^{\mathrm{wire}})/(2\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}})`$ and $`N`$ by

$`\zeta _{}(N)={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{^21}}{\left(+\sqrt{^21}\right)^{N+1}\left(\sqrt{^21}\right)^{N+1}}}.`$
In the limit of weak contact coupling the behavior of the $`G_{1N}`$ element is dominated by $`\zeta (N)`$ leading to $`N`$ transmission resonances in the conductance of unit height. Nevertheless, if the effective coupling between the molecule and the lead is much larger than $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{wire}}`$, $`\zeta (N2)`$ will become the dominant term. As a consequence the conductance spectrum is effectively that of an $`(N2)`$–atomic wire .

In conclusion, we have pointed out that the conductance of molecular wires attached to mesoscopic leads strongly depends on the geometry and dimensionality of the contacts. In general, a detailed account of the lead states must be provided for describing transport. However, in the multiple contact mesoscopic limit conductance becomes independent of the topology of the tubular electrodes and transport is effectively one–dimensional. In addition, we have explicitly demonstrated the previously observed dependence of the effective wire length on the coupling strength.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Markus Porto for critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# Renormalization - group analysis of dilute Bose system in 𝑑 - dimension at finite temperature

## I Introduction

Renewed interest for two dimensional dilute Bose gas has been recently determined by the discovery of high - temperature superconductors.

The Bose - Einstein condensation is known not to occur at finite temperature for the interacting boson system in one and two dimensions (the Mermin - Wagner theorem); the absence of a condensate does not necessary imply the absence of a phase transition (in the universality class as $`XY`$ model) and it is expected to be in the superfluid state.

In the last years the study of two dimensional ($`2D`$) Bose condensation was stimulated by new experimental results concerning scattering in dilute gases of alkaline atoms, spin polarized hydrogen recombining and adsorbed helium monoalloys .

The theory of weekly interacting Bose gas have been developed first at $`T=0`$ by Bogolibov  and Lee, Huang and Yang  at finite temperature. Using the $`T=0`$ results Hohenberg and Martin , Popov and Fadeev , Singh  and Cheung and Griffin  developed the field - theoretical methods for finite temperature. Using this method it was possible to calculate the observable physical quantities, but these calculations are quite difficult because of the influence of correlations induced by the condensed phase.

The many - body theory developed by Popov  is manly based on the $`t`$ \- matrix approximation, also applied for the $`2D`$ Bose gas by Schick . We mention that the $`t`$ \- matrix for the scattering in the Bose system involves a sum over all ladder diagrams to infinite order in interaction, taking the repeated scattering of two particles.

The purpose of this paper is the study of the critical region of $`2D`$ interacting Bose gas, which was first done in the famous paper of Fisher and Hohenberg , using $`t`$ \- matrix method and the Renormalization Group (RG) method. The problem was also studied by Kolomeisky and Straley  for a $`D`$ dimensional Bose system at $`T=0`$. The influence of a gauge - field on a superfluid phase transition in a two dimensional model at finite temperature has been studied by Ubbens et al  and for the case of three dimensional dilute Bose gas by Biglsma and Stoof .

As we mentioned, the results of RG study from Ref.  have been used for the problem of the quantum phase transitions in the spin systems , or proposed  to study the large scale behavior in the crossover problem from high temperature superconductivity. All these papers used the approximations from Ref. , which will be reconsidered especially concerning the solutions of the RG scaling equations. We will also recalculate the number of condensate bosons for $`d=2`$ and the coherence length using the new result obtained by solving more accurate the equations for the coupling constants.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present the model and write down the RG scaling equations. In Sec. III we solve the equations in the low temperature region and calculate the number of condensate bosons and the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ for the general case of dimension $`d`$. The interesting case $`d=2`$ will be treated in Sec. IV where we also calculate the temperature dependence of the specific heat. The high temperature behavior will be analyzed in Sec. V. Sec. VI contain the relevance of our results compared with the results from literature.

