text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a series of articles (-), Kempf and collaborators have studied the quantum mechanical implications of a modification of the usual canonical commutation relations which is inspired by noncommutative geometry  and string theory (see for instance refs ). Assuming that $`[\text{},\text{}]=if(\text{},\text{})`$ these authors show that a minimal length appears naturally from the Heisenberg uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}\frac{1}{2}|[\text{},\text{}]|.$$
(1)
This crucial modification of fundamental commutators is physically grounded, and lies at the basis of recent theoretical models aiming at describing quantum geometry or quantum gravity. The emergence of a minimal localization length seems indeed to be a recurrent feature when trying to approach quantum gravity and has far reaching consequences (see e.g.  and references therein). This short distance structure could for instance allow to get rid of ultraviolet divergencies (see  for a discussion in the context of modified commutation relations). The introduction of a naturel ultraviolet cutoff could also affect the spectrum of the cosmological microwave background . We will focus in this note on the physical states displaying the minimal length uncertainty, the so-called maximally localized states. In reference  , Kempf, Mangano and Mann (K. M. M. hereafter) claim to obtain such states as particular squeezed states. We shall show that it is only in a few special cases that maximally localized states can be obtained as squeezed states but that, in general, it is a variational principle that leads to more satisfactory results. However we wish to emphasize that our work only aims to provide what we believe to be a better definition of maximally localized states, but the credit for the idea that a modification of the canonical commutation relation leads to a fundamental minimal length belongs to the authors of refs -.

Our paper is organized as follows. We restrict ourselves to space translation invariant situation i.e. we assume the commutator to depend only on . In section 2 we analyze the K. M. M. construction and display its weaknesses. Section 3 consists in a discussion of a definition of physical maximally localized states, based on a minimization principle of the spread in space of the states (in one dimension). Section 4 illustrates some physical aspects of our analysis through study of the quantization of the particle in a box as well as the asymptotic energy eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator, independently of the details of the commutation relation. In section 5 we show that the extension to translation invariant modified commutation relations in an arbitrary number of dimensions, under the assumption of commuting position operators, can be completely described by the use of a single function. Moreover assuming rotational invariance, we then compare the maximally localized states defined by our variational principle to those proposed by K. M. M. and show that ours lead to a finer spatial localization. We conclude our work in section 6 by a brief summary of our results.

## 2 K. M. M. construction

Hereafter we assume the operator function $`f`$ to be only function of ; this insures the space translation invariance of the commutation relation. In $`p`$-representation, the function $`f(p)`$ has to be real. Moreover we assume it to be everywhere greater or equal to a strictly positive constant

$$C>0,p:f(p)>C$$
(2)
i.e. whatever is the state, the operators  and  acting on it, never commute. In a first step let us restrict ourselves to the one dimensional problem

$$[\text{},\text{}]=if(\text{}).$$
(3)
In a $`p`$-representation these operators are realized as

$$\text{}=if(p)_p\text{and}\text{}=p.$$
(4)
K. M. M. construction of maximally localized state consists in taking among the squeezed states, i.e. states that satisfy the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}=\frac{1}{2}|[\text{},\text{}]|,$$
(5)
the one leading to the minimal value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$. Squeezed states depend on three parameters, denoted $`\xi `$, $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and are the eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with vanishing eigenvalue, of the operators $`\text{Â}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defined as

$`\text{Â}_\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }[(\text{}\xi )+i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{}\eta ))|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (6)
i.e. in $`p`$-representation

$$p|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta i\xi )z(p)\mathrm{\Lambda }u(p)]$$
(7)
where

$$z(p)=_0^pf^1(q)𝑑q\mathrm{and}u(p)=_0^pqf^1(q)𝑑q.$$
(8)
These states are always normalizable when the values of $`z(\pm \mathrm{})`$ are finite, otherwise $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be positive, and it is easy to check that the parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ correspond to the expectation values of the operators  and  if and only if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }>0\mathrm{and}\underset{p\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}u(p)=\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
Now, let us compute the norm of the state $`\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}|\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|(\text{}\eta )^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (10)
$``$ $`0`$ (11)
and moreover, if (and only if) $`u(|p|)`$ grows quickly enough at infinity so that we have

