text:
# Heavy-quarkonium hadron cross section in QCD at leading twist

## I Introduction

It has been conjectured that in ultra-relativistic collisions between heavy ions a quark gluon plasma (QGP) is formed for a very short period of time. Later it disintegrates into the hadrons which are finally seen in the detectors. It is the challenge of the present experiments at the CERN-SPS and at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) to find observables which unambiguously signal the formation of the QGP.

One of the most promising suggestions advanced so far is the suppression of charmonium production in these collisions. It has been argued by Matsui and Satz MS  that the interaction between a heavy quark $`Q`$ and antiquark $`\overline{Q}`$ is screened in a QGP, and consequently the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ bound pairs may not survive in this environment. The problem with this signal is that all other possible suppression mechanisms have to be well understood.

Whereas the general features of charmonium production in proton-proton collisions seem to be under control, already in proton-nucleus reactions the suppression is not well understood so far. Only recently, data have been published which show a different suppression of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ Le , and hence give the first hints that the $`J/\psi `$ is formed inside the nucleus.

In heavy ion collisions the situation is even more difficult. There many particles are produced which possibly collide with a charmonium and may cause an observable suppression even if a QGP is not formed at all. In order to quantify such a suppression it is necessary to know the strength of these interactions. Experimentally the charmonium-hadron dissociation cross sections are not accessible. Therefore one has to rely on theoretical estimates. Three kinds of approaches have been advanced in the past.

The first approach is based on twist expansion techniques well known from deep inelastic scattering studies. It has been launched by Bhanot and Peskin Pe ; BP  and was explicitly used in Ref. BP  for $`\psi `$-$`p`$ in the approximation of a vanishing proton mass. The whole approach gives a correct approximation of QCD provided that the heavy quark mass is large enough. It has thus the very advantage to be a well defined approximation scheme of the underlying theory. For realistic systems, such as charmonia and bottomonia, power corrections are presumably non negligible, but some of them, namely finite target mass corrections, can be incorporated in a systematic way.

A second attempt is formulated within a constituent quark model. In an early study Martins et al. Ma  have calculated a $`J/\psi `$ dissociation cross section $`\sigma _{\psi \pi }`$ by $`\pi `$’s of up to 7 mb at $`\sqrt{s}=4`$ GeV, i.e., 0.8 GeV above $`m_{J/\psi }+m_\pi `$. This value has been reduced to about 1 mb for the same energy in a more recent study by Wong et al. Wo  who used parameters adjusted to other elementary reactions.

A third approach is based on hadronic degrees of freedom. Invoking a local U(4) symmetry and employing pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar-vector coupling, Matinyan and Müller MM  investigated the dissociation of the $`J/\psi `$ by exchange of a $`D`$ or $`\overline{D}`$ meson. Employing vector dominance to determine the coupling constants they arrive at $`\sigma _{\psi \pi }0.3`$ mb for $`\sqrt{s}=4`$ GeV. Later, Haglin Ha  included four point interactions and a three vector-meson coupling and obtained a much larger cross section because the large suppression of the cross section due to the $`D`$-meson propagator is not present in the contact terms. Recently Lin and Ko Ko  modified the details of this approach and included form factors. Depending on the form factor assumed they get $`\sigma _{\psi \pi }`$ between 4 and 25 mb at $`\sqrt{s}=4`$ GeV.

The purpose of this article is to extend the work Ref. BP  in three different directions. First of all we include systematically the masses of the scattering partners using a method known from deep inelastic scattering studies. This allows for the calculation of the dissociation cross sections close to threshold where it is most relevant for the question at hand. Second the cross section of Ref. BP  is derived in a different, more direct fashion, again in analogy to the calculation of the forward Compton scattering amplitude in the operator product expansion. This cross section has a simple partonic expression, even when target mass corrections are included. We also explicitly derive how the reaction threshold is shifted by target mass corrections and how the cross section is modified in the vicinity of threshold. Third the calculation is extended towards other hadrons $`h`$ and towards bottomonium which becomes an observable particle in the upcoming experiments at the RHIC and at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Target mass correction for $`J/\psi `$-$`p`$ cross section has been examined in the framework of Bhanot and Peskin in Ref. KSSZ . These authors obtained their results in the form of sum rules. In principle these sum rules contain all of the above mentioned aspects but none is made explicit. Further we were neither capable to reproduce their exact expressions for the sum rules nor to find the trend they mention for the correction. We will clarify in the course of this study where we disagree.

## II Derivation

In this section we generalize the expression obtained by Bhanot and Peskin BP  for the total cross section of a heavy quarkonium $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with a target hadron $`h`$ by including finite target mass terms. The proposed analysis is close to that performed in the context of deep inelastic scattering GP ; Na .

### II.1 Short review of the framework

Let us first collect the material we need from Refs. Pe ; BP . We want to compute the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ total cross section111Throughout this paper we restrict ourselves to *spin-averaged* cross sections without further mention.. Our starting point is the expression for the forward $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ elastic scattering amplitude, $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$. This amplitude depends on energy and it is convenient to express it in terms of

$$\lambda =\frac{(K+p)^2M^2m_h^2}{2M},$$

where $`K`$ and $`p`$ are the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`h`$ respective 4-momenta and $`M`$ and $`m_h`$ their respective masses. We note that $`\lambda `$ is the hadron energy in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ rest frame. Via the optical theorem, the forward scattering amplitude leads to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ total cross section

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}}\mathrm{I}m_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda ).$$

Notice that we use the same definition for $``$ as in Ref. BP .

In QCD, in the limit of a large heavy quark mass, the scattering amplitude has a twist expansion. In the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ rest frame the Leading Twist (LT) contribution is BP

$$_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}^{(\mathrm{LT})}(\lambda )=a_0^3ϵ_0^2\underset{k1}{}d_{2k}ϵ_0^{2k}h|F^{0\nu }(iD^0)^{2k2}F_\nu ^0|h.$$
(1)
$`a_0`$ and $`ϵ_0`$ are, respectively, the Bohr radius and the Rydberg energy for the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ system.

The above formula displays the factorization of the process in terms of hard coefficients $`d_n`$ and soft matrix elements. Both should be evaluated at a factorization (and renormalization) scale $`\mu `$, to be chosen to minimize the influence of neglected higher order perturbative corrections. It is argued in Ref. Pe  that $`\mu ϵ_0`$, though a precise determination fulfilling the latter requirement would need a complete one-loop computation. In the phenomenological study, we will quantify the consequences of this scale uncertainty.

The coefficients $`d_n`$ correspond to matrix elements of definite operators evaluated in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-state. These are computable in perturbative QCD and have been made explicit in Ref. Pe  for 1S and 2S $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-states to leading order in the coupling and to leading order in $`1/N_c`$, where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors. For 1S-state222The present consideration applies to 2S-state as well but is left out until Appendix B they read

$$d_n=\frac{16^3}{3N_c^2}B(n+5/2,5/2),$$

where $`B(\mu ,\nu )`$ is the Euler beta function. For later convenience we remark that $`d_n`$ can be expressed as the $`n`$-th moment of a given function $`f`$ through

$$d_n=_0^1\frac{dx}{x}x^nf(x),$$

with

$$f(x)=\frac{16^3}{3N_c^2}x^{5/2}(1x)^{3/2}.$$

For every $`k`$ in Eq. (1) a gluon twist-2 operator evaluated in the hadron $`h`$ (*spin-averaged*) state also appears. Each of these matrix elements is a traceless fully symmetric rank $`2k`$ tensor built from the hadron momentum $`p^\mu `$. It turns out that a tensor having these properties is necessarily proportional to GP

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(m_h^2)^j{\displaystyle \frac{(2kj)!}{2^j(2k)!}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{perm}.}{}}\underset{j}{\underset{}{g\mathrm{}g}}\underset{2k2j}{\underset{}{p\mathrm{}p}}\right]^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2k}},`$
where the tensor in the $`j`$th term on the right-hand side is the sum of the $`(2k)!/[2^jj!(2k2j)!]`$ distinct tensors one can construct by multiplying $`j`$ $`g^{\nu \rho }`$’s and $`(2k2j)`$ $`p^\sigma `$’s. The matrix element needed in Eq. (1) is therefore proportional to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{0\mathrm{}0}(p)`$ and writes

$`h(p)|F^{0\nu }(iD^0)^{2k2}F_\nu ^0|h(p)=A_{2k}\mathrm{\Pi }^{0\mathrm{}0}(p)`$
$`=A_{2k}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2kj)!}{j!(2k2j)!}}(m_h^2/4)^j\lambda ^{2k2j}.`$ (2)
This set of matrix elements is related to the unpolarized gluon density $`G`$ in the hadron target. One can see this from the matrix element definition of $`G`$, see, e.g., CTEQ , which in the light cone gauge $`A^+=0`$ reads

$$xG(x)=\frac{1}{p^+}\frac{dy^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixp^+y^{}}h(p)|F^{+\nu }(0)F_\nu ^+(y^{})|h(p).$$

In the parton model the argument of $`G`$, i.e., $`x`$, is interpreted as the fraction of the hadron light cone momentum $`p^+`$ carried by the gluon. Taking the $`n`$th moment of $`G(x)`$, we get

$$_0^1\frac{dx}{x}x^nG(x)=\frac{1}{(p^+)^n}h(p)|F^{+\nu }(i^+)^{n2}F_\nu ^+|h(p).$$

Since $`D^+=^+`$ in the $`A^+=0`$ gauge we recognize

$`h(p)|F^{+\nu }(iD^+)^{2k2}F_\nu ^+|h(p)`$ $`=`$ $`A_{2k}\mathrm{\Pi }^{+\mathrm{}+}(p)`$
$`=`$ $`A_{2k}(p^+)^{2k},`$
i.e.,

$$A_n=_0^1\frac{dx}{x}x^nG(x).$$

### II.2 Massless target

In the present subsection we want to illustrate the general method in the case of vanishing target mass, $`m_h=0`$. Then Eq. (2) simplifies to

$$h|F^{0\nu }(iD^0)^{2k2}F_\nu ^0|h=A_{2k}\lambda ^{2k},$$

and Eq. (1) thus becomes

$$_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}^{(\mathrm{LT})}(\lambda )=a_0^3ϵ_0^2\underset{k1}{}d_{2k}A_{2k}(\lambda /ϵ_0)^{2k}.$$
(3)
It is useful to study the scattering amplitude $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$ throughout the complex plane of the energy. To avoid confusion, we will from now on reserve the notation $`\lambda `$ to real values and define $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }`$ as the extension of $`\lambda `$ to complex values. Using the d’Alembert criterion one easily checks that the convergence radius of the power series (3), now considered with the complex argument $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }`$, is equal to $`ϵ_0`$. As extensively discussed in Ref. BP , the twist expansion of the scattering amplitude provides an expression for $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}^{(\mathrm{LT})}(\lambda )`$ in the *unphysical* region of energies. Since we are interested in *physical* energies we have to perform an analytic continuation of the power series.

