text:
# LARGE CIRCUMBINARY DUST GRAINS AROUND EVOLVED GIANTS?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The growth of solids into planetesimals in circumstellar disks is a major unsolved astrophysical problem. Almost all investigations of dust disks have concentrated on pre-main sequence stars, but there are some post-main sequence binary stars which possess orbiting circumbinary dust disks. We are studying disks in evolved systems with the goal of learning more about particle growth.

Accretion disks around a mass-receiving star in mass-exchange binary systems such as cataclysmic variables and symbiotics stars have been studied for many years. In an accretion disk, the lifetime of an individual grain may be short even if the system is long-lived. In contrast, in a circumbinary disk, the particles orbit both stars and are not being continuously destroyed. As a result, in circumbinary disks, particles may survive enough orbits to grow by coagulation to sizes as large as 1 mm. With only a few known examples of this phenomenon such as the Red Rectangle and AC Her (see Waters et al. 1993, Jura & Kahane 1999, Jura, Chen & Werner 2000, Molster et al. 2000), we hope to identify more such systems.

Because small spherical grains do not emit efficiently at wavelengths much larger than their size (see, for example, Spitzer 1978), one way to identify “big” particles is to observe at relatively low frequencies. Therefore, we have obtained mm and sub-mm observations of SS Lep (mV = 5.0 mag, period = 260 days, A1 + M4; Cowley 1967, Welty & Wade 1995) and 3 Pup (mV = 4.0 mag, period = 161 days, A2I + ?; Plets et al. 1995) because they are A-type stars in the Yale Bright Star Catalog with anomalously and uniquely high IRAS fluxes (Jura & Kleinmann 1990) and we suspected that they may have circumbinary disks. As part of this program, we also obtained data for BM Gem, a highly luminous carbon star with oxygen-rich circumstellar matter which also may possess a long-lived orbiting disk (Kahane et al. 1998).

There are many previous infrared studies of evolved binary stars (for example, Friedemann, Gurtler & Lowe 1996). A system that might have some properties in common with SS Lep and 3 Pup is the binary containing the post-main sequence luminous A-type star, $`ϵ`$ Aur (Mv $``$ -6.0 mag) which has a companion of unknown type that is surrounded by a dust disk containing grains larger than 5 $`\mu `$m (Lissauer et al. 1996). Here, we consider circumbinary environments where the grains may be more than an order of magnitude larger in size and thus 103 times more massive than those found around the companion to $`ϵ`$ Aur.

In contrast to their infrared properties, little is known about submillimeter dust emission from evolved binary stars. Symbiotic stars have been detected at $`\lambda `$ $`>`$ 100 $`\mu `$m (Seaquist & Taylor 1992, Ivison et al. 1995, Corradi et al. 1999), but this emission is probably produced by ionized gas and not dust. In the systems discussed here, thermal emission by dust probably dominates at $`\lambda `$ $``$ 1350 $`\mu `$m.

## 2 OBSERVATIONS

The 1.35 mm flux measurements were obtained on 1999 Jan 21 in the service observing mode with the SCUBA camera (Holland et al. 1999) using the photometric mode on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, or JCMT, at Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The telescope half-power beam diameter at 1.35 mm was 19". The atmospheric opacity was scaled from simultaneous measurements from the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory radiometer and ranged between 0.11 and 0.13. The data were reduced and calibrated using the “SCUBA User Reduction Facility” (or SURF, Jenness 1998). The secondary calibrator, RAFGL 618, was used to calibrates fluxes with an assumed flux of 2.49 Jy. Integration times of 30 and 36 minutes yielded the measured fluxes reported in Table 1.

The 450 $`\mu `$m and 850 $`\mu `$m fluxes were measured on 2000 Jan 31, again at the JCMT in the service observing mode with the SCUBA camera in the photometric mode following procedures similar to those for our previous observations. The secondary calibrators were RAFGL 618 and OH 231.8+4.2 with assumed fluxes of 4.57 Jy and 11.9 Jy at 850 $`\mu `$m, respectively and 2.52 Jy and 10.5 Jy at 450 $`\mu `$m. The half-power beam diameters were 8″ and 12″ at 450 $`\mu `$m and 850 $`\mu `$m. The results are reported in Table 1. The listed uncertainties represent the RMS noise levels, and do not include an estimated 10% calibration error at 1.35 mm and 850 $`\mu `$m and a 20% calibration error at 450 $`\mu `$m. With an extragalactic background at 850 $`\mu `$m of probably fewer than 5 sources degree-2 brighter than 50 mJy (Smail, Ivison & Blain 1997), it is unlikely that source confusion contaminates our observations.

## 3 STELLAR PARAMETERS

For many years it was thought that the A-type star in SS Lep lies on the main sequence; it has a luminosity class V in the Yale Bright Star Catalog. However, the distance measured with the Hipparcos satellite is 330 pc. With AV $``$0.4 mag (see Blondel, Talavera & Tjin A Djie 1993) and mV = 5.0 mag, then $`M_V`$ = -3.0 mag and thus this A-type star lies well above the main sequence (see Perryman et al. 1995). Analysis of the Doppler motions show that the A-type star has 3.5 times the mass of the M-type companion (Welty & Wade 1995), and it is unlikely that both stars are in pre-main sequence evolution since the time scales for remaining above the main sequence are such a strong function of stellar mass (Palla & Stahler 1993). Instead, it appears that this is an interacting binary where both stars have evolved beyond the main sequence (Pols et al. 1991). The binary companion to 3 Pup is unseen (Plets et al. 1995), while it is only suspected that BM Gem possesses a companion (Kahane et al. 1998). Our estimates for the distance, $`D_{}`$, effective temperature, $`T_{}`$, and radius, $`R_{}`$, of each star along with relevant references are given in Table 1.

## 4 THE EVIDENCE FOR LARGE GRAINS

The spectral energy distribution of SS Lep is shown in Figure 1; the plots for BM Gem and 3 Pup are similar. For the sake of comparison, we also display in this Figure the scaled spectral energy distributions for VY CMa and the Red Rectangle, as representative of the emission from a “normal” wind (where the density varies as $`R^2`$ where $`R`$ is the distance of the grains from the star) and a system with large, orbiting grains, respectively. In Figure 1, we ignore the 2.2 $`\mu `$m variability of SS Lep which is at most a factor of 1.4 (Kamath & Ashok 1999, Neugebauer & Leighton 1969, Malfait, Bogaert & Waelkens 1998).

The fluxes at $`\lambda `$ $`>`$ 100 $`\mu `$m are probably the result of grain emission rather than ionized gas. At $`\lambda `$ $``$ 1.3 mm for SS Lep, $`F_\nu `$ increases as rapidly as $`\nu ^{+1.6}`$. Thus, this continuum cannot arise from optically thin ionized gas since Fν would be approximately flat. It is also unlikely that the continuum is produced by optically thick ionized gas with optical depth, $`\tau `$. With a Gaunt factor of 2.5 (Karzas & Latter 1961), to account for the observed value of Fν(450 $`\mu `$m) by free-free emission from a gas of ionized hydrogen at 7500 K, the required value of $`n_e^2V`$, where $`n_e`$ is the electron density in volume $`V`$, is 9.6 $`\times `$ 1057 $`\tau /(1e^\tau )`$ cm-3 . With $`\tau `$(450 $`\mu `$m) $``$ 1.2 to account for the observation that Fν(450 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(850 $`\mu `$m) $``$ 2.5, then $`n_e^2V`$ $``$ 1.7 $`\times `$ 1058 cm-3. The H$`\alpha `$ emissivity of a gas at 7500 K is 4.7 $`\times `$ 10-25 erg cm-3 s-1 (Osterbrock 1974) so the predicted total H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is 7.8 $`\times `$ 1033 erg s-1. With an H$`\alpha `$ emission equivalent width of $``$ 3 Å (see Figure 1 in Welty & Wade 1995) and the stellar parameters in Table 1, the actual H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of SS Lep is 2.6 $`\times `$ 1033 erg s-1, about a factor of 3 less than predicted.