$$\underset{p\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}p\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta z(p)u(p))]=0.$$
(12)
we also deduce, after an integration by parts, that:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}|\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}^{}\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}𝚿_𝚲`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|(\text{}\xi )^2\mathrm{}f(\text{})+\mathrm{}^2(\text{}\eta )^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (14)
Introducing $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|\text{}^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi ^2}`$ and a similar definition for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$, we obtain by identifying eq.(10) with eq. (14) that:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},`$ (16)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2.`$ (17)
Accordingly, if $`f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ admits a strictly positive lower bound, we deduce the existence of a minimal uncertainty on the position operator on the subset of squeezed states. The evaluation a priori of this minimum is not simple except in two cases: if the mean values $`f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are bounded, in which case the minimum is zero, or if $`f(\text{})=1+\beta ^2\text{}^2`$, the case discussed in detail by K. M. M. . To avoid unnecessary clutter, in the following we shall made use of units such that constants, like $`\beta `$ in the previous equation, are set equal to unity. When the previous assumptions (9, 12) are verified, in the $`p`$-representation we may obtain a lower bound for the space uncertainty of the squeezed states by calculating the minimum (with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$) of the integral expression of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}(p^2\eta ^2)\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{\Lambda }(u(p)\eta z(p))]f^1(p)𝑑p}{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}[2\mathrm{\Lambda }(u(p)\eta z(p))]f^1(p)𝑑p}.$$
(18)
In particular, under our assumption that for large values of $`|p|`$, the function $`f(p)`$ behaves as $`|p|^{1+\nu }`$ — with $`1\nu 1`$ in order to admit a strictly positive lower bound and to satisfy the conditions444In principle, we have to introduce two different exponents $`\nu _{}`$ and $`\nu _+`$ that will reflect the behaviors of $`f(p)`$ near $`+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$; we shall not do it to lighten the text and just make use of one, denoted by $`\nu `$. (9, 12) — we may check that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ going to zero we obtain:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{2\nu }{\nu 1}}0\text{if}\nu <0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{\nu }{\nu 1}}\mathrm{}\text{if}0<\nu <1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(19)
When $`\nu =0`$, according to the precise behavior of $`f(p)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ will converge or diverge. If $`\nu =1`$, the condition (12) imposes to restrict the domain of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to values greater than $`1/2`$. Moreover in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1/2`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_{1/2}^2`$ diverges, while when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to infinity, as a saddle point estimate shows that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ grows as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and therefore diverges again. As a consequence, for positive values of $`\nu 1`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ reaches its minimum for a finite, non-zero, value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This minimum must be strictly positive, otherwise we obtain also $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0`$ and $`f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, which is of course impossible. In the special case, $`f(p)=1+2kp+p^2`$ it is trivial to obtain the expression of the position uncertainty :

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }1}(1+2k\eta +\eta ^2).$$
(20)
Minimizing this expression with respect to the variables $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$ yields $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})^2=1k^2>0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`\eta =k`$.

However it is clear that the K. M. M. approach consists in the search for a possible maximally localized states only among the subset of states that saturate the Heisenberg inequality (5): the squeezed states. But when modified commutation relations are involved, it is worthwhile to remark that in contrast to what happens in the framework of usual quantum mechanic, where $`f(\text{})=\text{1I}`$ and therefore $`f(\text{})=1`$ whatever is the state, the expectation value of the operator $`f(\text{})`$, in general, depends on the state considered. Thus nothing prevents a minimal length smaller than the one obtained by considering only squeezed states, simply because there may be physically relevant states for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^2`$ takes on a lower value than its lower bound on the subset of squeezed states.

Moreover it is only for a restricted class of functions $`f(p)`$, those that do not grow faster than $`|p|^2`$, that squeezed states may be used in the chain of relations (13-14). For instance, if we assume $`f(p)=1+|p|^\nu `$ with $`\nu >3`$, then all the integrals appearing in eqs (18) converge for all non negative values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and thus the minimal value of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ so estimated is zero. Taking for instance $`f(p)=1+p^4`$, this seems to be in contradiction with eq.(75). But after a rapid glance, it is clear that there is actually no ”contradiction”: it just is that the mean values $`\text{}^2_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`f(\text{})_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not exist. In the next section we shall reformulate the problem of the existence of a physical minimal length on a more appropriate set of states: the subspace of physical states and show that, indeed, a minimal uncertainty on the position occurs for such modified commutations relations.

## 3 A proposal of physical state space

As emphasized by K. M. M. the analysis of the physical implications of the operators leading to modified commutation relations needs a careful definition of them. Let us recall that the Hilbert space we consider is the space of square integrable functions with respect to the measure $`dp/f(p)`$. On this space, following K. M. M. we start by defining in a first step a symmetric position operator $`\widehat{x}`$ given in $`p`$-representation by $`if(p)_p\varphi (p)`$ with as domain $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$ the set of differentiable functions $`\varphi `$, vanishing at infinity, and such that $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}f(p)|_p\varphi |^2𝑑p`$ exists. The extension of this operator to a self-adjoint operator depends on the behavior of the functions $`f(p)`$ and $`z(p)`$ when $`|p|`$ goes to infinity. Two cases have to be considered.