Before doing so let us first elaborate on possible differences between $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}^{(\mathrm{LT})}`$ and the *full* scattering amplitude $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$, i.e., including higher twist terms. It turns out from the analysis below that the singularities (branch points) of $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}^{(\mathrm{LT})}`$ on the boundary of the convergence disk of the power series lie at $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }=\pm ϵ_0`$. This is not what is expected for the locations of the (first) branch points of $`_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$, i.e., the locations of the thresholds for both reactions $`\mathrm{\Phi }+hX`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{h}X`$, which are $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }=\pm m_h`$. The technical reason for the difference is, of course, that $`m_h`$ occurs nowhere in Eq. (3). In the twist expansion approach the locations of the singularities of the full scattering amplitude may be affected by higher twist corrections. We verify that this is the case for the above reactions by taking into account elastic unitarity corrections for which the thresholds are clearly located at $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }=\pm m_h`$.333Let us note in passing one important phenomenological consequence of the LT analysis : what we call the *total* (LT) cross section does not in fact include processes such as the elastic one. The word “total” is thus misleading, at least in the threshold region. In the next section we shall see how $`m_h0`$ corrections affect the locations of the LT reaction thresholds.

Since the convergence radius of the power series (3) is non zero the LT amplitude444From now on $``$ always refers to the leading twist part of the forward $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ elastic scattering amplitude and we drop the indices (LT) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }h`$ for simplicity. can be unambiguously determined throughout the $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }`$ complex plane from the sole knowledge of Eq. (3), using the Mellin transform machinery. We first remark that $`M_n=d_nA_n`$ being a product of moments one can express

$$M_n=_0^1\frac{dx}{x}x^nh(x),$$
(4)
with

$$h(x)=Gf(x),$$

and the convolution product defined as

$$Gf(x)=_x^1\frac{dy}{y}G(y)f(x/y).$$

Now, plugging Eq. (4) in Eq. (3) for $`|\underset{¯}{\lambda }|<ϵ_0`$, freely interchanging summation with integration and summing the ensuing geometrical series, one finds

$$(\underset{¯}{\lambda })=a_0^3ϵ_0^2_0^1\frac{dx}{x}h(x)\frac{x^2(\underset{¯}{\lambda }/ϵ_0)^2}{1x^2(\underset{¯}{\lambda }/ϵ_0)^2}.$$

The key point is that this integral representation can be extended throughout the entire complex plane except for the two branch points $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }=\pm ϵ_0`$. The analytic continuation of Eq. (3) to energies $`\lambda >ϵ_0`$ is then easily derived

$$(\underset{¯}{\lambda }=\lambda \pm i\epsilon )=a_0^3ϵ_0^2_0^1𝑑xh(x)\frac{x(\lambda /ϵ_0)^2}{1x^2(\lambda /ϵ_0)^2i\epsilon },$$
(5)
and its imaginary part given by

$$\mathrm{I}m(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2i}[(\lambda +i\epsilon )(\lambda i\epsilon )]=\frac{\pi }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0^2h(ϵ_0/\lambda ).$$

Putting all things together, one gets

$$\mathrm{I}m(\lambda )=\frac{\pi \lambda }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0\frac{16^3}{3N_c^2}_{ϵ_0/\lambda }^1𝑑xG(x)\frac{(x\lambda /ϵ_01)^{3/2}}{(x\lambda /ϵ_0)^5}.$$
(6)
Dividing Eq. (6) by $`\lambda `$ (the flux factor when $`m_h=0`$) we recover the partonic expression of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ total cross section as obtained by Bhanot and Peskin within a parton model approach, i.e.,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )=_0^1𝑑xG(x)\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }g}(x\lambda ),$$
(7)
with the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-gluon cross section

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }g}(\omega )=\frac{16^3\pi }{6N_c^2}a_0^3ϵ_0\frac{(\omega /ϵ_01)^{3/2}}{(\omega /ϵ_0)^5}\theta (\omega ϵ_0),$$
(8)
$`\omega `$ corresponding to the gluon energy in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ rest frame. Aside from its energy dependence, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-gluon cross section is driven by $`a_0^3ϵ_0\alpha _Sa_0^2`$, as expected in QCD for the interaction of a small color singlet dipole of size $`a_0`$.

In this formulation one important physical aspect is made transparent BP ; Pe : the leading twist analysis describes the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dissociation by gluons into a $`Q`$ and a $`\overline{Q}`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }+gQ+\overline{Q}.$$

To be energetically possible the gluon energy has therefore to be larger than the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ Coulomb binding energy $`ϵ_0`$. In view of the fact that the confinement scale is small as compared to $`ϵ_0`$ the LT analysis then provides a description of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dissociation into open channels, e.g., $`Q\overline{q}+\overline{Q}q`$. Let us emphasize that this dissociation is precisely the process of interest for the question of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ suppression in heavy ion collisions.

An important aspect for the phenomenology of the above cross section is its limiting behaviors for both small and large energy regimes. These are linked to the $`x1`$ and $`x0`$ behaviors of $`G`$, respectively. It is then convenient to have in mind the simple, yet standard, parameterization

$$G(x)=A(1x)^\eta /x^{1+\delta }.$$
(9)
With this ansatz one can write down exact asymptotic formulas either by following the reasoning of Ref. BP  or by noticing that the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ cross section is proportional to a hypergeometric function. This is most easily done by changing variable $`x`$ to $`t=(x\lambda /ϵ_01)/(\lambda /ϵ_01)`$ in Eq. (6). Then one recognizes AS

$`\sigma (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16^3\pi }{6N_c^2}}a_0^3ϵ_0AB(\eta +1,5/2)(\lambda /ϵ_01)^{\eta +5/2}`$
$`\times (\lambda /ϵ_0)^{\delta \eta }{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\delta +6,5/2;\eta +7/2;1\lambda /ϵ_0).`$
For $`\lambda `$ in the neighborhood of $`ϵ_0`$, i.e., the $`m_h=0`$ threshold, the hypergeometric function approaches 1 and we get

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )\frac{16^3\pi }{6N_c^2}a_0^3ϵ_0AB(\eta +1,5/2)(\lambda /ϵ_01)^{\eta +5/2}.$$
(10)
For large energies, using

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\delta +6,\frac{5}{2};\eta +\frac{7}{2};1\lambda /ϵ_0)\frac{B(\delta +7/2,5/2)}{B(\eta +1,5/2)}(\lambda /ϵ_0)^{5/2},$$

one obtains

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )\frac{16^3\pi }{6N_c^2}a_0^3ϵ_0AB(\delta +7/2,5/2)\left(\frac{\lambda }{ϵ_0}\right)^\delta .$$
(11)
The high energy cross section is primarily geometrical (remember $`a_0^3ϵ_0\alpha _Sa_0^2`$). In addition to this simple behavior, there is a non trivial energy dependence coming from the small $`x`$ behavior of the gluon density.

For phenomenological investigations we shall also use slightly more involved forms for $`G(x)`$ as obtained in parton distribution function studies. In this case the connection to $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is lost. One may, however, derive similar asymptotic expressions by first expanding the gluon distribution either in the neighborhood of 1 or 0.

### II.3 Massive target

Having illustrated the method for the case $`m_h=0`$, we now turn to the general case $`m_h0`$. Plugging Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) leads to

$`^{}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}M_{2k}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2kj)!}{j!(2k2j)!}}(\lambda /ϵ_0)^{2k2j}({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}})^j,`$
with $`M_{2k}=d_{2k}A_{2k}`$. We thus get an amplitude which may be considered as a double power series in $`\lambda `$ and $`m_h`$. The study of this double series with complex arguments $`\lambda \underset{¯}{\lambda }`$ and $`m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)z`$ shows that it is absolutely convergent for $`|\underset{¯}{\lambda }/ϵ_0|+|z|<1`$. In this domain, defining $`k^{}=kj`$ we may rewrite the series as

$`^{}(\lambda ,m_h)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{j0,k^{}1}{}}(\lambda /ϵ_0)^{2k^{}}M_{2(k^{}+j)}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k^{}+j)!}{j!(2k^{})!}}`$ (12)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}\right)^j+a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}M_{2j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}\right)^j.`$
The second term on the right-hand side corresponds to the power-series expansion of the scattering amplitude $``$ of Section II.2 evaluated at the complex plane location $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }=im_h/2`$:

$$a_0^3ϵ_0^2\underset{j1}{}M_{2j}\left(\frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}\right)^j=(im_h/2).$$

From the representation (5) of the scattering amplitude we immediately see that $`(im_h/2)`$ is well defined and real for every (real) $`m_h`$. We thus ignore this term in the following since it does not contribute to the total cross section at leading twist.