## II Model and Scaling Equations

We consider the dilute Bose system in $`d`$ dimensions at finite temperature $`T`$ described by the action:

$$S_{eff}=S_{eff}^{(2)}+S_{eff}^{(4)}$$
(1)
where

$$S_{eff}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}\mu \frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]|\varphi (k)|^2$$
(2)
and

$$S_{eff}^{(4)}=\frac{u}{4}\underset{k_1}{}\mathrm{}\underset{k_4}{}\varphi (k_1)\mathrm{}\varphi (k_4)\delta \left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}k_i\right)$$
(3)
and the following notation have been used:

$$\underset{k}{}\mathrm{}k_BT\underset{n}{}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}\mathrm{}$$
(4)
$`\omega _n=2\pi nk_BT`$ being the bosonic frequencies.

In Eq. (2) $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential of the bosonic system, described by the scalar field $`\varphi (k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an energy parameter which controls the strength of the quantum fluctuations, the classical limit being $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$. The Eq. (3) represent the interaction between fluctuations, $`u`$ ($`u>0`$) being the coupling constant.

The basic propagator of the bosonic system has the form:

$$G(𝐤,\omega _n)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}\mu \frac{|\omega _n|}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]^1$$
(5)
and the renormalization transformations are carried out by integrating over a momentum shell and summing over all frequencies.

Regarding this procedure we mention that the summation over the bosonic frequencies (transformed in integral) has to be done for all frequencies and not on a shell as in the method applied in  for bosonic excitations. The physical argument is that in this case the presence of the chemical potential is important because we expect different contributions on the energy scale, which is in fact identical with a change of physical behavior in different temperatures domain. On the other hand, the limit cases $`\mu =\pm \mathrm{}`$ correspond to the condensate, respectively normal states.

After integrating out the degrees of freedom in the momentum shell, we rescale the variables as:

$$k=\frac{k^{}}{b},\omega _n=\frac{\omega _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{b^z},T=\frac{T^{}}{b^z}$$
(6)
and the field operator as:

$$\varphi ^{}(k^{},\omega _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=b^{(d+z+2)/2}\varphi (\frac{k^{}}{b},\frac{\omega _{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{b^z})$$
(7)
where $`z`$ is the dynamic critical coefficient and we will introduce for $`b`$ the parameterization $`b=e^l`$ ($`b>0,l>0`$). The scaling equations obtained in Ref.  for $`T0`$ and in  for $`T=0`$ will be written as:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{dl}=(2z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)$$
(8)
$$\frac{dT(l)}{dl}=zT(l)$$
(9)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=2\mu (l)K_dF_\mu [\mu (l),T(l),u(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]$$
(10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{du(l)}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`[4(d+z)]u(l){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}K_d\{8F_{pp}[\mu (l),T(l),u(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]`$ (12)
$`+2F_{pa}[\mu (l),T(l),u(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]\}u^2(l)`$
$$\frac{dF(l)}{dl}=(d+z)F(l)+K_dF_f[\mu (l),T(l),u(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]$$
(13)
where $`F(l)`$ is the free energy and $`K_d=\pi ^{d/2}/\left(2^{d1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)\right)`$. The constants $`F_\mu `$, $`F_{pp}`$, $`F_{pa}`$ and $`F_f`$ from Eqs. (10 \- 13) are given by the expressions:

$`F_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`F_\mu [\mu (l),T(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`2\mu (l){\displaystyle \frac{K_d\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{k_bT}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right)\right]}}`$ (15)
$`F_{pa}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{pa}[\mu (l),T(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right)}}\mathrm{coth}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{2k_BT(l)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}}\mu (l)\right)\right]`$ (17)
$`F_{pp}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{pp}[\mu (l),T(l)]`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k_BT(l)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left[\frac{1}{2k_BT(l)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right)\right]}}`$ (19)
$`F_f`$ $`=`$ $`F_f[\mu (l),T(l),\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)]`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`k_BT(l)\mathrm{ln}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{k_BT(l)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}}\mu (l)\right)\right]\right\}`$ (21)
$``$ $`k_BT(l)\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{k_BT(l)}}\right)\right]`$ (22)
Following the Ref.  we will solve these equations for $`d<2`$ ($`ϵ=2d`$) and for the case $`d=2`$ which is of special interest.