While the observed emission at $`\lambda `$ $``$ 1.35 mm is probably produced by dust, the measured fluxes at $`\lambda `$ $``$ 450 $`\mu `$m are too strong to be produced from a wind similar to that around VY CMa. Detached shells which are much more extended than the JCMT beam such as those proposed by van der Veen et al. (1994) could conceivably explain the presence of a large amount of cold dust. However, as explained in more detail in Section 5, such detached shell models predict more neutral gas than is observed.

Given that neither a “normal” wind nor ionized gas can easily explain our measurements, we present an alternative. Assume, for simplicity, that the grain emissivity as a function of frequency can be described as a power law, $`\nu ^p`$. Equivalently, if $`Q_\nu `$ denotes the ratio of absorption to geometric cross section, then $`Q_\nu `$ varies as $`\nu ^p`$. If the grains are small compared to the wavelength of the light which they emit, then $`p`$ $``$ 1, while larger grains might have $`p`$ $``$ 0. If $`T_{gr}`$ denotes the grain temperature at distance, $`R`$, from the central binary, in a steady state where the grain heating, which is determined by the sum of the mean intensity, $`J_\nu `$, from both stars, is balanced by radiative cooling, then:

$$Q_\nu J_\nu (R)𝑑\nu =Q_\nu B_\nu (T_{gr})𝑑\nu $$
(1)
Therefore, summing over the contribution to $`J_\nu `$ by the two stars:

$$T_{gr}^{(4+p)}=(1/4)\underset{i}{}T_{,i}^{(4+p)}(R_{,i}/R)^2$$
(2)
where $`T_{,i}`$ and $`R_{,i}`$ are the effective temperature and radius of the illuminating stars in the central binary.

To compare the predictions of this simple model, we expect for optically thin observations at two different frequencies that:

$$F_{\nu _2}/F_{\nu _1}=(\nu _2/\nu _1)^p(B_{\nu _2}[T_{gr}]/B_{\nu _1}[T_{gr}])$$
(3)
We take Fν(100 $`\mu `$m) as measured in the large IRAS beam and compare with Fν(850 $`\mu `$m) as measured within the 12$`\mathrm{}`$ diameter JCMT beam to derive an upper bound for the grain temperature at 6$`\mathrm{}`$ from the star as expected from equation (3) for both $`p`$ = 0 and $`p`$ = 1. Especially for 3 Pup and SS Lep, if $`p`$ = 1, the predicted value of $`T_{gr}`$ of $``$ 120 K is significantly larger than the inferred value of $``$ 45 K. That is, “small” particles, by themselves, with $`p`$ = 1 cannot be cold enough within the beam of the JCMT to explain the relatively strong submillimeter fluxes. In contrast, models with at least some particles with $`p`$ = 0 can fit the data.

If the grains are spheres of radius $`a`$, then the requirement that $`p`$ = 0 implies that $`a`$ $`>`$ $`\lambda `$/(2$`\pi )`$. For $`\lambda `$ = 850 $`\mu `$m, then $`a`$ $`>`$ 0.1 mm. If the grains are orbiting the central binary, then if the disk is optically thin, in order for the gravitational attraction to be larger than the outward force of radiation pressure,

$$a>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}L_{}/(16\pi GM_{}c\rho _s)$$
(4)
where $`M_{}`$ is the summed mass of the binary and $`\rho _s`$ is the matter density of the grains which we take equal to 3 g cm-3. For SS Lep, with $`M_{}`$ $``$ 3 M (see Pols et al. 1991), then $`a`$ $`>`$ 0.2 mm.

## 5 DUST DISK PARAMETERS

A natural explanation for the presence of large amounts of cold, large grains is that the particles reside in long-lived disks. Measurements of the submillimeter fluxes allow estimates for the disk parameters. For SS Lep, with Fν(1350 $`\mu `$m) = 25 mJy, in order to have a brightness temperature less than 1000 K, the approximate sublimation temperature of the grains, the disk radius inner radius must be larger than 7 $`\times `$ 1013 cm. This size is greater than the binary separation of 1.5 $`\times `$ 1013 cm if the orbital inclination is 33 (Welty & Wade 1995); the particles must be circumbinary. The inner disk temperature of 450 K derived from the IRAS data (Fajardo-Acosta & Knacke 1995) implies that the inner radius of the disk, $`R_{in}`$, is 3 $`\times `$ 1014 cm if $`p`$ = 0.

The mass of the grains, $`M_{dust}`$, that are emitting at wavelength $`\lambda `$ can be estimated by using the Rayleigh-Jeans approximation that:

$$M_{dust}=(F_\nu \lambda ^2D_{}^2)/(2kT_{gr}\chi _\nu )$$
(5)
where $`D_{}`$ is the distance from the Earth to the star and $`\chi _\nu `$ is the opacity (cm2 g-1) of the material. We adopt $`\chi _\nu `$ (850 $`\mu `$m) $``$ 3 cm2 g-1 (Pollack et al. 1994). Assuming an average value of the grain temperature in the telescope beam of 100 K, the mass in dust, $`M_{dust}`$, is given for each star in Table 1. In every case, $`M_{dust}`$ $``$ 5 $`\times `$ 1028 g.

In a “detached shell” model similar to that proposed by van der Veen et al. (1994), we assume that $`p`$ = 1, and in Table 1 we list the value of the radius of a detached dust shell, $`R_{det}`$, required for the grains to be as cold as the temperature, $`T_{meas}`$, to account for the observed value of Fν(850 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(100 $`\mu `$m). The values of $`R_{det}`$ are much larger than the projected radius of the JCMT beam, $`R_{JCMT}`$, for observations at 850 $`\mu `$m. Therefore, presuming that the JCMT observations have missed most of the submillimeter fluxes from the objects, we estimate the mass of the dust in such a hypothetical detached shell, $`M_{dust,det}`$ by the expression $`M_{dust,det}`$ = $`M_{dust}`$ $`(100/T_{meas})(R_{det}/R_{JCMT})^2`$ where $`M_{dust}`$ is derived from equation (5) and we assume the dust emits at temperature $`T_{meas}`$ instead of 100 K. The total mass of gas in the detached shell, $`M_{det}`$, is probably 100 $`M_{dust,det}`$, and the results for $`M_{det}`$ are shown in Table 1. The inferred masses in the hypothetical detached shell for SS Lep and 3 Pup are near 2 M and 80 M, respectively. If the detached shell is composed of atomic hydrogen, then we would expect a broad absorption line at Lyman $`\alpha `$ since the line photons that are “scattered” in the damping portion of the line profile ultimately are absorbed by dust grains. In fact, for SS Lep, Blondel et al. (1993) report emission at Lyman $`\alpha `$ within 2 Å of line center. With $`\tau `$(2 Å) = 1.1 $`\times `$ 10-20 $`N(H)`$ (Diplas & Savage 1994) where $`N(H)_{det}`$ (cm-2) is the gas column density through the detached shell or $`N(H)_{det}`$ = $`M_{det}/(4\pi m_HR_{det}^2)`$, where $`m_H`$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom, then with an estimate that $`\tau (2\AA )`$ $`<`$ 1, we find $`M_{det}`$ $`<`$ 0.30 M, nearly a factor of 10 smaller than required. The absence of CO emission toward SS Lep (Jura & Kahane 1999) argues against much H2 begin present. It seems unlikely that there are sufficiently massive detached shells around SS Lep and 3 Pup to explain the strong submillimeter continuum emission.

## 6 WIND FROM THE DISK?

Above, we have suggested that the fluxes at $`\lambda `$ $`>`$ 100 $`\mu `$m are produced by large particles in an orbiting disk. Here, we suggest that the fluxes produced at $`\lambda `$ $``$ 100 $`\mu `$m may be produced by winds from these disks. At least for SS Lep, the M-type companion probably is too warm and its luminosity is too low to have a stellar wind with enough dust to account for the infrared fluxes detected by IRAS. The red giant in SS Lep has spectral type M4 (Welty & Wade 1995) while in symbiotic systems with large amounts of dust, the cool mass-losing red giant stars usually are M6 or later (Kenyon, Fernandez-Castro & Stencel 1988, Murset & Schmid 1999). Also, in Figure 2, we display $`F_\nu `$(12 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(2.2 $`\mu `$m) vs. $`M_K`$ for all the red giants in the Bright Star Catalog with (B-V) $``$ 1.5 mag for which distances are measured with $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠}`$ and for which the infrared fluxes are reported in the standard catalogs listed in the Figure Caption. Most of the stars display a value for this ratio characteristic of their photospheric emission. The stars with a 12 $`\mu `$m excess all have $`M_K`$ $`<`$ -6.5 mag while SS Lep has $`M(K)`$ = -5.9. Furthermore, even the stars with $`M_K`$ $`<`$ -6.5 mag have values of $`F_\nu `$(12 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(2.2 $`\mu `$m) less than that for SS Lep.