Let us now concentrate on the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (12). We use the same reasoning as in Section II.2 considering now the double series (12) with complex arguments $`\underset{¯}{\lambda }`$ and $`z`$ instead of $`\lambda `$ and $`m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)`$. Expressing first $`M_n`$ as the $`n`$-th moment of $`h=Gf`$ one can write

$`M_{2(k^{}+j)}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k^{}+j)!}{j!(2k^{})!}}(z)^j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^{2k^{}}h(x)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(2k^{}+j)!}{j!(2k^{})!}}(x^2z)^j.`$
In the convergence domain of the double series, the series in $`j`$ may be summed up. Introducing

$`M_n^{}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}M_{n+2j}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+j)!}{j!n!}}(z)^j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^nh(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+x^2z)^{n+1}}},`$
we may then follow another time the reasoning of Section II.2 replacing $`M_n`$, Eq. (4), by $`M_n^{}(z)`$ as given by Eq. (II.3). We notice in passing that the modified moments $`M_n^{}(z)`$ are analytic functions of $`z`$ throughout the complex plane except at $`z=1`$.

For simplicity we restrict ourselves to physical masses, i.e., to the positive real axis of $`z`$ where the above integral representation is well defined. Then, two cases show up depending on whether $`m_h<2ϵ_0`$ or not. The former case is the one relevant to phenomenology but we consider both cases in turn for completeness.

For $`m_h<2ϵ_0`$, we restore $`z=m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)`$ and change the variable to $`x^{}=x/(1+x^2m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2))`$. Then we have

$$M_n^{}\left(\frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}\right)=_0^{[1+m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)]^1}\frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}x^n\frac{h(x)}{1x^2m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)},$$

with $`x`$ understood as a function of $`x^{}`$. In this form we can easily follow the reasoning of Section II.2 because the integration range does not play a role until one cuts the amplitude. This cutting imposes $`x^{}=ϵ_0/\lambda `$ and thus results in a non vanishing imaginary part for $`\lambda >\lambda _0=ϵ_0+m_h^2/(4ϵ_0)`$. Above this threshold

$`\mathrm{I}m^{}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{h(ϵ_0/\lambda _+)}{1m_h^2/(4\lambda _+^2)}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _+}{\sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}}}h(ϵ_0/\lambda _+),`$
where $`\lambda _+=\left(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}\right)/2`$. Dividing Eq. (14) by the flux factor we obtain for the total cross section

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )=\frac{\lambda _+^2}{\lambda ^2m_h^2}_0^1𝑑xG(x)\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }g}(x\lambda _+).$$
(15)
Some comments are in order. We first stress that, as in the $`m_h=0`$ case, one arrives at a simple partonic form of the cross section. This means, in particular, that the physical discussion we gave after Eq. (7), based on the subprocess $`\mathrm{\Phi }+gQ+\overline{Q}`$, still holds in the massive target case. Apart from the prefactor, the only modification between Eq. (15) and Eq. (7) is the modification of the expression for the gluon energy in the partonic cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }g}`$. The change from $`x\lambda `$ to $`x\lambda _+`$ may be given a heuristic interpretation in the parton context using light cone coordinates555Such a connection between light cone variables and $`m_h0`$ correction is discussed for deep inelastic scattering in DGP .. In the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ rest frame let us choose the third axis along the hadron $`h`$ momentum and form $`p^+=(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2})/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`p^{}=m_h^2/(2p^+)`$. In the parton picture the gluon causing the dissociation is picked up from the hadron $`h`$ and has a negligible transverse momentum, and hence a negligible minus momentum. Its energy is then easily expressed in terms of $`x`$, the light cone (plus) momentum fraction of the gluon, and reads $`\omega =xp^+/\sqrt{2}`$, i.e., $`\omega =x\lambda _+`$.

Our understanding of the prefactor is more formal. We observe that Eq. (14) may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{I}m^{}(\lambda )d\lambda =\mathrm{I}m(\lambda _+)d\lambda _+,$$

a relation which entails the (formal) identity

$$M_1^{}(z)=M_1,z,$$
(16)
which can also be obtained from a direct comparison between Eqs. (II.3) and (4).

Next, we point out that, as expected, the $`m_h0`$ corrections are sizeable only for small energies. The first aspect of these corrections is that, as above mentioned, the threshold is now located at

$$\lambda _0=ϵ_0+\frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0}.$$
(17)
As in the massless case this corresponds to the need to find in $`h`$ a gluon with an energy $`\omega ϵ_0`$ sufficient to dissociate the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. With $`\omega =x\lambda _+`$ and $`x1`$ this gives a $`\lambda _+`$ threshold $`\lambda _{+0}=ϵ_0`$, leading to Eq. (17). The second aspect is that the cross section behavior for $`\lambda \lambda _0`$ is given by Eq. (10) with an argument $`\lambda _+`$ instead of $`\lambda `$ and a prefactor

$$\frac{\lambda _+^2}{\lambda ^2m_h^2}\left(\frac{ϵ_0}{ϵ_0m_h^2/(4ϵ_0)}\right)^2.$$

Let us now investigate the $`m_h>2ϵ_0`$ case. One may perform the same change of variable in the intervals $`[0,2ϵ_0/m_h]`$ and $`[2ϵ_0/m_h,1]`$ leading to

$`M_n^{}^{}(m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2))={\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_0/m_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}}x^n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{h(x)}{1x^2m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{[1+m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)]^1}^{ϵ_0/m_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}}}x^n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{h(x)}{x^2m_h^2/(4ϵ_0^2)1}}.`$
The threshold becomes $`\lambda _0=m_h`$ and one finds

$$\mathrm{I}m^{}(\lambda )=\frac{\pi }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0^2\left(\frac{h(ϵ_0/\lambda _+)}{1m_h^2/4\lambda _+^2}+\frac{h(ϵ_0/\lambda _{})}{m_h^2/4\lambda _{}^21}\right),$$
(18)
with $`\lambda _\pm =\left(\lambda \pm \sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}\right)/2`$. We notice that the first contribution is the one already obtained in the case $`m_h<2ϵ_0`$. The second term is new but contributes only in the range $`m_h\lambda ϵ_0+m_h^2/(4ϵ_0)`$. We further point out that the relevant energy variable is now half the difference between energy and momenta, instead of half the sum for the first term, and that the present result Eq. (18) is again consistent with the $`M_1`$ sum rule (16). Finally, in the neighborhood of threshold the cross section now amounts to

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )\frac{1}{2(\lambda ^2/m_h^21)}\frac{\pi }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0\frac{h(2ϵ_0/m_h)}{m_h/2ϵ_0}.$$
(19)
## III Phenomenology

### III.1 Choice of parameters

In view to give numerical values for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ leading twist total cross sections and thresholds, it is necessary to fix, on the one hand, the heavy quark mass $`m_Q`$ and the quarkonium Rydberg energy $`ϵ_0`$, and, on the other hand, the gluon density in the target.

#### III.1.1 Quarkonium sector

The above described QCD analysis assumes that the $`Q\overline{Q}`$ binding potential is well approximated by the Coulomb part of the QCD potential Pe . Treating the 1S and 2S heavy quarkonia as Coulombic states leads to

$`M_{Q\overline{Q}}(1S)`$ $`=`$ $`2m_Qϵ_0,`$ (20)
$`M_{Q\overline{Q}}(2S)`$ $`=`$ $`2m_Q{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_0}{4}},`$ (21)
that is

$`m_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[4M_{Q\overline{Q}}(2S)M_{Q\overline{Q}}(1S)\right],`$
$`ϵ_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left[M_{Q\overline{Q}}(2S)M_{Q\overline{Q}}(1S)\right].`$
This gives for charm and bottom respectively (set (i))

$`ϵ_{0c}`$ $`=`$ $`0.78\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.94\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`ϵ_{0b}`$ $`=`$ $`0.75\mathrm{GeV},m_b=5.10\mathrm{GeV}.`$
One way of estimating the applicability of the heavy quark analysis to charmonia and bottomonia is to compare the size of each Coulomb-state to typical confining distances. One may first evaluate the Bohr radius $`a_0=1/\sqrt{ϵ_0m_Q}`$, this gives $`a_{0c}=0.16`$ fm for charm and $`a_{0b}=0.10`$ fm for bottom. Recalling that the 1S-state root mean square is given by $`r(1S)=\sqrt{3}a_0`$ one finds that the 1S-state size remains somewhat below typical confining distances. We then consider that the LT analysis may be at least indicative of the behavior of 1S-state cross section. Computing the size of 2S-states with $`r(2S)=\sqrt{30}a_0`$, one sees that the situation is much less favorable for 2S-states, especially for charmonium. The application of the framework to $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ is given in Appendix B.

In addition to the question of the validity of the computation of 2S-state cross section within the LT analysis this also led us to reconsider the above choice of parameters. For this we drop Eq. (21) and propose to fix the Rydberg energy to the energy-gap between the 1S-state and the open flavor production. With Eq. (20) this is equivalent to putting $`m_c=m_D`$ for charm and $`m_b=m_B`$ for bottom. We then have the alternative set (set (ii))

$`ϵ_{0c}`$ $`=`$ $`0.62\mathrm{GeV},m_c=1.86\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`ϵ_{0b}`$ $`=`$ $`1.10\mathrm{GeV},m_b=5.28\mathrm{GeV}.`$
As we shall see, the cross section is only sizeable at large energy. In this region the magnitude of the cross section is driven by the factor $`a_0^3ϵ_0=1/\sqrt{m_Q^3ϵ_0}`$ (see Eq (11)). Taking set (ii) instead of set (i) results in a 20% cross section increase for charm and in a 22% cross section decrease for bottom. It turns out that this uncertainty is smaller than the one coming from scale fixing discussed in the next section. We will therefore limit our further considerations to cross sections obtained using set (i).