## III Below two dimensions

In order to solve the scaling equations (8) - (13) given in the previous section we start with the equation (12) for the coupling constant at $`T=0`$. Introducing the notation:

$$C=\frac{mK_d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{d2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(l)}{2\mathrm{}^2}$$
(23)
this equation becomes:

$$\frac{du(l)}{dl}=ϵu(l)Cu^2(l)$$
(24)
with the initial condition $`u(l=0)=u_0`$. The fixed point of Eq. (24) has the simple form:

$$u^{}=\frac{ϵ}{C}$$
(25)
and the general solution:

$$u(l)=\frac{u^{}}{1\left(1\frac{u^{}}{u_0}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ϵ}{l}\right)}$$
(26)
This solution satisfies the conditions:

$$u(l=0)=u_0$$
(27)
$$u(l\mathrm{})=u^{}$$
(28)
and in order to perform the calculation of physical quantities in the critical region we will use the linearized form of Eq. (26)

$$u(l)u^{}+\frac{u^{}}{u_0}(u_0u^{})e^{ϵl}$$
(29)
In the limit of low temperatures the chemical potential $`\mu (l)`$ given by Eq. (10) becomes:

$$\mu (l)=K_d\lambda ^de^{2l}_0^l𝑑l^{}\frac{u(l^{})e^{2l^{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(l^{})\lambda ^2}{2mk_BT(l^{})}e^{2l^{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l^{})\mu (l^{})}{2mk_BT(l^{})}\right]1}$$
(30)
From Eq. (8) and (9) we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)=\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{(2d)l}$$
(31)
$$T(l)=Te^{2l}$$
(32)
and using for $`\mu (l)`$ the lowest approximation ($`\mu (l)=\mu e^{2l}`$) we calculate the second term from the exponential of Eq. (30) as:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu }{2mk_BT}1$$
(33)
This inequality is satisfied even in the low temperatures domain, because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is the energy scale of the quantum fluctuations and in this domain these are important. Using these considerations, Eq. (30) we get:

$$\mu (l)K_d\mathrm{\Lambda }^de^{2l}_0^l𝑑l^{}\frac{e^{2l^{}}u(l^{})}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}\right)1}$$
(34)
and in order to calculate the condensed density $`n`$ and the coherence length $`\xi `$ we will use Eq. (29) for $`u(l)`$. The renormalization procedure will be stoped for $`l=l^{}`$, given by the equation:

$$\mu (l^{})=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}$$
(35)
where $`\alpha 1`$. If we introduce the notations:

$$a=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2mk_BT}$$
(36)
$$b=1+\frac{ϵ}{2}$$
(37)
we obtain from Eqs. (34) and (35)

$$e^{2l^{}}\left(1+\frac{2ϵ}{\alpha }\right)\frac{4ϵ}{\alpha }I(l^{})$$
(38)
where

$$I(l^{})=_0^l^{}𝑑l^{}\frac{e^{2bl^{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(ae^{2l^{}}\right)1}$$
(39)
This integral can be expressed as:

$$I(l^{})\frac{1}{2a^b}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{A}\left[1\frac{ϵ}{2}\frac{F(A)}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{A}}\right]$$
(40)
where $`A=2ϵ`$ and

$$F(A)=_A^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{\frac{ϵ}{2}1}\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^x\right)$$
(41)
In the limit of low temperatures, Eq. (38) gives:

$$e^{2l^{}}=2ϵ\left[\frac{2mk_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right]^{1+ϵ}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2ϵ}$$
(42)
Using these result we can calculate the density of the condensed bosons as:

$$n=e^{dl^{}}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{k_BT(l^{})}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}\mu (l^{})\right)\right]1}$$
(43)
The integral from Eq. (43),

$$A=K_d_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{k^{d1}}{\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{k_BT(l^{})}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}\mu (l^{})\right)\right]1}$$
(44)
will be transformed using the notation

$$x=\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2mk_BT(l^{})}\frac{\mu (l^{})}{k_BT(l^{})}$$
(45)
as

$$A=\frac{1}{2}K_d\left[\frac{2mk_BT(l^{})}{\mathrm{}^2}\right]^{(d/2)}_{|x_m|}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x^{(d2)/2}}{e^x1}$$
(46)
where $`|x_m|=\mu (l^{})/k_BT(l^{})`$. In order to perform the integral given by Eq. (46) we consider $`ϵ`$ small ($`d`$ close to $`d=2`$) and in this case

$$A\frac{1}{2}K_d\left[\frac{2mk_BT(l^{})}{\mathrm{}^2}\right]^{d/2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mu (l^{})}{k_BT(l^{})}\right)\right]$$
(47)
Using $`T(l^{})=Te^{2l^{}}`$ and Eq. (35) we obtain for the condensed density