A source of the wind could be grain-grain collisions by the large particles in the disk which may produce small particles which are driven out of the system by radiation pressure as they absorb and reprocess the light from the central star. In this picture, the mass loss rate in a disk wind, $`\dot{M}_{wind}`$, can be written as (Jura et al. 2000):

$$\dot{M}_{wind}=(L_{IR}/L_{})[(2\pi R_{in}L_{})/(c\overline{\chi })]^{1/2}$$
(6)
where $`(L_{IR}/L_{})`$ represents the fractional infrared excess radiated by the stellar wind and $`\overline{\chi }`$ is the average optical opacity of the small grains in the wind. For all three stars in Table 1, if we assume that the IRAS fluxes are produced by dust in the wind, then $`(L_{IR}/L_{})`$ $``$ 0.1. We adopt $`R_{in}`$ = 3 $`\times `$ 1014 cm for SS Lep, and assume that $`R_{in}`$ scales as $`L_{}^{1/2}`$ for the other two stars. Finally, $`\overline{\chi }`$ $``$ 2.5 $`\times `$ 104 cm2 g-1 (Jura et al. 2000). With these parameters, values of $`\dot{M}_{wind}`$ are given in Table 1; the minimum value is 5 $`\times `$ 1017 g s-1. The nominal lifetime of the disk, $`t_{life}`$, equals $`M_{disk}/\dot{M}_{wind}`$, and, as listed in Table 1, is between 103 and 104 yr. These are minimum ages because mass may be stored in particles $``$ 0.01 cm which are not detected in the submillimeter measurements. In a disk with a lifetime of 1000 yr and a radius of 3 $`\times `$ 1014 cm, particles as large as 0.01 cm in radius can grow by coagulation (see Jura et al. 2000). Evidence for grain evolution around SS Lep is that its 10 $`\mu `$m silicate feature is unusually broad and may indicate the presence of crystalline silicates (Fajardo-Acosta & Knacke 1995), a possible signature of a long-lived disk (Molster et al. 1999).

## 7 CONCLUSIONS

We have detected mm and sub-mm continuum emission from two evolved binaries, SS Lep and 3 Pup, and also possibly from BM Gem.

1. This continuum is probably produced by emission from dust colder than $``$ 70 K lying within 6$`\mathrm{}`$ of the star and can be explained if the dust particles are at least as large as 0.1 mm in radius.

2. We propose that there are circumbinary orbiting disks of at least 5 $`\times `$ 1028 g and that the “large” particles have grown by coagulation in this disk. These disks may have winds with mass loss rates of $``$ 5 $`\times `$ 1017 g s-1 and lifetimes $``$ 2000 yr.

This work has been partly supported by NASA. We thank the JCMT staff for their help in acquiring the service mode observations.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1. A plot of the observed spectral energy distribution for SS Lep with the lower-frequency points labeled by their wavelength ($`\mu `$m). The mm and sum-mm points are from this paper. We use the IRAS data for the fluxes from 100 $`\mu `$m to 12 $`\mu `$m, the Two Micron Sky Survey for the flux at 2.2 $`\mu `$m, the Hipparcos photometry for B and V magnitudes and the TD-1 satellite photometry for the ultraviolet data. The solid and dashed lines show the fluxes for the two stars in the system assumed to be black bodies. An extinction law that varies as $`\nu ^{+1}`$ with $`A_V`$ = 0.4 mag is assumed. The dotted line shows the IRAS and sub-mm (Knapp, Sandell & Robson 1993) fluxes for VY CMa scaled by a factor of 0.0109. The dot-dashed line shows the IRAS and sub-mm (Jura & Turner 1998, Van der Veen et al. 1994) fluxes for the Red Rectangle scaled by a factor of 0.159. The errors are smaller than the squares.
Fig 2. Plot of $`M_K`$ vs. Fν(12 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(2.2 $`\mu `$m) for stars in the Bright Star Catalog with (B-V) $``$ 1.50 mag, parallaxes measured to better than 1$`\sigma `$ with the $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠}`$ satellite, 2.2 $`\mu `$m fluxes from the Two Micron Sky Survey (Neugebauer & Leighton 1969) and non color-corrected 12 $`\mu `$m fluxes from the IRAS survey. Most of the stars exhibit photospheric values of Fν(12 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(2.2 $`\mu `$m); but some stars with $`M_K`$ $`<`$ -6.5 display an excess at 12 $`\mu `$m caused by dust emission. The unique position of SS Lep in this diagram for $``$500 stars is evident, with its large 12 $`\mu `$m flux perhaps arising from a disk wind.

Table 1 – Stellar Properties, Observations and Model Results    Property SS Lep 3 Pup BM Gem  $`D_{}`$(kpc) 0.33a 2.1b 1.5c  $`T_{}`$ (K) (component A) 9000d 9000 3000  $`T_{}`$ (K) (component B) 3500e ? ?  $`R_{}`$ (1012 cm) (component A) 1.1 9.5 30  $`R_{}`$ (1012 cm) (component B) 7.4 ? ?  $`L_{}`$ (103 L) (component A) 1.5 110 13  $`L_{}`$ (103 L) (component B) 1.5 ? ?  Fν(100 $`\mu `$m)f (Jy) 3.8 7.3 1.3  Fν(450 $`\mu `$m)g (mJy) 148 (23) 189 (48) 24 (13)  Fν(850 $`\mu `$m)g (mJy) 58.6 (2.1) 81.4 (3.3) 6.6 (1.9)  Fν(1350 $`\mu `$m)g (mJy) 25.4 (2.4) 46.2 (3.3) 5 (2)  $`T_{pred}^h`$ (K), $`p`$ = 1 123 $``$130 $``$79  $`T_{meas}^i`$ (K), $`p`$ = 1 $``$ 38 $``$ 44 $``$ 67  $`T_{pred}^h`$ (K), $`p`$ = 0 46 45 32  $`T_{meas}^i`$ (K), $`p`$ = 0 $``$600 $`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{}`$  $`M_{dust}^j`$ (1028 g) 5 300 10  $`R_{det}^k`$ (1017 cm) 5.6 28 2.0  $`M_{det}^l`$ (M) 2.3 77 0.01  $`\dot{M}_{wind}^m`$ (1017 g s-1) 5 75 15  $`t_{life}`$ (1000 yr) $``$3 $``$13 $``$2

a from $`\mathrm{𝐻𝑖𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑠}`$; b Plets et al. (1995); cKahane et al. (1998); dBlondel et al. (1993); e extrapolated from Dyck, Van Belle & Thompson (1998); fmeasurement from IRAS; gfluxes from this work; the numbers in parenthesis are the 1$`\sigma `$ rms noise errors for each measurement and do not include uncertainties in the calibration (see text). hpredicted temperature at 6$`\mathrm{}`$ from the system from equation (2) and the stellar parameters given in this Table; iinferred temperature from equation (3) and Fν(850 $`\mu `$m)/Fν(100 $`\mu `$m) from above ; jDust mass from equation (5) with the assumption that $`p`$ = 0 and using the observed flux at 850 $`\mu `$m; kradius of a detached shell where the grain temperature is expected to be as low as $`T_{meas}`$ for $`p`$ = 1; linferred mass of a detached shell; mfrom equation (6)


format: text

text:
# Fragmentation Functions for Lepton Pairs

## Abstract

We calculate the fragmentation function for a light quark to decay into a lepton pair to leading order in the QCD coupling constant. In the formal definition of the fragmentation function, a QED phase must be included in the eikonal factor to guarantee QED gauge invariance. We find that the longitudinal polarization fraction is a decreasing function of the factorization scale, in accord with the intuitive expectation that the virtual photon should behave more and more like a real photon as the transverse momomentum of the fragmenting quark increases.