#### III.1.2 Gluon distributions

The other important input for the computation is the gluon density $`G_h`$ in the hadron $`h`$ considered. At this point one should remember that this density depends on the factorization scale $`\mu `$ (see paragraph following Eq. (1)). In the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ cross section, not only $`G_h`$ is a function of $`\mu `$, but also $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }g}`$. Part of the dependence stands in the explicit coupling of the gluon with the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ constituents, corresponding to the factor $`\alpha _S`$ in $`a_0^3ϵ_0\alpha _Sa_0^2`$, though the knowledge of the full dependence requires a complete one-loop calculation. Lacking such an analysis led us first to restrict ourselves to the so-called leading order (LO) gluon distributions (i.e., their evolutions are computed to one-loop) and correspondingly to the LO running coupling. Second, we investigated with some care the variation of our results with the choice of different factorization scales.

We started this analysis with the prescription suggested in Ref. Pe  that $`\mu ϵ_0`$. For such a low scale the only available parameterization for the proton is that of Glück-Reya-Vogt GRV94 , labelled GRV94 LO666It should be borne in mind that at such a low normalization scale the gluon distribution is less constrained by experimental data than by model assumptions.. These authors have proposed a parameterization for the pion too GRV92 . Concerning the $`x`$ dependence of the various gluon densities, one should notice that the intermediate-$`x`$ region is rather well monitored, while the small-$`x`$ region is poorly understood, especially for the pion case. Thanks to the HERA measurements the situation for the proton is much better. Including these data Glück-Reya-Vogt have provided a new parameterization GRV98  but its lower scale is larger than that needed for this study. However we checked that at a scale large enough for both to be compared the difference between the gluon distribution of Ref. GRV98  and that of Ref. GRV94  is not significant.

We also examined, at a larger factorization scale, the consequences of different parameterizations of the gluon distribution in the proton, considering in turn MRST98 LO MRST  and CTEQ5L CTEQ5 .

### III.2 Cross section variation with energy including target mass corrections

As we shall see in the next section, the cross section at a given energy depends on the choice of parameters. Its general trend, however, is rather independent of a specific choice. We therefore begin our phenomenological study by discussing in this section those aspects that only weakly depend on the quarkonium parameters and gluon distributions.

In Sect. II we have seen that one can distinguish two extreme energy regimes in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ cross section: a threshold region and a high energy regime. The high-energy cross section is independent of the target mass and is given by

$$\sigma (\lambda )\sigma _{\mathrm{as}}(\lambda )=C(\lambda /ϵ_0)^\delta $$

for gluon densities $`G(x)\mathrm{const}./x^{1+\delta }`$ at small $`x`$. The constant $`C`$ depends on details of the gluon density and on the parameters describing the charmonium sector (see, e.g., Eq. (11)). In every case discussed in Sect. III.1 the relative difference between this asymptotic cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{as}}`$ and the full result is less than 25% for $`\lambda >30ϵ_0`$. For $`J/\psi `$ this translates roughly into $`\sqrt{s}>13`$ GeV and for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ into $`\sqrt{s}>23`$ GeV.

For $`m_h=0`$ the cross section is very small in the threshold region. We found that it is less than 10% of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{as}}`$ for $`\lambda <2`$–3$`ϵ_0`$, i.e., $`\sqrt{s}<5`$ GeV for $`J/\psi `$ and 12 GeV for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

Let us now investigate the effect of a finite $`m_h`$. Figure 1 shows the ratio of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda ,m_h)`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda ,0)`$ for two hypothetical hadron masses such that $`m_h<2ϵ_0`$, namely $`m_h=ϵ_0/5`$ (“pion-like”, dotted) and $`m_h=ϵ_0`$. The latter case has been computed for a pion gluon distribution (“rho-like”, dashed) as well as for a proton gluon distribution (“proton-like”, solid). This ratio is plotted as a function of $`\lambda /ϵ_0`$ and is then identical for charm and bottom mesons.

In addition to the shift of the threshold Eq. (17), we observe that the inclusion of finite mass correction reduces the cross section close to threshold. This result is opposite to what is found in Ref. KSSZ 777We give ample details on the comparison between the present approach and that of Ref. KSSZ  in Appendix A., where it is argued that the target mass correction tends to increase the $`J/\psi `$-$`p`$ cross section near threshold. We notice that the mass correction is important only for $`\lambda <2`$$`3ϵ_0`$. This implies that it is of limited phenomenological interest since, as we have seen above, the cross section is very small in this low energy region.

In Sect. II.3 we identified a different behavior in the case of heavy targets ($`m_h>2ϵ_0`$). Figure 1 shows mass correction for a hadron with mass $`m_h=3ϵ_0`$ and a gluon distribution $`G_p`$ given by Ref. GRV94  (dash-dotted). The cross section diverges at threshold ($`\lambda _0/ϵ_0=m_h/ϵ_0=3`$), as can be seen in Eq. (19). The window for which the cross section gets sizeable is very narrow, however. Thus this threshold behavior has probably very little phenomenological implications.

### III.3 $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ absolute cross sections

#### III.3.1 Factorization scale dependence

Before addressing in the next section the magnitude of the cross sections, the influence of the factorization scale is quantitatively investigated. More specifically the three choices: $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$, $`2ϵ_0^2`$, and $`4ϵ_0^2`$ were considered.

We made this investigation for the bottom channel with the parameter set (i). In addition to the heavy quark mass, this choice benefits from the numerical coincidence that888For consistency we use here and in the following the one-loop running coupling with $`n_f=3`$ and with the QCD scale determined by Refs. GRV94 ; GRV92 : $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}=232`$ MeV.

$$a_{0b}ϵ_{0b}=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ_{0b}}{m_b}}\frac{2}{3}\alpha _S(\mu ^2=ϵ_{0b}^2),$$

as expected for a large enough $`ϵ_0`$ if the factorization scale is $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$.

Let us first define the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-$`p`$ cross section, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}p}^{(\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2)}`$, computed with the prescription $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$, to be that given by Eq. (7) with the parameter set (i) for the bottomonium and the proton distribution GRV94 LO evaluated at $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$. We next define $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}p}^{(\mu ^2)}`$ at another scale to be that computed with GRV94 LO evaluated at $`\mu ^2`$ and multiplied by the factor

$$\alpha _S(\mu ^2)/\alpha _S(ϵ_0^2),$$

which takes into account the change of the coupling of the gluon to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ constituents, and decreases down to 63% for $`\mu ^2=4ϵ_0^2`$.

On Figure 2 is shown the energy dependence of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$-$`p`$ cross sections evaluated with the GRV94 LO gluon distribution at scales $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$ (solid), $`2ϵ_0^2`$ (dashed), and $`4ϵ_0^2`$ (dotted). To bypass the question of the scale dependence of $`ϵ_0`$ we restricted our study to the massless target case and studied the cross section as a function of $`\lambda /ϵ_0`$.

We first remark that the higher the scale $`\mu ^2`$, the larger (resp. smaller) the cross section at high (resp. low) incident energy. At high energy ($`\lambda /ϵ_010^4`$) the uncertainty may be as high as a 100%. The situation is much better in the range $`\lambda /ϵ_020100`$ that is particularly relevant for phenomenology. We also notice that the running of $`\alpha _S`$ and that of $`G_p`$ tends to somewhat compensate each other for the cross section at high energy.

We also investigated the consequences of changing the parameterization of the gluon distributions. Three leading order sets exist which may be evaluated at the scale $`\mu ^2=4ϵ_0^2`$. Figure 3 displays the energy dependence of the absolute cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}p}`$ using GRV94 LO (solid), MRST98 LO (dashed) and CTEQ5L (dotted) gluon densities. The energy dependence proves to be rather independent of a specific choice for energies $`\lambda <300ϵ_0`$. At larger energies there is a rather strong dependence which leads to an uncertainty on the cross section comparable to that due to the scale variation (compare Figs. 2 and 3). The origin of this uncertainty is the poor knowledge of the gluon distribution at very low $`x`$.

#### III.3.2 Cross sections using GRV gluon distributions

We now turn to the discussion of the magnitude of the cross section. The $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ cross sections are displayed on Fig. 4. They have been computed using the parameter set (i) with the GRV gluon density for the proton GRV94  and the pion GRV92  evaluated at $`\mu ^2=ϵ_0^2`$.

These cross sections $`\sigma _{J/\psi h}`$ (left) and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h}`$ (right) are found to strongly increase up to about 1 mb and 0.2 mb, respectively. The transition between low and high energy is situated around $`\sqrt{s_{J/\psi h}}=8`$ GeV and $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h}}=15`$ GeV, respectively. We also notice that, depending on the set of parameters chosen (resp. (i) and (ii)), the ratio $`\sigma _{J/\psi h}/\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h}`$ at high energy lies in the range 4–6, i.e., roughly the charm to bottom ratio of $`a_0^3ϵ_0`$.

The energy dependence of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }\pi }`$ turns out to be remarkably similar to the one in the proton channel, with a slightly smaller magnitude. This similarity is intimately related to the analogy that exists between the proton and the pion distributions in the GRV approach. Needless to say that lacking small $`x`$ experiments for the pion it has not been possible to verify this analogy so far. With GRV distributions and at high energy ($`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{\Phi }h}}=200`$ GeV) the ratio $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }\pi }/\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }p}0.6`$, independent of the quarkonium considered.

## IV Conclusion

The operator product expansion analysis has been widely used in the analysis of deep inelastic scattering. Subsequently, these very techniques proved useful to investigate heavy quark systems Pe ; BP  allowing the calculation of the $`J/\psi `$-$`p`$ cross section within perturbative QCD. Such a cross section is of seminal importance in the context of heavy ion collisions.