$$n(T)\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[\frac{2mk_BT}{\mathrm{}^2}\right]\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2ϵ\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2ϵ}}$$
(48)
The temperature dependence of the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ will be calculated using

$$\xi ^2(T)=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}|\mu (l^{})|$$
(49)
where $`\mu (l^{})`$ is given by Eq. (35). This gives

$$\xi (T)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha ^{1/2}}e^l^{}$$
(50)
and using Eq. (42)

$$\xi (T)=\frac{1}{\left(2ϵ\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2ϵ}\right)^{1/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{(2mk_B)^{1/2}}T^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{ϵ}{2}\right)}$$
(51)
if we take $`\alpha 1`$.

This behavior appear as universal and is not surprising because as it was mentioned in Ref.  the first contribution to the calculation of chemical potential in the fixed point gives a first term as universal.

## IV Two Dimensions

The dilute Bose gas at $`T=0`$ was studied in Ref.  and is known as marginal. In this case we consider the system at finite temperature in the low temperatures approximation. The free energy and the specific heat will be also calculated for this system taking $`z=2`$. The high temperature limit will be also analised.

### A Low temperature limit

#### 1 Scaling equations

In this case the scaling equations have the form:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{dl}=0$$
(52)
$$\frac{dT(l)}{dl}=2T(l)$$
(53)
$$\frac{du(l)}{dl}=\frac{mK_2}{2\mathrm{}^2}u^2(l)$$
(54)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=2\mu (l)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2K_2u^2(l)}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT(l)}\right)1}$$
(55)
The Eqs. (52) - (54) have the solutions:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)=\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(56)
$$T(l)=Te^{2l}$$
(57)
$$u(l)=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}\frac{1}{l+l_0}$$
(58)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be take as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ and $`l_0`$ has been calculated as:

$$l_0=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{mu_0}$$
(59)
The solution of Eq. (55) has the form:

$$\mu (l)=\frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_0^l\frac{dl^{}}{l^{}+l_0}\frac{e^{2l^{}}}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}e^{2l^{}}\right)1}$$
(60)
which will be written as:

$`\mu (l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}e^{2l}{\displaystyle \frac{2mk_BT}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_0}}\mathrm{ln}[1\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}})]`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l_0}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{l_0}})^1\mathrm{ln}[1\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}}e^{2l})]\}{\displaystyle \frac{2mk_BT}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}F(l)`$
where

$$F(l)=_0^{2l}\frac{dx}{(x+2l_0)^2}\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}e^x\right)\right]$$
(63)
The renormalization procedure will be stoped at $`l^{}`$ defined also by:

$$\mu (l^{})=\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}$$

but in this case $`\mu (l)`$ is given by Eq. (62). Following the same procedure we calculate

$$e^{2l^{}}=\frac{4}{\alpha }\left[\frac{4}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\frac{4}{\alpha }\right]\frac{2mk_BT}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha }{4}\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}}$$
(64)
and if we introduce the effective temperature $`T_0=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\alpha /8mk_B`$ Eq. (64) will be written as:

$$e^{2l^{}}=\frac{C(\alpha )}{4}\frac{T}{T_0}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}}$$
(65)
Using Eq. (50) we get for coherence length

$$\xi (T)\left|\frac{\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}}{\frac{T}{T_0}}\right|^{1/2}$$
(66)
The number of condensate bosons has been calculated using a similar relation with (43) and we get:

$$n(T)=\frac{2mk_BT}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2mk_BT}e^{2l^{}}\right)}$$
(67)
which gives

$$n(T)=\frac{2mk_BT}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)$$
(68)
#### 2 The free energy and specific heat

The free energy given by general Eq. (1) has the form:

$$\frac{dF(l)}{dl}=4F(l)+C_f(\mu (l),T(l))$$
(69)
with

$$C_f=K_2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k_BT\mathrm{ln}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{k_BT}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right)\right]\right\}$$
(70)
Using the substitution $`T=Te^{2x}`$ we write the solution of Eq. (69) as:

$$F(l)=_0^l𝑑xe^{4x}C_f\left(Te^{2x}\right)$$
(71)
where we approximate $`C_f`$ as:

$$C_f=K_2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2k_BT\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}{k_BT}\mu (l)\right)\right]$$
(72)
The expression for $`F(l^{})`$ becomes:

$$F(l^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\pi }k_BT_0^l^{}𝑑xe^{2x}\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^{\frac{A}{T}e^{2x}}\right)$$
(73)
where

$$A=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{k_B}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu \right)$$