PACS numbers: 13.85.Qk, 12.38.-t, 13.87.Fh, 13.88.+e

preprint:    IPPP/01/04  DCPT/01/08  hep-ph/0102130  February 2001

The QCD factorization theorems for inclusive single-particle production  guarantee that the differential cross section at sufficiently large transverse momentum $`P_T`$ has the approximate scaling behavior $`d\sigma /dP_T^21/P_T^4`$. The scaling part of the differential cross section for producing the particle $`H`$ with momentum $`P`$ has the form

$$d\sigma [H(P)]=\underset{i}{}_0^1𝑑z𝑑\widehat{\sigma }[i(P/z),\mu ]D_{iH}(z,\mu ),$$
(1)
where the sum is over partons $`i`$ and $`d\widehat{\sigma }`$ is the differential cross section for producing an on-shell parton $`i`$ with momentum $`P/z`$. The fragmentation function $`D_{iH}`$ gives the probability for a virtual parton with invariant mass of order $`\mu `$ to decay into a state that includes a particle $`H`$ with the fraction $`z`$ of the longitudinal momentum of the parton. The $`\mu `$-dependence of the fragmentation functions is governed by Altarelli-Parisi evolution equations whose kernels can be calculated using perturbation theory. Large logarithms of $`z\mu /P_T`$ in $`d\widehat{\sigma }`$ can be summed up by taking $`\mu `$ of order $`P_T/z`$.

The factorization formula (1) can serve as an operational definition of the fragmentation functions. However, the fragmentation functions can also be given formal definitions as vacuum-to-vacuum matrix elements of operators that involve projections onto asymptotic states that include the particle $`H`$. Curci, Furmanski, and Petronzio defined them as matrix elements of bilocal operators in the light-cone gauge . Collins and Soper introduced gauge-invariant definitions of the fragmentation functions . They are defined as matrix elements of nonlocal gauge-invariant operators that involve a path-ordered exponential of the gluon field called an eikonal factor:

$$=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(ig𝑑ln^\mu A_\mu ^aT^a\right),$$
(2)
where $`T^a`$ is a generator of the appropriate representation of the gauge group. In the light-cone gauge $`n^\mu A_\mu ^a=0`$, the eikonal factor collapses to 1 and the definition reduces to that of Curci, Furmanski, and Petronzio.

In the case of a light hadron $`H`$, the fragmentation function $`D_{iH}`$ cannot be calculated using perturbative methods. However, once $`D_{iH}(z,\mu _0)`$ has been measured as a function of $`z`$ at some initial scale $`\mu _0`$, the Altarelli-Parisi equations can be used to evolve it to other scales $`\mu `$. An analysis of the fragmentation functions for light hadrons has recently been used to obtain a high-precision determination of the QCD coupling constant .

In the case of a heavy quarkonium state $`H`$, the fragmentation functions can be calculated using perturbation theory up to a few nonperturbative constants. The NRQCD factorization formalism  can be used to express the fragmentation function in the form

$$D_{iH}(z,\mu )=\underset{n}{}d_{i(Q\overline{Q})_n}(z,\mu )O_n^H,$$
(3)
where the sum is over color and angular momentum states of a $`Q\overline{Q}`$ pair and the constants $`O_n^H`$ are called NRQCD matrix elements. The coefficients $`d_{i(Q\overline{Q})_n}`$ of the NRQCD matrix elements can be calculated using perturbation theory. The first explicit calculations were the coefficients of $`O_1(^1S_0)`$ in the fragmentation functions for $`g\eta _c`$ and $`c\eta _c`$ and the coefficients of $`O_1(^3S_1)`$ in the fragmentation functions for $`gJ/\psi `$ and $`cJ/\psi `$ . They were calculated by Braaten, Cheung, and Yuan using the operational definition of the fragmentation functions provided by the factorization theorem (1). The first explicit calculations using the formal definition of the fragmentation functions were carried out by Ma . The formal definition is particularly useful for calculating the fragmentation functions beyond leading order in $`\alpha _s`$ .

The factorization theorems for inclusive single-hadron production can be applied equally well to photon production and to lepton-pair production. They imply that at sufficiently large $`Q_T`$, where $`Q_T`$ is the transverse momentum of the photon or lepton pair, the differential cross section has the approximate scaling behavior $`d\sigma /dQ_T^21/Q_T^4`$. The scaling part of the differential cross section has the form (1). At leading order in the QED interaction, only a photon term needs to be added to the sum over partons $`i`$. The fragmentation functions $`D_{q\gamma }`$ and $`D_{g\gamma }`$ for real photons are nonperturbative, and only their evolution with $`\mu `$ is calculable in perturbation theory. The same is true of the fragmentation functions for a lepton pair with invariant mass $`Q`$ comparable to the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ associated with nonperturbative effects in QCD. On the other hand, if $`Q`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the fragmentation functions $`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}`$ and $`D_{g\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}`$ are completely calculable using perturbative QCD. Qiu and Zhang have recently introduced formal definitions for “virtual photon fragmentation functions” $`D_{q\gamma ^{}}`$ and $`D_{g\gamma ^{}}`$ that are equivalent to fragmentation functions for lepton pairs .

In this paper, we calculate the fragmentation function $`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}`$ for a quark to decay into a lepton pair with large invariant mass at leading order in QCD perturbation theory. We calculate the fragmentation function using both dimensional regularization and an upper limit on the invariant mass of the fragmenting quark. We find that the fragmentation function defined by dimensional regularization has unphysical behavior except at asymptotic values of the factorization scale. The fragmentation function defined by the upper limit on the invariant mass gives a longitudinal polarization fraction that decreases as the factorization scale increases, in accord with the intuitive expectation that the virtual photon should behave more and more like a real photon as the transverse momentum of the fragmenting parton increases.

The fragmentation function for $`q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ can be calculated using the operational definition provided by the factorization theorem, as in Refs. . The Feynman diagrams for producing a lepton pair with large transverse momentum $`Q_T`$ include some with the topology shown in Fig. 1, where the blob represents the parts of the diagram that involve the production of the virtual quark. The terms in the matrix element that corresponding to the fragmentation of a light quark with electric charge $`e_q`$ have the form

$$=\frac{1}{k^2}\overline{u}(k^{})(ie_qe\gamma _\mu )\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{iG_{\mu \nu }}{Q^2}\overline{u}(q_1)(ie\gamma _\nu )v(q_2),$$
(4)
where $`k`$, $`k^{}`$, $`q_1`$, $`q_2`$, and $`Q=q_1+q_2`$ are the momenta of the virtual quark, the final-state quark, the positive lepton, the negative lepton, and the lepton pair, respectively. The factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the $`4\times 1`$ Dirac spinor associated with the blob in Fig. 1, from which the virtual quark emerges. If we choose a covariant gauge for QED, the numerator factor in the photon propagator reduces to $`G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }`$. However, if we square the matrix element (4) and integrate over phase space, isolating those terms with the proper scaling behavior at large $`Q_T`$, we will not get the correct fragmentation function. The reason is that in a covariant gauge, there are diagrams that do not have the topology of Fig. 1, but still contribute to the scaling part of the cross section. In order to extract the complete scaling contribution, it is necessary to use a light-cone gauge in which the numerator of the photon propagator has the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{Q_\mu n_\nu +n_\mu Q_\nu }{nQ},$$
(5)
where $`n`$ is the light-like vector that defines the longitudinal momentum fraction of the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ pair: $`z=nQ/nk`$. Note that the $`n_\mu Q_\nu `$ term in (5) does not contribute to the matrix element (4), because the leptons are on-shell. However, the $`Q_\mu n_\nu `$ term does contribute, because the decaying quark is virtual. The calculations of the fragmentation functions for $`c\eta _c,J/\psi `$ in Ref.  involved diagrams with the topology of Fig. 1, except they had a virtual gluon instead of a virtual photon. The authors calculated the diagram using the light-cone gauge propagator for the gluon. In a calculation using the formal definition, the contributions corresponding to the additional terms in the light-cone gauge propagator come from diagrams in which the virtual gluon is emitted by a gluon field from the eikonal factor (2).