The present study is a continuation of the work of Bhanot and Peskin and of a more recent paper by Kharzeev and collaborators KSSZ . Let us gather what have been carried out here.

First, the leading twist forward scattering amplitude has been given a simple integral expression, entailing a partonic representation for the total cross section. Such a description had been found in a different way in Ref. BP  in the case of massless targets.

Secondly, finite target mass corrections have been systematically incorporated. We showed that the cross section still assumes a partonic form though in terms of a modified energy variable. In addition to a shift of the reaction threshold, finite mass corrections add to the suppression of the cross section at low relative energy but become insignificant far above threshold. In the case of heavy targets, however, we noticed that the cross section becomes large just above (and even diverges at) threshold.

Last, the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{J/\psi h}`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}h}`$ has been investigated for several targets. We found that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }\pi }`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }p}`$ are strongly suppressed in the vicinity of the threshold. At large energy, the cross section is proportional to $`s^\delta `$ for a target with $`G(x)\mathrm{const}./x^{1+\delta }`$ at small $`x`$. With GRV gluon distributions this leads to slowly rising cross sections for both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`p`$. However, we should emphasize that the small-$`x`$ gluon distribution are not much constrained, especially that of the pion. Indeed the weak control we have on the gluon distribution, because of both the just mentioned poor small-$`x`$ knowledge and the sizeable scale dependence, turned out to be the main source of uncertainty in the present approach. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ cross section have also been investigated, although the relevance of a perturbative approach is not fully satisfied for 2S states.

In addition to the hadron mass corrections considered here and beyond perturbative corrections, higher twist corrections may also lead to substantial modification for a not so heavy quark such as the charm. Indeed we noticed in Sect. II.2 that the threshold location may vary when one incorporates higher twist correction, making finite a cross section which is zero at leading twist. Considerations of this type of corrections is clearly outside the scope of the present study. Part of these corrections may be associated to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ sector and in particular to the confining part of the heavy quark potential. Other corrections involving higher twist operators in the hadron target have presumably their counterparts in deep inelastic scattering.

As compared to the other approaches mentioned in the introduction the $`J/\psi `$-$`\pi `$ cross section is very tiny at $`\sqrt{s}=4`$ GeV. In the 4–7 GeV energy range it strongly increases driven by the intermediate $`x`$ region in the gluon distribution. This $`x`$ region is fairly under control thanks to the momentum sum rule and consequently the prediction, within the present approach, of cross section smaller than 1 mb below 7 GeV is rather robust.

A consequence of such a small cross section at small relative energies is that destruction of $`J/\psi `$’s by comovers become very unlikely. We are presently studying whether our results allows already for an answer to the question whether a quark gluon plasma is formed in ultra-relativistic heavy ion reactions. Our present approach is, however, limited to the $`J/\psi `$ cross section, since for the excited states the binding energy is not large as compared to the confining scale.

## Appendix A Sum rules for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$

In this first appendix, we establish the sum rules satisfied by the leading twist total cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$. This allows us to make contact with a similar derivation done in the case $`m_h=0`$ BP  and $`m_h0`$ KSSZ . The starting point is the expression for the leading twist amplitude (12). Expressing $`M_n=d_nA_n`$ and recalling that $`A_n`$ is the $`n`$-th moment of the gluon density in the hadron target (see Sect. II.1), we may write the series as

$`^{}(\lambda ,m_h)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}1}{}}(\lambda /ϵ_0)^{2k^{}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^{2k^{}}G(x)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k^{}+j)!}{j!(2k^{})!}}d_{2k^{}+2j}({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}x^2)^j`$
$`+a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}G(x){\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}d_{2j}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}x^2\right)^j.`$
Using the identities AS

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+j)!}{j!n!}}B(n+2j+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})z^j=B(n+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})`$
$`\times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},1+n;{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},3+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};z),`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}B(2j+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})z^j=B({\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}})`$
$`\times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}};{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},4;z),`$
the sums over $`j`$ in Eq. (A) leads to

$`^{}(\lambda ,m_h)`$ $`=`$ $`a_0^3ϵ_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}1}{}}d_{2k^{}}\stackrel{~}{A}(2k^{})\left(\lambda /ϵ_0\right)^{2k^{}}`$
$`a_0^3ϵ_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}\right)d_2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xxG(x)`$
$`\times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1,{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}};{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}},4;{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}x^2),`$
where

$`\stackrel{~}{A}(n)={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^nG(x)`$
$`\times {}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},1+n;{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}},3+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{4ϵ_0^2}}x^2).`$
We point out that Eq. (A) is equivalent to the equation (15) of KSSZ  with slightly different notations.

As noted in BP , performing the integral

$$\frac{d\lambda }{2i\pi }\lambda ^{2\mathrm{}1}^{}(\lambda ,m_h).$$

around a counterclockwise contour enclosing the origin gives the coefficient of $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{}`$ in the amplitude (A). Wrapping the contour around the $`u`$ and $`s`$ channel cuts, the contour at infinity giving no contribution999Both the singularity pattern and asymptotic behavior of the scattering amplitude, which are necessary for the present construction to hold, are best studied within the approach of Sect. II. In Ref. BP , these properties where assumed from general properties of the elastic scattering amplitude.,

$$\frac{2}{\pi }_{m_h}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\lambda \lambda ^{2\mathrm{}1}\mathrm{I}m^{}(\lambda ,m_h)=a_0^3ϵ_0^2d_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{A}(2\mathrm{})ϵ_0^2\mathrm{}.$$

We put $`m_h`$ as a lower bound of the integral but this does not presume of the exact location of the threshold $`\lambda _0`$ (necessarily greater than or equal to $`m_h`$) implicitly contained in the set of sum rules (see below). Using the optical theorem one finally gets the sum rules for the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-$`h`$ cross section

$$_{m_h}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\lambda \lambda ^{2\mathrm{}1}\sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )=\frac{\pi }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0^2d_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{A}(2\mathrm{})ϵ_0^2\mathrm{},$$
(24)
which is what Bhanot and Peskin found (Eq. (3.10) in Ref. BP ) in the limit of massless target. In order to compare these results with KSSZ , we introduce the variable $`y=m_h/\lambda `$ to get

$$_0^1𝑑yy^{2\mathrm{}2}\sqrt{1y^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(m_h/y)=\left(\frac{m_h}{ϵ_0}\right)^{2\mathrm{}1}I(2\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{A}(2\mathrm{}),$$
(25)
with

$$I(n)=\frac{\pi }{2}a_0^3ϵ_0d_n,$$

as introduced in KSSZ . The relation (25) gives the set of sum rules that should replace that given by Eq. (16) of Ref. KSSZ , where the prefactor $`\left(m_h/ϵ_0\right)^{2\mathrm{}1}`$ is missing.

In order to verify that the sum-rule formalism leads to the same result as we obtained in the present study we need to solve Eq. (25) for $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}`$. This may be done using Laplace transform techniques. Eq. (25) writes

$$_0^1𝑑yy^{n2}\sqrt{1y^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(m_h/y)=g(n),n=2,4,\mathrm{},$$

with

$$g(n)=\left(\frac{m_h}{ϵ_0}\right)^{n1}I(n)\stackrel{~}{A}(n).$$

Defining $`x=\mathrm{ln}y`$ and $`n^{}=n1`$, we get the relation

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}(n^{}x)\underset{=f(x)}{\underset{}{\sqrt{1\mathrm{exp}(2x)}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(m_h\mathrm{exp}(x))}}`$
$`=g(n^{}+1),n^{}=1,3,\mathrm{},`$
that is $`g(n^{}+1)`$ is the Laplace transform of $`f(x)`$.

The above relation can be uniquely extended to a complex argument $`\nu `$ (at least for Re$`\nu >\delta `$, see below) instead of the listed $`n^{}`$. We can then obtain $`f(x)`$ by inverting the Laplace transform

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{2i\pi }_{\nu _0^{}i\mathrm{}}^{\nu _0^{}+i\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu \mathrm{exp}(\nu x)g(\nu +1),$$
(26)
where $`\nu _0^{}`$ is an arbitrary real chosen so that the integration contour is located “at the right” of all singularities of $`g(\nu +1)`$. For gluon distribution behaving as $`x^{(1+\delta )}`$ for $`x0`$, integrals of the type $`_0^1𝑑xx^\nu G(x){}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}`$ are well behaved provided Re$`\nu >\delta `$. As a consequence we performed the inverse Laplace transform choosing $`\nu _0^{}>\delta `$.

Setting $`\nu =\nu _0^{}+iu=\nu _01+iu`$, and then $`\lambda =m_h\mathrm{exp}(x)`$, we thus obtain

$`\sqrt{1\mathrm{exp}(2x)}\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(m_h\mathrm{exp}(x))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u\mathrm{exp}[(\nu _01+iu)x]g(\nu _0+iu),`$
and then

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi \sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u`$ (27)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_h}}\right)^{\nu _01+iu}g(\nu _0+iu)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\pi \sqrt{\lambda ^2m_h^2}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{ϵ_0}}\right)^{\nu _01+iu}I(\nu _0+iu)\stackrel{~}{A}(\nu _0+iu),`$
for every $`\nu _0>1+\delta `$. Let us remark that the $`ϵ_0`$ energy scale appearing in the first factor of the integrand would be $`m_h`$ with the sum rules proposed in KSSZ . The difference between these two results is important when one considers the $`m_h0`$ limit, in which case the latter expression is ill-defined contrarily to ours, given in Eq. (27).

We carried out a numerical evaluation and found out that it reproduces the results obtained in the main body of the paper. One critical point in the comparison between the two approaches is the verification that the threshold is located at the predicted value, that is, in particular, that the numerical result is compatible with zero below this threshold (a point which is far from evident when one looks at Eqs. (27) or (24)).