In the low temperature limit Eq. (4.21) will be approximated as:

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\pi }}k_BT\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{T}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{T}{T_0}\frac{C(\alpha )}{4}}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{T_0}{T}}}\right]`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\pi }}(k_BT)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{T}{T_0}}{\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}{\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}}\right]`$ (75)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4\pi }}k_BT\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{T}{T_0}}{\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}}1\right]`$ (76)
From this equation we calculate the specific heat $`C_v(T)=T^2T/T^2`$ and the dominant contribution in temperature has the form:

$$C_v(T)=C_0\frac{\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}{\mathrm{ln}^3\left|\frac{T}{T_0}\right|}$$
(77)
where $`C_0=C_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which shows that the result is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \- dependent.

### B High temperature limit

The high temperature domain is called ”classical” domain, because it is dominated by the classical fluctuations of the $`\varphi (𝐱,\tau )`$ and is usually defined by $`z=0`$.

#### 1 Scaling equations

From the general equations (8) - (12) we write these equations in the high temperature limit as:

$$\frac{d\left[T(l)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(l)\right]}{dl}=2\left[T(l)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(l)\right]$$
(78)
$$\frac{d\mu (l)}{dl}=2\mu (l)\frac{1}{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu [\mu (l),T(l)]v(l)$$
(79)
$$\frac{dv(l)}{dl}=2v(l)\frac{5}{4\pi }\stackrel{~}{F}_v[\mu (l),T(l)]v^2(l)$$
(80)
where

$$v(l)=k_BTu(l)$$
(81)
and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_v`$ have been obtained from Eqs. (15) - (19) in the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$ as:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_\mu [\mu (l),T(l)]\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right]}$$
(82)
$$\stackrel{~}{F}_v[\mu (l),T(l)]\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l)\right]^2}$$
(83)
In order to solve the Eqs. (78) - (80) we have to define $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$, the value of $`l`$ at which the flow enters in the classical regime defined by

$$\frac{T(l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}1$$
(84)
and introduce

$$\mu (\stackrel{~}{l})=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0,u(\stackrel{~}{l})=\stackrel{~}{u}_0,v(\stackrel{~}{l})=\stackrel{~}{v}_0$$
(85)
In order to simplify the calculation we perform a simple transformation $`l^{}=l\stackrel{~}{l}`$ which make the flow to start at $`l^{}=0`$.

The new scaling equations describing the classical regime will be:

$$\frac{d[T(l^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(l^{})]}{dl^{}}=2[T(l^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^1(l^{})]$$
(86)
$$\frac{d\mu (l^{})}{dl^{}}=2\mu (l^{})\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2v(l^{})}{\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l^{})}$$
(87)
$$\frac{dv(l^{})}{dl^{}}2v(l^{})\frac{5m^2}{\pi \mathrm{}^4}\frac{v^2(l^{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}$$
(88)
The equation (88) has been obtained neglecting $`\mu (l^{})`$ in Eq. (83). In this form the equation can be solved and we obtain the exact solution

$$v(l^{})=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{v}_0}{B\stackrel{~}{v}_0+(2B\stackrel{~}{v}_0)\mathrm{exp}(2l^{})}$$
(89)
where $`B=5m^2/\pi \mathrm{}^4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$.

We define $`l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ a value of $`l^{}`$ for which we stop the scaling by a similar condition as in the low temperature case,

$$v(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=1$$
(90)
which gives

$$\mathrm{exp}(2l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=\frac{2B\stackrel{~}{v}_0}{B\stackrel{~}{v}_02\stackrel{~}{v}_0}$$
(91)
and from this equation we calculate

$$l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{v}_0}$$
(92)
where we used $`uT(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=1`$.