If the fragmentation function for a lepton pair is calculated using the formal definition, it is necessary to generalize the QCD eikonal factor in (2) to include a phase from the photon field. In the fragmentation function for a quark with electric charge $`e_q`$, the eikonal factor becomes

$$=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(ig𝑑ln^\mu A_\mu ^aT^a+ie_qe𝑑ln^\mu A_\mu \right).$$
(6)
At leading order in $`\alpha _s`$, the $`q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ fragmentation function is given by the square of the sum of the Feynman diagrams in Fig. 2. The circles represent quark operators, and the double lines represent the eikonal factor. A convenient set of Feynman rules for calculating fragmentation functions is given in Ref. . The contributions that correspond to the additional term in the light-cone gauge propagator (5) for the photon are provided by the diagram in Fig. 2b in which the virtual photon is emitted by a photon field from the eikonal factor (6).

In the calculation of the fragmentation function for $`q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, the integral over the relative momenta of the lepton pair for fixed total momentum $`Q`$ gives the tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }+Q^\mu Q^\nu /Q^2`$. In Ref. , Qiu and Zhang decomposed this tensor into two terms that correspond to the polarization tensors for virtual photons that are transversely and longitudinally polarized with respect to the direction of the momentum of the lepton pair in a particular frame:

$$g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{Q^\mu Q^\nu }{Q^2}=\left(g^{\mu \nu }+\frac{n^\mu \overline{n}^\nu +\overline{n}^\mu n^\nu }{2}\right)+\left(\frac{Q^\mu Q^\nu }{Q^2}\frac{n^\mu \overline{n}^\nu +\overline{n}^\mu n^\nu }{2}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\overline{n}`$ is a conjugate light-like vector satisfying $`n\overline{n}=2`$. The frame chosen in Ref.  is the one in which the perpendicular momenta of the decaying quark and the lepton pair are $`k_{}^{}=Q_{}/z`$ and $`Q_{}^{}=0`$. In this frame, the second tensor on the right side of (7) can be expressed as $`ϵ_L^\mu ϵ_L^\nu `$, where the polarization vector $`ϵ_L^\mu `$ is proportional to $`(nQ)^2\overline{n}^\mu Q^2n^\mu `$. This choice for the decomposition into transverse and longitudinal contributions is rather artificial, but we will adopt it in order to compare our results with those of Ref. .

We proceed to calculate the fragmentation functions from the square of the sum of the two Feynman diagrams in Fig. 2. We use dimensional regularization in $`42ϵ`$ space-time dimensions to regularize ultraviolet divergences. The fragmentation function can be expressed as an integral over the invariant mass $`Q^2`$ of the lepton pair:

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{(0)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{Ce_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2(1z)+(1ϵ)z^2}{z^2}}[zf_1(z)f_2(z)]`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1z)}{z^2}}f_2(z)\},`$ (9)
where $`C`$ is a constant that reduces to 1 as $`ϵ0`$:

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)2^{2ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}{(12ϵ)(1\frac{2}{3}ϵ)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}ϵ)}}.`$ (10)
In (9), there is an implicit lower limit on $`Q^2`$ that is large enough that a perturbative calculation of the QCD corrections would be reliable. The two terms in the integrand correspond to transversely and longitudinally polarized photons, respectively. The functions $`f_n(z)`$ can be expressed as integrals over the perpendicular components $`𝐐_{}`$ of the momentum of the lepton pair. Equivalently, they can be expressed as integrals over the invariant mass $`s`$ of the decaying quark, which is related to $`𝐐_{}`$ by light-cone energy conservation:

$`s={\displaystyle \frac{Q^2+Q_{}^2}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^2}{1z}}.`$ (11)
This implies the lower limit $`s>Q^2/z`$. The functions $`f_n(z)`$ in (9) are given by

$`f_n(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ϵ)}}[z(1z)]^ϵ{\displaystyle _{1/z}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{(y1/z)^ϵ}{y^n}},`$ (12)
where $`y=s/Q^2`$. They can be evaluated analytically:

$`f_n(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n1+ϵ)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}}z^{n1}(1z)^ϵ.`$ (13)
The function $`f_1(z)`$ in (9) has a pole in $`ϵ`$. This ultraviolet divergence is cancelled by the renormalization of the composite operator in the definition of the fragmentation function. The renormalized fragmentation function in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme is

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{\overline{MS}}(z,\mu )=D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{(0)}(z){\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi e^\gamma )^ϵ}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2\alpha }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _z^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}P_{q\gamma }(z/y)D_{\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}(y),`$ (14)
where $`P_{q\gamma }`$ is the splitting function

$`P_{q\gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}},`$ (15)
and $`D_{\gamma \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}`$ is the fragmentation function for a photon to decay into a lepton pair:

$`D_{\gamma e^+e^{}}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{C\alpha }{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\left(\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{Q^2}\right)^ϵ\delta (1z)}.`$ (16)
The coefficient $`C`$ is given in (10). Our final result for the $`\overline{MS}`$ fragmentation function is obtained by taking the limit $`ϵ0`$ in (14):

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{\overline{MS}}(z,\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\left\{\left[\frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mu ^2}{(1z)Q^2}1\right)z\right]+\frac{2(1z)}{z}\right\}}.`$ (17)
The two terms in the integrand correspond to transversely and longitudinally polarized photons, respectively.

In Ref. , Qiu and Zhang defined their fragmentation functions by imposing the constraint $`s<\mu _F^2`$ on the invariant mass of the decaying quark, which sets the upper limit $`y<\mu _F^2/Q^2`$ on the integral in (12). This eliminates ultraviolet divergences, so we can set $`ϵ=0`$. The results for the integrals are then

$`f_0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z\mu _F^2}{Q^2}}1\right)\theta (\mu _F^2Q^2/z),`$ (18)
$`f_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mu _F^2}{Q^2}}\theta (\mu _F^2Q^2/z),`$ (19)
$`f_2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`z\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{z\mu _F^2}}\right)\theta (\mu _F^2Q^2/z).`$ (20)
The resulting expression for the fragmentation function is

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}(z,\mu _F)={\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}}\theta (\mu _F^2Q^2/z)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mu _F^2}{Q^2}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{z\mu _F^2}})`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1z)}{z}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{z\mu _F^2}})\}.`$ (22)
This result has been confirmed by Qiu and Zhang . If we take the formal limit $`\mu _F^2Q^2/z`$ in (22), the $`\theta `$ function becomes 1 and the resulting expression differs from (17) only in the argument of the logarithm and in the coefficient of the $`z`$ term. The arguments of the logarithm are the same if we make the identification $`\mu _F^2=\mu ^2/(z(1z))`$. This can be understood by examining the expression (11) for the invariant mass of the decaying virtual quark. It suggests that the scale $`\mu `$ of dimensional regularization should be identified not with a cutoff on the invariant mass of the virtual quark, but with a cutoff on the perpendicular momentum $`Q_{}`$ of the lepton pair. The difference between the coefficients of the $`z`$ term comes from the $`ϵzf_1(z)`$ term in (9), which reduces to $`z`$ in the limit $`ϵ0`$. On the other hand, if we impose an invariant-mass cutoff $`\mu _F`$ and set $`ϵ=0`$, this term vanishes. Taking the limit $`\mu _FQ`$ with $`z`$ fixed in (22) corresponds simply to an alternative ultraviolet cutoff. The fragmentation function should then differ from (17) by a finite renormalization of the composite operator in the definition of the fragmentation function. This finite renormalization corresponds to adding the term $`ϵz`$ to the splitting function $`P_{q\gamma }`$ in (14).