## Appendix B 2S states

In this appendix, calculations of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ cross sections are extended to the 2S states $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. The modification amounts to replacing the 1S coefficients $`d_n^{(1S)}`$ (denoted $`d_n`$ so far) by the 2S coefficients Pe

$$d_n^{(2S)}=\frac{16^3}{3N_c^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+5/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+7)}(16n^2+56n+75).$$

Expressing $`d_n^{(2S)}`$ as a function of the 1S coefficients

$$d_n^{(2S)}=4^n(4d_n^{(1S)}24d_{n+1}^{(1S)}+36d_{n+2}^{(1S)}),$$

allows one to get an integral representation for the 2S coefficients

$$d_n^{(2S)}=4^n_0^1\frac{dx}{x}x^nf^{(2S)}(x),$$
(28)
with

$$f^{(2S)}(x)=\frac{16^3}{3N_c^2}x^{5/2}(1x)^{3/2}(26x)^2,$$

which is the ingredient needed to carry out the procedure outlined in Sect. II. The changes are that the function $`h`$ has to be replaced by $`h^{(2S)}=Gf^{(2S)}`$ and that it is now evaluated at $`ϵ/\lambda ,ϵ/\lambda _+,`$ or $`ϵ/\lambda _{}`$ instead of $`ϵ_0/\lambda ,ϵ_0/\lambda _+,`$ or $`ϵ_0/\lambda _{}`$ where $`ϵ=ϵ_0/4`$ is the binding energy of the 2S state. The partonic expression is thus similar with

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}g}(\omega )=16\frac{16^3\pi }{6N_c^2}a_0^3ϵ_0\frac{(\omega /ϵ1)^{3/2}(\omega /ϵ3)^2}{(\omega /ϵ)^7}\theta (\omega ϵ).$$

The energy dependence $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}p}(s)`$ has been computed using the parameter set (i). The cross section diverges at threshold ($`\sqrt{s}11`$ GeV) and decreases to a minimum of about 4 mb at a center of mass energy 0.6 GeV above threshold. Then the cross section increases smoothly ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}p}(s)s^\delta `$) and reaches 30 mb by $`\sqrt{s}200`$ GeV. We notice that at high energy the ratio $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h}/\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }h}20`$ for all incident hadrons. Since $`r(2S)=\sqrt{10}r(1S)`$, this result lies somewhat above the geometrical expectation $`r^2(2S)/r^2(1S)`$.

We have already insisted on the fact that the LT perturbative analysis is most likely not adequate to describe the $`\psi ^{}`$ channel. In this case, the cross section amounts to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}p}(\sqrt{s})=30`$ mb at $`\sqrt{s}=10`$ GeV.


format: text

text:
# Critical Current Density of YBa2Cu3O7-δ Low-Angle Grain Boundaries in Self-Field

## Abstract

A study has been perfomed on the superconducting critical current density $`J_c`$ flowing across low angle grain boundaries in epitaxial thin films of YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO). The materials studied were dual grain boundary rings deposited on SrTiO3 and containing 2$`^\text{o},`$ 3$`^\text{o},`$ 5$`^\text{o}`$ and 7$`^\text{o}`$ tilt boundaries. The current density in self-field was determined by magnetometric methods at temperatures from 5 K to $`T_c.`$ We conclude that at the higher temperatures of coated conductor applications, there is limited potential for improving $`J_c`$ by reducing the grain boundary angle below $``$ 3$`^\text{o}.`$

PACS numbers (1999 scheme): 74.60.Jg, 74.50.+s, 74.76.Bz, 74.60.Ge

Well-aligned grains are necessary for optimum critical current density $`J_c`$ in high-temperature superconductors. A large misalignment of adjacent grains suppresses the order parameter at the grain boundary (GB) and results in Josephson tunneling behavior and a near-exponential decrease in $`J_c`$ with misorientation angle. In the case of YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) low-angle grain boundaries ($`\theta `$ 4$`^\text{o}`$), the boundary is comprised of a periodic array of dislocation cores separated by only slightly perturbed material providing a strong conduction channel wider than the in-plane coherence length. This low-angle regime is particularly important to understanding transport in the highly-textured coated conductors. Both of the most prominent coated conductor methodologies, rolling-assisted biaxially textured substrate (RABiTS)  and ion-beam assisted deposition (IBAD), can provide this level of texture. Our previous transport results concluded that a 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB was inherently different from a 5$`^\text{o}`$ GB due to the weak-linked characteristics of the 5$`^\text{o}`$ GB. In that study, grain-like voltage-current relations were observed, and no reduction in $`J_c`$ could be measured across the 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB compared with its adjacent grains. However, those results were regarded as inconclusive since the estimated grain boundary voltages were less than those of the grain for reasonable sample geometry. Due to the important implications for coated conductors and the fundamentals of epitaxial YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) films, we have investigated the properties of low-angle grain boundaries utilizing a high sensitivity magnetometer technique. From their magnetic moments, we deduce the persistent currents flowing in thin YBCO rings with and without 2$`^\text{o},`$ 3$`^\text{o}`$, 5$`^\text{o}`$, and 7$`^\text{o}`$ -tilt boundaries, and compare these results.

Films were prepared by pulsed laser deposition of YBCO on SrTiO3 (STO) bicrystal substrates with a single -tilt boundary. Using standard optical photolithography techniques, rings were produced with an outside diameter of 3 mm and a width of 100 $`\mu `$m. A ring was patterned across the GB of the bicrystal, resulting in two GB’s included in each ”GB ring.” For comparison, a companion ring was patterned beyond the grain-boundary region of each substrate to provide a control sample with the intragrain properties, which will be referred to as the ”grain ring.” The nominal thickness of the films was 200 nm.

Magnetic measurements were conducted with a Quantum Design MPMS-7 magnetometer. The separated, individual ring samples on rectangular STO substrates were attached to Si mounting disks using cellulose nitrate cement and placed into a Mylar tube for support. The magnetic field $`H`$, applied perpendicular to the plane of the ring, was ramped to 3000 G at 5 K to induce the maximum circulating persistent currents within the ring. The applied field was then reduced to zero, inducing maximum currents in the opposite sense. The resulting magnetic moment was measured while increasing the temperature from 5 K to 95 K in 1 K steps. For the grain rings, $`J_c`$ was calculated using the modified Bean critical state model,

$`J_c`$ = $`\frac{30\text{ }m_{ring}}{RVR^{^{}}V^{^{}}}`$, Eq.1

where $`m_{ring}`$ is the magnetic moment in units of emu, $`V`$ is the volume of a cylinder with the outside radius $`R`$ of the ring, and $`V^{}`$ is the volume of the ”missing” cylinder with inside radius $`R^{}`$. For the GB ring, we determined the current across the boundary from the measured magnetic moment by removing the background signal arising from currents circulating within the ”strip” of YBCO but not crossing the GB. (This procedure was verified by measurements on an open circuit ring in which a line was etched across its entire 100 $`\mu `$m width; from these data, the Bean model, with a different geometrical factor, also yields the grain $`J_c`$ of a homogeneous YBCO strip.) In Table I, the relative magnitudes of the corrections are illustated by the ratio of the apparent GB $`J_c`$ (as deduced from the Bean relation Eq. 1) to the actual $`J_c`$ of the boundary, all at 5 K.

We first consider and discuss some surprising findings on the lowest angle grain boundary ( 2$`^\text{o}`$), then return to the measurements on the remaining low angle GB materials. The present results, obtained by magnetometry of the 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB ring, confirmed our previous transport measurements by showing no discernible reduction in $`J_c`$ when compared with the companion grain ring. Figure 1 shows the temperature dependence of $`J_c`$ for two sets of samples with 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB and their companion grain rings. High resolution x-ray diffraction quantified the exact YBCO misorientations: 1.83$`^\text{o}`$ -tilt and 0.13$`^\text{o}`$ -tilt. From the Franck formula, the calculated dislocation spacing for a 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB is 11 nm, with a maximum strong channel span of 10 nm approximated from visual inspection of transmission electron micrograph images. This corresponds to a minimum reduction of only 10% in effective GB length, which is within the expected accuracy range of the data considering geometrical and experimental errors. A possible conclusion is that the dislocation cores along the GB are no more than 1 nm in size with respect to suppression of the order parameter.

This simplistic view, however, may be overshadowed by the intrinsic structure of YBCO films on a cubic substrate. The twin structure of YBCO could provide an explanation for undiminished $`J_c`$ values across a 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB. Twin boundaries are formed in YBCO films at the tetragonal-to-orthorhombic structural transition upon cooling in oxygen from high temperature. Variations in twin structure are dependent on strain, ambient oxygen pressure and cooling rate. Twin boundaries in films are found to be preferentially aligned along the $`110`$ and $`1\overline{1}0`$ of lattice-matched cubic substrates. In this case, the orthorhombic nature of the lattice is accommodated by a $``$ 1.8$`^\text{o}`$ misalignment of the (1$`\overline{1}`$0) planes on either side of a (110) twin boundary. Thus a YBCO film on a SrTiO$`{}_{3}{}^{}(001)\mathrm{sin}`$gle crystal actually consists of domains with 4 distinct, symmetry-related in-plane orientations. Figure 2 shows a x-ray phi scan through the YBCO (225) peak including both sides of a 5$`^\text{o}`$ bicrystal. Each group of three peaks represent one grain of the bicrystal. The strong central peaks at 0$`^\text{o}`$ and 5.1$`^\text{o}`$ arise from the two twin domains for which the YBCO {110} planes are aligned with the substrate \[$`HH0`$\] direction. The difference of 5.1$`^\text{o}`$ between these peaks corresponds to the -axis bicrystal tilt misorientation. The smaller peaks located at $`\pm 0.9^o`$ (as given by \[2 tan$`{}_{}{}^{1}(b/a)90^o]`$ ) from the central peaks are reflections from the two possible twin domains associated with the twin planes aligned with the \[$`H\overline{H}0`$\] substrate direction. This is also true for the adjacent grain across the GB. We note that although the x-ray analysis does not describe the morphology of domains, it does reveal that twinned YBCO films on single crystal substrates are populated with possible GB misorientation angles of 0.9$`^\text{o},`$ 89.1$`^\text{o},`$ and 90$`^\text{o}.`$ Thus the YBCO boundaries located above the intersection of a bicrystal substrate with a tilt boundary of $`\theta ^o`$ are not composed of simply a single well-defined GB of angle $`\theta .`$ Instead, different YBCO domains can impinge with a variety of misorientation angles, including $`\theta \pm 0.9^o`$ and $`\theta \pm 89.1^o.`$ It is important to note that twin boundaries supply no dislocations, while the interface between the suggested twin domains would produce dislocations with an expected 12 nm period. Such a dilute array of dislocations easily accommodates a superconducting coherence length between dislocations, resulting in the typically observed strongly non-linear, well coupled Abrikosov superconductor. In this view, the addition of a single 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB to the matrix would not be expected to provide additional distinguishable dissipation.