The Eq. (87) for the chemical potential can also be solved using for $`v(l^{})`$ the expression (89) and we get:

$$\mu (l^{})=e^{2l^{}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\frac{2m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2B}l^{}\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2B}\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{2l^{}}+\frac{B\stackrel{~}{v}_0}{2B\stackrel{~}{v}_0}\right)\right]$$
(93)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0`$ is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0=\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2B}l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2B}\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{2l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}+\frac{B\stackrel{~}{v}_0}{2B\stackrel{~}{v}_0}\right)$$
(94)
Using this equation $`\mu (l^{})`$ is approximated as:

$$\mu (l^{})e^{2l^{}}\left[\frac{2m\stackrel{~}{v}_0}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}(l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}l^{})\right]$$
(95)
#### 2 Density of bosons

In order to calculate the bosonic density, we will use the general equations:

$$n=\frac{F}{\mu }$$
(96)
where the free energy will be written as:

$$F(l^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^l^{}𝑑xe^{2x}T(x)\mathrm{ln}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)}{k_BT(x)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2\lambda ^2}{2m}\mu (x)\right)\right]\right\}$$
(97)
Using the relations:

$$n=_0^l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝑑l^{}\frac{}{\mu (l^{})}\left(\frac{F}{l^{}}\right)\frac{d\mu (l^{})}{d\mu }$$
(98)
and for $`\mu (l^{})`$ the simple approximation

$$\mu (l^{})=\mu (\stackrel{~}{l})e^{2(l^{}+\stackrel{~}{l})}$$
(99)
where $`\mu (\stackrel{~}{l})\mu `$, the Eq. (98) becomes:

$$n=_0^l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝑑l^{}e^{2(l^{}+\stackrel{~}{l})}\frac{}{\mu (l^{})}\left(\frac{F(l^{})}{l^{}}\right)$$
(100)
From Eqs. (97) and (100) we calculate the general equation for bosonic density $`n`$ as:

$$\frac{n}{T}=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝑑l_1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l_1)/k_BT(l_1)}{\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l_1)/k_BT(l_1)\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l_1)\right]\right\}1}$$
(101)
This integral will be approximated in the high temperature domain as:

$$\frac{n}{T}\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝑑l_1\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2m}\mu (l_1)+\mathrm{}\right]\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}$$
(102)
and from Eq. (92) we calculate:

$$\frac{n}{T}\frac{m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{u}_0}$$
(103)
which is the density of bosons in the classical regime. This result gives us the possibility to perform a matching with the low temperatures regime. Indeed, using $`\stackrel{~}{u}_01/\mathrm{ln}T_0`$ for $`T_01`$ we reobtain the expression for $`n_cT\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}1/T`$ the well-known result from Ref. .

## V Discussions

We reconsidered the problem of dilute Bose gas at finite temperature using the RG method in $`d=2`$. This problem has been considered first in the well-known paper by Fisher and Hohenberg , but their calculation may give divergencies in the integrals contained in the physical quantities calculated in the quantum regime, because of an approximation for the coupling constant which is taken of the form $`v(l)1/l`$.

We solved the problem by using a linearization of the exact solution near the fixed point for $`d<2`$ and taking the exact solution in $`d=2`$. We also calculate the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ and the specific heat from the free energy. As a common point of view with the classical Fisher and Hohenberg paper we mention the non - universal behavior of the system. The new features which appear can be concluded as follows for $`d<2`$ :

* the bosonic density $`n(T)`$ present the specific $`T^{d/2}`$ dependence as well as $`\mathrm{ln}(1/ϵ\mathrm{ln}1/ϵ)`$ dependence;
* the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ calculated also has $`1/\left[T^{\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{ϵ}{2})}ϵ\mathrm{ln}1/ϵ\right]^{1/2}`$ dependence;

For the two dimensional case $`d=2`$ we used the exact solution for the coupling constant $`u(l)1/(l+l_0)`$ and we showed that :

* the density $`n(T)`$ is non - universal and $`n(T)T\mathrm{ln}1/T`$, which gives for the critical temperature the Fisher and Hohenberg result, $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}1/na^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1/a^2`$, $`a`$ being the potential range;
* the coherence length $`\xi (T)`$ is non - universal and depends of $`T`$ as $`\xi (T)|(\mathrm{ln}T)/T|^{1/2}`$;
* the specific heat $`C(T)`$ is also non - universal and $`C_v(T)T/|\mathrm{ln}T|^3`$;

The RG scaling equation have been used also in the high temperature domain for $`d=2`$. The main result of this treatment is the calculation of the bosonic density which can be matched with the result from the low temperature regime by choosing the coupling constant as the solution of the scaling equations from the low temperature regime.