One advantage of the fragmentation function (22) defined by an upper limit on the invariant mass is that it builds in threshold effects and the constraints of energy conservation associated with the decay of a virtual quark with invariant mass $`\mu _F`$. This might be useful for quantitative applications of the fragmentation function. In Fig. 3, we compare the differential fragmentation functions $`Q^2dD(z)/dQ^2`$ corresponding to (22) with invariant mass cutoff $`\mu _F`$ and (17) with renormalization scale $`\mu ^2=z(1z)\mu _F^2`$. We set $`e_q=+\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\alpha =\frac{1}{137}`$. We choose $`Q=5`$ GeV and consider 2 values of $`\mu _F`$: $`\mu _F=10`$ GeV in Fig. 3a and $`\mu _F=50`$ GeV in Fig. 3b. The fragmentation function defined by $`s<\mu _F^2`$ is 0 below the threshold at $`z=Q^2/\mu _F^2`$ and is positive for larger values of $`z`$. The fragmentation function defined by dimensional regularization has unphysical negative values over part of its range as can be seen in Fig. 3. As $`z1`$, it remains positive only if $`\mu _F>\mathrm{exp}(1)Q`$. As $`z0`$, it is negative for all $`\mu _F`$, diverging like $`\mathrm{ln}(z\mu _F^2/Q^2)/z`$. For large enough values of $`\mu _F/Q`$ as in Fig. 3b, the two fragmentation functions look similar except that one vanishes for $`z<Q^2/\mu _F^2`$ and the other becomes negative in that region. If we keep $`\mu `$ fixed in (17) instead of $`\mu _F`$, the fragmentation function still exhibits unphysical behavior. It is positive-definite if $`\mu >Q`$, but it diverges like $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/Q^2)/z`$ as $`z0`$ and like $`\mathrm{ln}(\mu ^2/((1z)Q^2))`$ as $`z1`$. We conclude that the fragmentation function (17) defined by dimensional regularization is of little practical use. It is essential to take into account threshold effects in some way, such as by imposing an upper limit on the invariant mass as in (22).

If the QED phase in the eikonal factor (6) is omitted in the formal definition of the fragmentation function, $`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{(0)}`$ is given by the square of the Feynman diagram in Fig. 2a. The resulting expression is not gauge invariant, but it is independent of the gauge parameter for covariant gauges. Using dimensional regularization, we obtain

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}^{(0)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{Ce_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{Q^2}}\right)^{2ϵ}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2(1z)+(1ϵ)z^2}{z^2}}[zf_1(z)f_2(z)]`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1z}{2z^2}}[z^2f_0(z)4zf_1(z)+4f_2(z)]\}.`$ (24)
The two terms in the integrand correspond to transversely and longitudinally polarized photons, respectively. The transverse term is identical to that in (17). This follows from the fact that the Feynman rule for the emission of a virtual photon from the eikonal line in Fig. 2b is proportional to $`n^\mu `$, which is orthogonal to the transverse tensor in (7). Thus the omission of the diagram in Fig. 2b can only affect the longitudinal term. With dimensional regularization, the function $`f_0(z)`$ vanishes, as is evident from (13). The function $`f_1(z)`$ has a pole in $`ϵ`$. In the transverse term, the pole can be removed by the renormalization (14). However, there is also a pole in the longitudinal term that is not removed by renormalization of the composite operator. This failure of renormalization is the signal that the definition of the fragmentation function that omits the QED phase in the eikonal factor is inconsistent.

In Fig. 4, we compare the transverse and longitudinal contributions to the fragmentation function (22) calculated using an invariant-mass cutoff. We choose $`Q=5`$ GeV and consider 2 values of $`\mu _F`$: $`\mu _F=10`$ GeV in Fig. 4a and $`\mu _F=50`$ GeV in Fig. 4b. The dashed curves labelled $`T`$ and $`L`$ are the transverse and longitudinal contributions given by the two terms in (22). Their sum is the solid curve. The longitudinal polarization dominates just above the threshold at $`z=Q^2/\mu _F^2`$, because the longitudinal term increases linearly in $`zQ^2/\mu _F^2`$ while the transverse term increases quadratically. The transverse polarization dominates at large $`z`$, because the longitudinal term vanishes at $`z=1`$.

We can define a longitudinal polarization fraction $`\xi `$ by dividing the longitudinal fragmentation probability by the total fragmentation probability for lepton pairs of invariant mass $`Q^2`$. The fragmentation probability is proportional to the integral over $`z`$ of $`dD(z)/dQ^2`$. The longitudinal polarization fraction for $`Q=5`$ GeV decreases from $`\xi =0.56`$ at $`\mu _F=10`$ GeV to 0.34 at $`\mu _F=50`$ GeV and to 0.23 at $`\mu _F=250`$ GeV. This is in accord with the intuition that the virtual photon should behave more and more like a real photon as $`\mu _F`$ increases.

The longitudinal polarization fraction defined by the ratio of fragmentation probabilities decreases rather slowly with $`\mu _F`$. However a more relevant measure of the polarization is the ratio of the second moments of the fragmentation functions. The reason is that the hard-scattering cross section $`d\widehat{\sigma }`$ scales like $`1/(Q_T/z)^2`$, and this weights the fragmentation function by $`z^2`$. The longitudinal polarization fraction for $`Q=5`$ GeV defined by the ratio of the second moments decreases from $`\xi =0.43`$ at $`\mu _F=10`$ GeV to 0.15 at $`\mu _F=50`$ GeV and to 0.08 at $`\mu _F=250`$ GeV.

An important observable in lepton pair production is the angular distribution of the momentum of one of the leptons in the rest frame of the lepton pair. The angular distribution is proportional to $`1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle between the momentum $`𝐪_1`$ of the negative lepton and some quantization axis. The polarization variable $`\alpha `$ is related to the fraction $`\xi `$ of lepton pairs that come from longitudinally polarized virtual photons by $`\alpha =(13\xi )/(1+\xi )`$. The fraction $`\xi `$ depends on the choice of quantization axis. The choice adopted in Ref.  is rather artificial, because it requires specifying the transverse momentum of the fragmenting quark which is not easily observed. In the case of a hadron collider, a more physical choice for the quantization axis is the direction of the momentum $`𝐐`$ of the lepton pair in the rest frame of the colliding hadrons. In this case, the longitudinal polarization vector $`ϵ_L^\mu `$ is a linear combination of $`Q`$ and the total momentum $`K`$ of the colliding hadrons:

$$ϵ_L^\mu =\frac{Q^2K^\mu (KQ)Q^\mu }{[(KQ)^2K^2Q^2]^{1/2}[Q^2]^{1/2}}.$$
(25)
The contribution to the fragmentation function from longitudinally polarized virtual photons can be obtained by replacing the lepton tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }+Q^\mu Q^\nu /Q^2`$ by $`ϵ_L^\mu ϵ_L^\nu `$. The resulting expression for the fragmentation function depends explicitly on $`k_+=kn`$:

$`D_{q(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_L}(z,\mu _F)={\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\frac{2(1z)}{z^2}f_2(z,\mu _F/Q,Q/k_+)},`$ (26)
where $`f_2`$ is a function of $`z`$, $`\mu _F/Q`$, and $`Q/k_+`$:

$`f_2(z,\mu _F/Q,Q/k_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{1/z}^{\mu _F^2/Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[zy(Q/k_+)^2]^2}{[z+(1+yyz)(Q/k_+)^2]^24(Q/k_+)^2}}.`$ (27)
In the limit $`k_+Q`$, this reduces to (20). The complete fragmentation function summed over polarizations is independent of $`Q/k_+`$ and is given by (22):

$`D_{q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}(z,\mu _F)={\displaystyle \frac{e_q^2\alpha ^2}{6\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\theta (\mu _F^2Q^2/z)\left\{\frac{1+(1z)^2}{z}\mathrm{ln}\frac{z\mu _F^2}{Q^2}z\left(1\frac{Q^2}{z\mu _F^2}\right)\right\}}.`$ (28)
In the frame defined by $`𝐊=0`$, $`k_+`$ is the sum of the energy and momentum of an on-shell quark produced by some hard scattering. A reasonable choice for $`\mu _F`$ is the transverse momentum of that quark, give or take a factor of 2.

The NRQCD factorization approach predicts that the $`1^{}`$ quarkonium states should become increasingly transversely polarized as their transverse momentum $`P_T`$ increases . Quantitative predictions of the polarization of the $`\psi (2S)`$ , $`J/\psi `$ , and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$  indicate that the increase in the polarization should set in at values of $`P_T`$ that are accessible at the Tevatron. The present data on the polarization of $`J/\psi `$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ from the CDF collaboration  seem to indicate a decrease in the transverse polarization at large $`P_T`$, although in both cases the discrepancy with the prediction is significant only in the largest $`P_T`$ bin. The argument that the tranverse polarization of $`J/\psi `$ or $`\psi (2S)`$ should increase with $`P_T`$ is completely analogous to the corresponding argument for lepton pairs, except that it involves a virtual gluon instead of a virtual photon. There are many effects that could dilute the transverse polarization or delay the onset of the predicted increase. However no plausible mechanisms have been identified that could make it decrease with $`P_T`$. We expect that more accurate measurements from Run II of the Tevatron will reveal the increase in transverse polarization predicted by NRQCD.