Let us now consider more generally the critical current density for grain boundaries with slightly larger angles. In transport studies, prominant tunneling behavior appears to dominate transport chacteristics for a GB angle above 3-4$`^\text{o}`$, where the grain-like channel between the dislocation cores becomes smaller than a coherence length. The present magnetometry study on GB rings of 2$`^\text{o},`$ 3$`^\text{o},`$ 5$`^\text{o},`$ and 7$`^\text{o}`$ provides precise results for the temperature-dependent $`J_c`$ in the regime of low angle boundaries. Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of $`J_c`$ for 3$`^\text{o},`$ 5$`^\text{o}`$, and 7$`^\text{o}`$ GB rings, compared to their companion grain rings. Also, Table I lists the $`J_c`$ values at 5 K for each misorientation angle. The 5$`^\text{o}`$ and 7$`^\text{o}`$ tilt GB’s manifest their tunneling conduction in transport studies via a linear differential $`VJ`$ characteristic; in these magnetometry studies, a signature of tunneling is a complex in-field $`J_c`$ with a pronounced dependence on the magnetic field history. In contrast, transport studies of the 2$`^\text{o}`$ GB found grain-like, power law characteristics indicative of strong, tunneling-free conduction. The magnetometry studies of both the 2$`^\text{o}`$ and 3$`^\text{o}`$ rings revealed in-field $`J_c`$’s with a qualitatively simple, monotonic falloff with $`H`$ and with minimal-to-no dependence on field history. These results indicate then, a robust current conduction for GB’s up to 3$`^\text{o}`$, but pronounced tunneling behavior for GB angles of 5$`^\text{o}`$ and above. For the 3$`^\text{o}`$ GB, the $`J_c`$ lies a factor of 2-3 below the grain value, which can be accounted for in part by a reduced cross-section of ”good” material by dislocations.

Qualitatively, Fig. 3 shows a systematic reduction of GB current density with angle. The inset in Fig. 3 shows quantitatively the angle-dependence of $`J_c`$ at temperatures $`T`$ = 5, 64, and 77 K. At low temperatures, the $`J_c`$ rises rapidly as the GB angle decreases in this regime of low angles. For comparison, the (calculated) depairing current density at $`T`$=0 is included in the inset. At the higher temperatures of coated conductor applications, there is limited potential for improving $`J_c`$ by reducing the grain boundary angle below $``$ 3$`^\text{o}.`$ The present materials, in the temperature range of LN2, already possess the technologically desirable current densities $`>`$106 A/cm2. In this low angle range, the intragrain $`J_c`$ becomes the limiting factor, and should become the focus of further improvements, especially in the presence of magnetic fields.

We thank D.M. Feldmann and D.C. Larbalestier for scientific discussions and for providing the 3o substrate. Research co-sponsored by the DOE Division of Materials Sciences, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Power Technologies, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig 1. Magnetometer measurements of persistent current density vs. temperature for two 1.8$`^\text{o}`$ grain boundary rings and their companion grain rings. Transport data from a 1.8$`^\text{o}`$ single grain boundary are shown for comparison.

Fig. 2. X-ray $`\varphi `$ scan though the YBCO {225} peak on a 5.1$`^\text{o}`$ bicrystal showing the in-plane angular relation between various YBCO domains.

Fig 3. Magnetometer measurements of critical current density vs. temperature for 2.8$`^\text{o}`$, 5.1$`^\text{o}`$ and 7$`^\text{o}`$ grain boundary rings and their companion grain rings from the same deposition and substrate. Inset: $`J_c`$ versus grain boundary angle at $`T`$ = 5, 64, and 77 K, in self field.

=========================================

Table I. Comparison of critical current density at 5 K for YBCO grain boundaries and their companion grains. Data are calculated values of $`J_c`$ from the maximum magnetic moment of persistent currents in a narrow ring of YBCO on SrTiO3 substrates, in self field.

| Misorientation | GB Ring | Grain Ring | ($`J_c^{GB}`$ / $`J_c^{Grain})`$ | ($`J_c^{GB,corr}`$ / $`J_c^{GB,Bean})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (degrees) | $`J_c`$ (MA/cm2) | $`J_c`$ (MA/cm2) |  |  |
| 1.8 | 35 | 39 | 0.90 | 1 |
| 1.8 | 36 | 37 | 0.97 | 1 |
| 2.8 | 9.1 | 19a | 0.48 | 1 |
| 2.8 | 11.5 | 23 | 0.50 | 0.99 |
| 5.1 | 0.95 | 18 | 0.053 | 0.48 |
| 5.1 | 1.4 | 34 | 0.041 | 0.56 |
| 7 | 0.85 | 31 | 0.027 | 0.47 |

a Value measured with an ”open circuit” ring in strip geometry.


text:
# Tate cohomology of circle actions as a Heisenberg group

## 1. Tate cohomology of circle actions

1.1 If $`E`$ is a geometric bordism theory (such as integral homology), its Tate cohomology $`t_𝕋^{}E`$ can be constructed by tom Dieck stabilization from the geometric theory of $`E`$-manifolds with $`𝕋`$-action, the action required to be free on the boundary . If $`E`$ is multiplicative, so is $`t_𝕋^{}E`$; there is a cofibration sequence

$$\mathrm{}E^{}B𝕋_+t_𝕋^{}EE_2B𝕋_+\mathrm{}$$

in which the boundary map sends a $`𝕋`$-manifold with boundary to the quotient of its boundary by the (free) $`𝕋`$-action. When $`E`$ is complex-oriented \[eg $`MU`$ or $`H`$\] this sequence reduces to a short exact sequence which identifies $`t_𝕋^{}E`$ with the Laurent series ring $`E^{}((𝐞))`$ obtained by inverting the Euler class in $`E^{}(B𝕋)=E^{}[[𝐞]]`$, and the boundary map can be calculated as a formal residue; more precisely, the formal Laurent series $`f`$ maps to the residue of $`fd\mathrm{log}_E`$ at $`𝐞=0`$, where $`d\mathrm{log}_E`$ is the invariant differential of the formal group law of $`E`$. When $`E`$ is not complex-orientable, $`t_𝕋E`$ can behave very differently , as the Segal conjecture shows: up to a profinite completion,

$$t_𝕋S^0S^0S^1B𝕋/C$$

where $`C`$ runs through proper subgroups of $`𝕋`$.

There is a related but simpler theory $`\tau _𝕋^{}E`$ defined by manifolds with free $`𝕋`$-action on the boundary alone, which fits in an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}E^{}\tau _𝕋^{}EE_2B𝕋_+\mathrm{};$$

ignoring the interior $`𝕋`$-action defines a truncation

$$t_𝕋^{}E\tau _𝕋^{}E.$$

1.2 It is natural to think of $`t_𝕋^{}E`$ as the $`E`$-homology of a version  of Mahowald’s pro-spectrum $`P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}`$, constructed from the inverse system

$$\{P_k^{\mathrm{}}=Th(k\eta )\}$$

of Thom spectra defined by the filtered vector bundle

$$\mathrm{}k\eta (k+1)\eta \mathrm{}$$

over $`P^{\mathrm{}}`$. To be more precise,

$$t_𝕋EES^2P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}$$

as spectra, and there is a similar equivalence

$$\tau _𝕋EES^2P_1^{\mathrm{}}.$$

From this point of view, the morphism from $`t_𝕋^{}E`$ to $`\tau _T^{}E`$ is the $`E`$-homology of the collapse map

$$P_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}}.$$

The cobordism class defined by a family of complex-oriented surfaces with a free circle action on its boundary, parametrized by $`X`$, defines an element of

$$\tau _𝕋^2MU(X_+)=[X_+,P_1^{\mathrm{}}MU];$$

the image of this class under the Thom homomorphism from $`MU`$ to $`H`$ is the homomorphism

$$H^{}(P_1^{\mathrm{}},)H^{}(X_+,)$$

defined by the classifying map of Madsen and Tillmann, sketched below.

1.3 When $`E=H`$, the symmetric bilinear form

$$f,g(f,g)=\mathrm{res}_{𝐞=0}(fgd𝐞)$$

on the Laurent series ring $`t_𝕋H`$ is nondegenerate, and the involution $`I(z)=z^1`$ on $`𝕋`$ defines a symplectic form

$$\{f,g\}=(I(f),g)$$

which restricts to zero on the subspaces of elements of degree $`0`$ and $`<0`$. The Tate cohomology thus has an intrinsic inner product, with canonical polarization and involution.

The functor $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}`$ which sends the commutative ring $`A`$ to the set of formal Laurent series

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}(A)=\{g=\underset{k0}{}g_kx^{k+1}A((x))|g_0A^\times ,g_k\sqrt{A\mathrm{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}>k\}$$

(i.e. with $`g_0`$ a unit and $`g_k`$ nilpotent when $`k`$ is negative) in fact takes values in the category of groups, with formal composition of series as the operation. This group of invertible ‘nil-Laurent’ series has a linear representation on the abelian group valued functor $`AA((x))`$, but it is a little too large to be conveniently representable; in a certain sense it is an ind-pro-algebraic analog of the group of diffeomorphisms of the circle.

1.4 It is tempting to interpret $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}`$ as a group of automorphisms of the Tate cohomology, but the most obvious action does not preserve the symplectic structure. Kontsevich-Witten theory suggests a better alternative: there is an embedding

$$𝐞^k\gamma _{k{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}(x):t_𝕋^{}H((\sqrt{x}))$$

of symplectic modules, defined using the fractional divided power

$$\gamma _s(x)=\frac{x^s}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s)},$$

in which the symplectic structure on the target is defined by

$$u,v\{u,v\}=\mathrm{res}_{x=0}udv.$$

\[The reals are a notational convenience: some powers of $`\pi `$ have been ignored.\] Over any field of characteristic zero, the square root of an invertible nil-Laurent series in $`x`$ is an invertible odd nil-Laurent series in $`\sqrt{x}`$, and it makes better sense to think of the group $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}_{1/2}^{}`$ of such series \[10 §1.3\] as symplectic automorphisms of $`t_𝕋^{}H((\sqrt{x}))`$. The half-integral shift comes ultimately from the fact that $`t_𝕋H`$ is not Spanier-Whitehead self-dual; rather, its dual is most naturally interpreted as its own double suspension.

## 2. Madsen-Tillmann and Kontsevich-Witten

Madsen and Tillmann construct a map

$$\underset{g0}{}B\mathrm{Diff}(F_g)\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}}$$

which is compatible with gluing of surfaces; in particular, it defines a lax functor from the two-dimensional topological gravity category  to a topological category with one object and an $`H`$-space of morphisms. \[Reversing the orientation of a surface corresponds to the involution $`I`$.\] The point of this note is to identify a suitable subgroup of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}_{1/2}^{}`$ as the motivic automorphisms of this functor.

2.1 Here is a quick account of one component of : if $`F^n`$ is a closed two-manifold embedded smoothly in a high-dimensional Euclidean space, its Pontrjagin-Thom construction $`_+^nF^\nu `$ maps compactified Euclidean space to the Thom space of the normal bundle of the embedding. The tangent plane to $`F`$ is classified by a map $`\tau :F\mathrm{Grass}_{2,n}`$to the Grassmannian of oriented two-planes in $`^n`$, and the canonical two-plane bundle $`\eta `$ over this space has a complementary $`(n2)`$-plane bundle, which I will call $`(n\eta )`$. The normal bundle $`\nu `$ is the pullback along $`\tau `$ of $`(n\eta )`$; composing the map induced on Thom spaces with the collapse defines

$$_+^nF^\nu \mathrm{Grass}_{2,n}^{(n\eta )}.$$

The space $`\mathrm{Emb}(F)`$ of embeddings of $`F`$ in $`^n`$ becomes highly connected as $`n`$ increases, and the group $`\mathrm{Diff}(F)`$ of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of $`F`$ acts freely on it, defining a compatible family

$$_+^n_{\mathrm{Diff}}\mathrm{Emb}(F)\mathrm{Grass}_{2,n}^{(n\eta )}$$

which can be interpreted as a morphism

$$B\mathrm{Diff}(F)lim\mathrm{\Omega }^n\mathrm{Grass}_{2,n}^{(n\eta )}:=\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}}.$$

2.2 Madsen and Tillmann show their construction factors through an infinite loopspace map

$$\times B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}}Q(P_+^{\mathrm{}}),$$

in which the last arrow is defined by collapsing the bottom two-cell in a cofibration

$$S^2P_1^{\mathrm{}}P_+^{\mathrm{}}.$$

The fiber $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2QS^0`$ of the induced map of loop spaces is torsion, so the rational cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}}`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of symmetric functions on the subspace of non-negative powers in $`t_𝕋^{}H`$. This algebra is thus canonically isomorphic to the Fock representation \[10 §2.2\] of the Heisenberg algebra of that symplectic module; but this representation possesses a canonical Virasoro action, defining a homomorphism

$$H_{}(\times B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}^+,)\mathrm{Symm}(H^{}(P_+^{\mathrm{}}))(\stackrel{ˇ}{𝔾}_{1/2}^{}\mathrm{representations}).$$

In Kontsevich-Witten theory the usual generators $`b_kH_{}(P_+^{\mathrm{}}),k0`$, map to symmetric functions

$$\mathrm{Trace}\gamma _{k{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)(2k1)!!\mathrm{Trace}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2k1}=t_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

of a positive-definite Hermitian matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; this leads to a construction of the appropriate twisted Virasoro representation in terms of Schur $`Q`$-functions .

2.3 The homomorphism

$$limMU^{+n2}(Th(n\eta ))MU^2(B\mathrm{Diff}(F))$$

defined on cobordism by the Madsen-Tillmann construction sends the Thom class to a kind of Euler class: according to Quillen’s conventions, the Thom class is the zero-section of $`(n\eta )`$, regarded as a cobordism class of maps between manifolds. Its image is the class defined by the fiber product

it is the space of equivalence classes, under the action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(F)`$, of pairs $`(x,\varphi )`$, with $`x\varphi (F)^n`$ a point of the surface (ie, in the zero-section of $`\nu `$), and $`\varphi `$ an embedding. The image is thus the element

$$[Z_n_+^n_{\mathrm{Diff}}\mathrm{Emb}]MU^{n2}(S^nB\mathrm{Diff}(F))$$

defined by the tautological family $`F\times _{\mathrm{Diff}}E\mathrm{Diff}(F)`$ of surfaces over the classifying space of the diffeomorphism group. This class is primitive in the Hopf-like structure defined by gluing \[9 §2.2\], so the class

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{exp}(th(\eta )v)MU_{}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}P_1^{\mathrm{}})[[v]]$$

of finite unordered configurations of points on the universal surface (with $`v`$ a book-keeping indeterminate) defines a multiplicative transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}:H_{}(Q(P_+^{\mathrm{}}),)H_{}(MU,[[v]])$$

with properties analogous to the Chern character of a vector bundle. It sends the Fock representation described above to an algebra of cohomological characteristic numbers.

2.4 Kontsevich-Witten theory uses a more sophisticated configuration space, which maps the rational homology of $`Q(_{g0}\overline{}_g)`$ (suitably interpreted, for small $`g`$) to a similar ring of characteristic numbers; this homology contains a fundamental class

$$[Q(\overline{}_g)]=\mathrm{exp}(\underset{g0}{}[\overline{}_g]v^{3(g1)})$$

for the moduli space of not necessarily connected curves. Witten’s tau-function is the image of this ‘highest-weight’ vector under the analog of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}`$; it is invariant under the subalgebra of Virasoro generated by operators $`L_k`$ (of cohomological degree $`k`$) with $`k1`$.

## 3. Afterthoughts, and possible generalizations

3.1 Witten has proposed a generalization of 2D topological gravity which encompasses surfaces with higher spin structures: for a closed smooth surface $`F`$ an $`r`$-spin structure is roughly a complex line bundle $`L`$ together with a fixed isomorphism $`L^rT_F`$ of two-plane bundles, but for surfaces with nodes or marked points the necessary technicalities are formidable . The group of automorphisms of such a structure is an extension of its group of diffeomorphisms by the group of $`r`$th roots of unity, and there is a natural analog of the group completion of the category defined by such surfaces. The generalized Madsen-Tillmann construction maps this loopspace to the Thom spectrum $`Th(\eta ^r)`$, and it is reasonable to expect that this map is equivariant with respect to automorphisms of the group of roots of unity. This fits with some classical homotopy theory: if (for simplicity) $`r=p`$ is prime, multiplication by an integer $`u`$ relatively prime to $`p`$ in the $`H`$-space structure of $`P^{\mathrm{}}`$ defines a morphism

$$Th(\eta ^p)Th(\eta ^{up})$$

of spectra, and the classification of fiber-homotopy equivalences of vector bundles yields an equivalence of $`Th(\eta ^{up})`$ with $`Th(\eta ^p)`$ after $`p`$-completion. There is an analogous decomposition of $`t_TH_p`$ and a corresponding decomposition of the associated Fock representations \[10 §2.4\].

3.2 In an extension of her work Tillmann also considers categories of surfaces mapped to some parameter space $`X`$, which has interesting connections with both Tate and quantum cohomology. When $`X`$ is a smooth compact almost-complex manifold, its Hodge-deRham cohomology admits a natural action of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}_2()`$, generated \[12 IV §4\] by the Hodge dimension operator $`H`$, multiplication by the first Chern class $`c_1(X)=E`$, and its adjoint $`F=E`$. Recently Givental \[3 §8.1\] has shown that earlier work of (the schools of) Eguchi, Dubrovin, and others on the Virasoro structure of quantum cohomology can be formulated in terms of (what I like to think of as) $`t_𝕋^{}H(X,)`$, polarized by the twisted involution

$$I_{Giv}=𝐞^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}H}𝐞^EI𝐞^E𝐞^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}H}.$$

It would be very interesting if this polarization could be understood in terms of the equivariant geometry of the free loopspace of $`X`$.

3.3 I owe thanks to R. Cohen, E. Getzler, A. Givental, J. Greenlees, I. Madsen, N. Strickland, and U. Tillmann (at least), for their forebearance in the face of my continued misunderstanding of things they have tried patiently to tell me. I hope I’m finally starting to get it right.