In conclusion, we have calculated the fragmentation function for a light quark to decay into a lepton pair to leading order in $`\alpha _s`$. For renormalizability and for QED gauge invariance, it is essential to include a QED phase in the eikonal factor in the formal definition of the fragmentation function. Berger, Gordon, and Klasen  have shown that the distribution of the transverse momentum $`Q_T`$ of lepton pairs in hadron collisions is dominated by parton processes initiated by gluons if $`Q_T>Q/2`$. The $`Q_T`$ distribution can therefore provide useful constraints on the parton distribution for gluons. Our fragmentation function for $`q\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ may be useful for calculating the $`Q_T`$ distribution in the limit $`Q_TQ`$.

J.L. thanks the IPPP at University of Durham and the High Energy Theory Group at Ohio State University for their hospitality while this work was being carried out. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-91-ER40690 and by the KOSEF and the DFG through the German-Korean scientific exchange program DFG-446-KOR-113/137/0-1. We thank J.-W. Qiu for pointing out an error in the normalization of our fragmentation functions in a previous version of this paper.


text:
# Monitoring Single Scattering Events in Single Quantum Dots

## Abstract

The quantum-jump approach is used for a theoretical description of resonance luminescence from a single semiconductor quantum dot in contact with its solid-state environment. For continuous excitation of the single-exciton groundstate the luminescence exhibits bright periods, where photons are spontaneously emitted from the exciton decay, which are interrupted by dark periods when one electron or hole suffers a spin flip. It is shown that continuously monitored resonance luminescence provides a very sensitive measure of such rare single scattering events in quantum dots.

72.10.Di,03.65.Bz,71.35.Cc,85.30.Vw

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) consist of a small island of lower-bandgap material embedded in a solid-state matrix of higher-bandgap material . Proper choice of the material and dot parameters thus can give rise to confinement of a few carrier states within this lower-bandgap region. Because of the resulting discrete atomic-like density-of-states, semiconductor QDs have been referred to as artificial atoms. When optical experiments are performed on large QD ensembles, all the available samples still suffer from the effects of inhomogeneity and dispersion in dot size. A major advancement in the field has come from different types of local optical experiments, that allow the investigation of individual QDs: Extremely narrow linewidths have been reported from single-dot spectroscopy , and first time-resolved measurements indicate carrier lifetimes a few orders of magnitude larger than typically observed in semiconductors of higher dimension .

Theoretically the system dot interacting with environment is conveniently described within a density-matrix description . Adopting the approximation of Fermi’s golden rule, at each instant of time the dot system is then completely determined by its density matrix $`\rho `$ (with the diagonal and off-diagonal elements providing information about state occupation and coherence, respectively), and environment interactions are accounted for by instantaneous scattering events. Because of its statistical nature, the elements of $`\rho `$ have to be interpreted either as the ensemble average over a large number of identical dots, or, for ergodic systems, as the average over a sufficiently long measurement time. Apparently, when performing time-resolved measurements on single dots the situation is substantially different. Thus, the most interesting questions arise: Does the interpretation of optical experiments of single dots require theoretical concepts beyond the usual density-matrix description for the carrier dynamics in semiconductor nanostructures , and can time-resolved single-dot measurements provide additional information as opposed to ensemble-dot measurements?

As we will show in the following, the answer to both questions is: Yes. It is worth noting that related questions first arose almost a decade ago, when it became possible to store single ions in a Paul trap and to continuously monitor their resonance fluorescence (see Ref.  for a review). In the seminal work of Dalibard et al. , the authors showed for a V-scheme, where the groundstate $`0`$ of an atom is coupled to a short-lived state $`1`$ and to a metastable state $`2`$, that the fluorescence of the laser-driven system exhibits long dark periods, associated to the excitation of the extremely weak $`02`$ transition, which are followed by bright periods with many photon emissions from the decay of the short-lived state $`1`$.

In this paper, we propose to use continuous laser excitation and continuous monitoring of luminescence for the observation of single spin-flip processes in semiconductor QDs. Contrary to the proposal of Dalibard et al., within our scheme the rare scattering events originate from the coupling of the QD carriers to the elementary excitations of their solid-state environment. Thus, the dot serves as a sensor of its environment, which makes possible the observation of the otherwise almost inaccessible rare scattering events. Besides the most challenging prospect of measuring single scatterings in solid state , the long-lived spin excitations in QDs have recently attracted strong interest  because of their potential utilization for quantum-information processing .

Figure 1 sketches the proposed scheme: A single QD is located inside an ideal broadband counter with unit efficiency and coverage of all angles  (grey circle). Initially, all valence-band states of the dot are occupied and all conduction-band states are empty. When the pump laser $`\omega _p`$ is turned on, an electron is promoted from the valence to the conduction band, where the photogenerated electron and hole (i.e., the missing valence-band electron) have opposite spin orientations. Because of the coherence of the driving laser the system starts do undergo Rabi-type oscillations, i.e., the electron is transferred back and forth between the valence and conduction band. These oscillations are interrupted by spontaneous emissions of photons $`\gamma `$ from the decay of electron-hole (exciton) states $`X_{o,b}^\pm `$, where, after detection of $`\gamma `$, the system is reset back to the vacuum state, and the Rabi-type oscillations start again. After some time, however, due to environment coupling the spin of either the electron or hole is flipped (see $``$ in Fig. 1); since each QD state can be occupied at most by two carriers with opposite spin orientations, after such a spin flip the system becomes optically inactive (i.e., no further electron-hole pair can be excited by the pump laser). This can be also inferred from Fig. 2(a) which shows results of a simulation of resonance luminescence from a single QD (for details see further below): After turning on the pump pulse at time $`t=0`$, photons are emitted by spontaneous decay of $`X_{o,b}^\pm `$ and are detected as single photon counts. These bright periods are then interrupted by dark periods with zero photon count, which indicate the occurrence of a spin flip process. It finally requires a second spin flip to bring back the system to the bright sector, and to turn on luminescence again.

The theoretical framework accounting for the coherent laser excitation and the detection of single photon emissions is conveniently provided by the quantum-jump approach . Here, the central idea is that the broad-band photon counting can be approximately described by a series of repeated gedanken measurements at times $`t_n=n\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) , where as observable the projector on the photon vacuum $`IP_0=|0_\gamma \mathrm{𝟏}_{\text{dot}}0_\gamma |`$ indicates whether a photon has been emitted or not. If at time $`t_o`$ the system is described by the density matrix $`\rho _o`$, the density matrix at time $`t_n`$ provided that no photons have been emitted in the interval $`[t_o,t_n)`$ is given by :

$`\rho _{t_n}^{\text{(0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`IP_0U(t_n,t_{n1})\mathrm{}IP_0U(t_1,t_o)\rho _o`$ (2)
$`\times U^{}(t_1,t_o)IP_0\mathrm{}U^{}(t_n,t_{n1})IP_0,`$
where $`U(t_n,t_{n1})`$ is the time evolution operator from $`t_{n1}`$ to $`t_n`$, and the superscript on $`\rho ^{\text{(0)}}`$ indicates the requirement of no-photon emission. The quantity $`P_0(t)=\text{tr}(\rho _t^{\text{(0)}})`$ then gives the probability that, starting at time $`t_o`$ with $`\rho _o`$, no photons are emitted up to time $`t`$; apparently, $`P_0(t)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function since the probability of photon emission will increase with time. If finally at time $`t_n`$ a photon is detected, we know that the system has changed to the one-photon subspace $`\rho ^{\text{(1)}}`$ (we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ is short enough and only one photon is emitted per interval). What the photon detector does, however, is to absorb the photon and to reset the density matrix to :

$$|0_\gamma \text{tr}_\gamma (IP_1U(t_n,t_{n1})\rho _{t_{n1}}^{\text{(0)}}U^{}(t_n,t_{n1})IP_1)0_\gamma |/\text{tr}(),$$
(3)
with $`IP_1=\mathrm{𝟏}IP_0`$, and the denominator ensures that $`\text{tr}(\rho )=1`$ after detection of $`\gamma `$.

In this work we apply the above scheme to the resonance luminescence of exciton states in a single QD. Quite generally, the driving laser can not only excite single excitons but also multi-exciton states (e.g., biexcitons). Thus, we use $`x`$ to denote generic multi-exciton states, with $`N_x=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ the number of electron-hole pairs; the corresponding dot Hamiltonian is of the form $`_xE_x|xx|`$, with $`E_x`$ the multi-exciton energies. The coupling to the pump laser with electric field $`_p^\sigma (t)=_p^\sigma \mathrm{cos}(\omega _pt)`$ is described within the usual rotating-wave and dipole approximations, $`\frac{1}{2}_{\sigma ,xx^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_p^\sigma (e^{i\omega _pt}𝒫_{x^{}x}^\sigma +e^{i\omega _pt}𝒫_{xx^{}}^\sigma )|x^{}x|`$, where: $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ denotes left- and right-hand circular polarization, respectively (we assume that, as in most semiconductors, electron-hole pairs with given spin orientation can be selectively created by circular polarized light); $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p^\sigma =\mu _o_p^\sigma `$ is the Rabi frequency with $`\mu _o`$ the dipole element of the bulk semiconductor; $`𝒫_{x^{}x}^\sigma =𝑑𝐫x^{}|\widehat{\psi }_{h,\sigma }(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_{e,\sigma }(𝐫)|x`$, with $`\widehat{\psi }_{e,\sigma }^{}`$ ($`\widehat{\psi }_{h,\sigma }^{}`$) creating an electron (hole) with spin orientation $`\sigma `$. The spontaneous radiative decay of dot states is accounted for by the Hamiltonian $`_{𝐤\sigma ,xx^{}}ig_k^\gamma (a_{𝐤\sigma }^{}𝒫_{x^{}x}^\sigma a_{𝐤\sigma }𝒫_{xx^{}}^\sigma )|x^{}x|`$, where $`g_k^\gamma =\mu _o(2\pi \omega _k)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`a_{𝐤\sigma }^{}`$ creates a photon with wavevector $`𝐤`$ and circular polarization $`\sigma `$, and $`\omega _k=ck/n`$ is the photon energy (with $`c`$ the speed of light and $`n`$ the semiconductor refraction index).

Spin-flip scatterings in III-V semiconductors are conveniently described as a two-step process : First, spin-orbit coupling introduces a small mixing of electron (hole) states with different spin orientations; second, environment coupling (e.g., to phonons) mediates transitions between states with different spin orientations. While in semiconductors of higher dimensionality all different types of elastic and quasi-elastic scatterings contribute to such spin-flip processes , in semiconductor QDs severe phase-space restrictions lead to a strong suppression, and first experimental results indicate extremely long spin coherence times . As a genuine model accounting for spin flips in QDs we consider, within the spirit of Ref. , a Caldeira-Leggett-type model where a set of harmonic oscillators (assumed to be in thermal equilibrium) is coupled linearly to the system spins by $`_jg_j^s𝐒(𝐛_j+𝐛_j^{})/\sqrt{2}`$; here $`𝐛_j`$ are bosonic operators whose free motion is governed by $`_j\omega _j^s𝐛_j^{}𝐛_j`$, and $`g_j^s`$ is the coupling constant to the carriers in the dot.

Next, we assume that the time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ of successive gedanken experiments is short as compared to the time evolution of multi-exciton states due to the driving pump laser, but long as compared to $`\omega _p^1`$; thus, in the evaluation of $`U`$ of Eq. (2) we perform the Markov and adiabatic approximations. Using the interaction representation according to $`_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x|xx|`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=E_xN_x\omega _p`$), we then find within second order perturbation theory for the time evolution of the conditional density matrix $`\rho ^{\text{(0)}}`$ :

$$\dot{\rho }^{\text{(0)}}=i(h_o\rho ^{\text{(0)}}\rho ^{\text{(0)}}h_o^{})+\widehat{𝒥}^s\rho ^{\text{(0)}},$$
(4)
with $`\dot{\rho }_{t_n}^{\text{(0)}}(\rho _{t_n}^{\text{(0)}}\rho _{t_{n1}}^{\text{(0)}})/\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$, the effective Hamiltonian $`(h_o)_{xx^{}}=\delta _{xx^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x\frac{1}{2}_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_p^\sigma (𝒫_{xx^{}}^\sigma +𝒫_{x^{}x}^\sigma )i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx^{}}^\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx^{}}^s)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\gamma ,s}`$ are out-scattering contributions due to photon and spin interactions, and $`\widehat{𝒥}^s`$ accounts for spin-flip induced in-scatterings  (note that because of our restriction to the zero-photon subspace there are no corresponding in-scatterings due to photon decay). Finally, whenever a photon is detected the density matrix is reset to $`\rho ^{\text{(0)}}\widehat{𝒥}^\gamma \rho ^{\text{(0)}}`$/tr(), with the reset matrix $`\widehat{𝒥}^\gamma `$ .

In our calculations we use prototypical dot parameters, which correspond to the model structure presented in Ref.  (see figure caption 2), and for the pump laser we assume linear polarization (i.e., $`_p^+=_p^{}`$) and photon energy $`\omega _p`$ tuned to the groundstate-exciton energy (see Fig. 1). Because excited single-exciton states are energetically separated from $`E_{X_{o,b}^\pm }`$ by the order of the confinement energy ($``$10–50 meV for most dots ), for moderate Rabi frequencies they do not couple to the driving laser and are therefore neglected in our analysis. As the only multi-exciton state we consider the biexciton groundstate $`B_o`$, which approximately consists of $`X_{o,b}^++X_{o,b}^{}`$ (with other multi-exciton states again energetically well separated). In Ref.  spin dephasing times $`\tau _s3`$ ns have been reported, which, however, have been dominated by inhomogeneous broadening. Thus, as a representative value within a single dot we here assume a value of 50 ns. Smaller values of $`\tau _s`$ would not change the qualitative behavior of our results, as long as they would be significantly longer than the radiative lifetime $``$1 ns. Fig. 3 shows the probability $`P_0(t)`$ that up to time $`t`$ no photon has been emitted. At times below $``$10 ns the time evolution is governed by the optical decay of the laser-excited exciton states $`X_{o,b}^\pm `$; with increasing time, however, the probability of a spin-flip process increases and becomes dominant at later times. Because spin-forbidden transitions do not couple to the light, in this regime $`P_0(t)`$ decreases only very slowly and the decay is determined by additional spin-flip processes bringing back the system to the bright sector. We used these results to perform Monte-Carlo simulations of resonance luminescence from a single QD (Fig. 2) : At time $`t_o`$, we start with a density matrix $`\rho _o`$; the time of the next-photon emission is then determined by use of a random number $`r[0,1)`$ from $`r=1P_0(t)`$ (in the numerical solution of Eq. (4) we neglect the time discretization $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$); finally, after a photon count the density matrix is set back to $`\widehat{𝒥}^\gamma \rho ^{(0)}/tr()`$, and the simulation starts again. Fig. 2(c) shows a single history of the occupation of $`X_{o,b}^\pm `$: Rabi-type oscillations are interrupted by sudden jumps (arrows), associated to the detection of emitted photons; correspondingly, the dark-exciton contributions (Fig. 2(b)) slowly increase in time, and are reset back to zero after photon detection (note the beginning of a dark period at later times in Figs. 2(b,c)). Finally, Fig. 2(a) shows the histogram of emitted photons: One clearly observes bright and dark sectors, whose lengths are determined by $`\tau _s`$. Experimental observation of single spin flips requires coherent excitation of single QDs and efficent continuous broadband counting of photons on a timescale of nanoseconds.

I am grateful to Elisa Molinari and Luis Viña for a careful reading of the manuscript and for most stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the EU under the TMR Network ”Ultrafast” and the IST Project SQID, and by INFM through grant PRA-SSQI.