### 3.1 The compact case

Let us suppose that $`f(|p|)`$ grows at infinity like $`|p|^{1+\nu }`$, with $`\nu >0`$, and therefore that $`z(p)`$ (eq. (8)) goes to finite limits when $`|p|\mathrm{}`$ :

$$z(+\mathrm{})=\alpha _+>0,z(\mathrm{})=\alpha _{}<0.$$
(21)
In this case, the mapping $`pz(p)`$ defines a diffeomorphism between $``$ and the interval $`]\alpha _{},\alpha _+[`$. The operator $`\widehat{x}`$ is represented by $`i_z`$ on this interval and acts on the space $`^2([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)`$ of square integrable functions vanishing at $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\alpha _+`$ and whose derivatives are also square integrable:

$$𝒟(\widehat{x})=\{\psi (z)^2([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\psi (\alpha _{})=\psi (\alpha _+)=0\}.$$
(22)
This operator admits a one-parameter family of self-adjoint extensions  $`\text{}_\lambda `$ whose domains of definition now are the sets of $`^2([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)`$ functions with square integrable derivatives555By $`𝒲^{n,2}([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)`$ are denoted the spaces, known as Sobolev spaces, of square integrable functions whose derivative are, up to order $`n`$, also square integrable and whose norms are $`f^2=_\alpha _{}^{\alpha _+}(|f(z)|^2+_{\mathrm{}=1}^n|f^\mathrm{}/(z)|^2)𝑑z`$. $`𝒲^{1,2}([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)`$ such that:

$$\psi (\alpha _+)=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda )\psi (\alpha _{}).$$
(23)
Each of these operators admits an infinite set of orthonormal eigenvectors:

$`\text{}_\lambda \psi _n=\xi _{\lambda ,n}\psi _n`$ $`\mathrm{with}`$ $`\psi _n(z)=c\mathrm{exp}(i\xi _{\lambda ,n}z),`$ (24)
$`\xi _{\lambda ,n}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +2n\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}}`$ $`\mathrm{and}`$ $`|c|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}}.`$ (25)
If $`\nu >2`$, these states not only have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}_\lambda =0`$ but also present a finite uncertainty in momentum. Nevertheless there is no contradiction with the inequality (14). Indeed, while the state $`\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}\psi _n`$ is well defined, it did not belong to the domain of the operator $`\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}^{}=\text{Â}_{\mathrm{}}`$; thus we may not infer the equality (14).

We also may use states represented in eq. (7). They are always normalizable when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and for all values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`u(+\mathrm{})`$ and $`u(\mathrm{})`$ are both finite. In this last case, the condition (2) is not verified, but even if $`lim_p\mathrm{}u(|p|)=\mathrm{}`$ there are the mean values of the operators $`f(\text{})=f(p)`$ and $`\text{}^2=(if(p)_p)^2`$ that diverge and invalidate the derivation of the equalities (1314). Contrariwise, if $`u(+\mathrm{})`$ and $`u(\mathrm{})`$ diverge (for instance if $`\nu 1`$), $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})^2`$ will be finite and will possibly present a minimum. What we learn from the previous discussion is that maximally localized states have not necessarily to belong to the set of squeezed states, but must be, as least, in the intersection of the domains of the operators $`\text{}_\lambda `$ and $`\text{}^2=_z^2`$. Now comes into the game a new subtlety: the domain that makes this operator $`\text{}^2`$ self-adjoint can also be defined in different ways. The most obvious one is to consider $`\text{}_\lambda ^2`$, whose domain is given by :

$`𝒟(\text{}_\lambda ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟(\text{}_\lambda )\mathrm{Image}(\text{}_\lambda )`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }(z)𝒲^{2,2}([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha _{})=\mathrm{exp}[i\lambda ]\mathrm{\Psi }(\alpha _+)`$
$`\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\alpha _{})=\mathrm{exp}[i\lambda ]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\alpha _+)\}.`$
Let us tentatively define maximally localized states as those minimizing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^2`$ on $`𝒟(\text{}_\lambda ^2)`$:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min})^2=\mathrm{min}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{}_\lambda ^2\xi ^2|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}\mu ^2,\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟(\text{}_\lambda ^2)$$
(28)
with

$$\xi =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{}_\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}$$
(29)
In $`p`$-representation this implies that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)`$ has to obey the equation:

$$\left[[f(p)_p]^2\xi ^2+2a(if(p)_p\xi )\mu ^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=0$$
(30)
where $`a`$ is a multiplicator introduced in order to take into account the mean position condition imposed on the state. The parameter $`\mu ^2`$, which corresponds to the value of the extrema of the functional (32), can also be interpreted as a multiplicator taking into account the normalization constraint imposed on the states. The general solution of eq. (30), satisfying the boundary conditions (27) reads as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=C\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{\lambda +2n\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\right)z(p)\right],n.$$
(31)
These solutions are simultaneous eigenfunctions of the operators $`\text{}_\lambda `$ and $`\text{}_\lambda ^2`$. Thus, in general, they do not satisfy the localization condition (29), unless $`\xi `$ is in the spectrum of $`\text{}_\lambda `$, in which case $`\mu ^2`$ is zero and there is no spread in position. The only way we see to cure this defect is to modify the domain of the operator $`\text{}^2`$. Indeed other boundary conditions than (27) can be chosen, that also makes $`_z^2`$ a self-adjoint operator. We shall define the squared position operator as the self adjoint operator  $`\widehat{x}^{}\widehat{x}`$ whose domain is $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$ defined in eq. (22). The advantage of this choice is that the states so selected may naturally belong to the domain of some unbounded operator. More physically, following K. M. M., we shall impose on the set of states which we consider as physically relevant that they satisfy an extra condition, for example that they be of bounded energy. To achieve this requirement we consider an operator $`v(\text{})`$ such that, in $`p`$-representation, the representing function $`v(p)`$ diverges and is not integrable. We define the physical states as those whose expectation value of this operator is finite and reformulate the variational principle as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min})^2=\mathrm{min}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{}^2\xi ^2|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mu ^2,`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{with}\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|\text{}_\lambda |\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}},\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|v(\text{})|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}},\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟(\widehat{x}).`$ (33)
The Euler-Lagrange equation governing this new variational principle needs the use of one more Lagrange multiplicator and reads as:

$$\left[[f(p)_p]^2\xi ^2+2a(if(p)_p\xi )+2b(v(p)\gamma )\mu ^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=0$$
(34)
where $`V(z(p))=v(p)`$ is the $`z`$-representation of $`v(\text{})`$. Of course it is impossible, for an arbitrary function $`v(p)`$, to write any exact solution for this equation excepted when $`b=0`$. In this case, due to the new boundary conditions, that have to be taken in order that the mean value of $`V(z)`$ exists, the solution we obtain is:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(p)=C\mathrm{exp}[i\xi z(p)]\mathrm{sin}\{\mu [z(p)\alpha _{}]\}`$ (35)
$`|C|=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}}},\mu =n{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}},n_0.`$
What is new with this solution is that it belongs to $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$ and thus is no longer an eigenstate of $`\text{}_\lambda `$ (but, of course, belongs also to $`𝒟(\text{}_\lambda )`$). Accordingly, the corresponding spread in position is non-vanishing but is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}|_{b=0}=\frac{\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}.$$
(36)
But what we have obtained here is the minimal spread under the extra condition that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }|V(\text{})|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{2}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}_\alpha _{}^{\alpha _+}V(z)\mathrm{sin}^2[\frac{\pi (z\alpha _{})}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}]𝑑z\gamma _0.$$
(37)
For any other value of $`\gamma `$, we have, in principle, to discuss the general solution of eq. (34), a task that is virtually impossible. However, the fact that we obtain a universal solution, “whatever” is the function $`v(p)`$ may be the signal that something particular happens when $`b=0`$. Indeed, if we vary $`\gamma `$ by a small amount $`\delta \gamma `$, a second order perturbation calculation  leads to

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min})^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}|_{b=0})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \gamma ^2}{T^2}},b={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \gamma }{T^2}}`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{where}T^2={\displaystyle \frac{2(\alpha _+\alpha _{})^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{0n}^2}{n^21}}`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{and}V_{0n}={\displaystyle _\alpha _{}^{\alpha _+}}V(z)\mathrm{sin}[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (z\alpha _{})}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}}]\mathrm{sin}[n{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (z\alpha _{})}{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}}]𝑑z`$ (40)
indicating that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}|_{b=0}`$ corresponds to a (local) minimum with respect to $`\gamma `$. Such a formal calculation of course is just indicative, but it allows to conjecture that if we restrict ourselves to the class of physical states defined as those belonging to the domain $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$ we obtain a minimal length having a physical meaning. We may also understand this result in a geometrical way. We have more freedom when we search for the minimum of $`\mu ^2`$ in $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$, without imposing the value of $`\gamma `$ than we have for a prescribed value of it. Therefore the minimum so obtained must be less or equal to those corresponding to a specified value of $`\gamma `$. Note also that as we have assumed a priori that the solution, belonging to $`𝒟(\widehat{x})`$, obtained when $`b=0`$ defines a finite expectation value of the operator $`v(\text{})`$, this implies that the function $`v(p)`$, defining the physical space, cannot diverge faster than $`|p|^{3\nu }`$. If this condition is not satisfied we have to solve eq. (34) for arbitrary values of $`b`$, determine the set of value of $`b`$ that lead to finite expectation values of $`v(\text{})`$ and then minimize the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}_b`$ with respect to $`b`$.

### 3.2 The non-compact case

From the discussion of the previous subsection it is clear that if $`\alpha _{}`$ or $`\alpha _+`$ become infinite, i.e. if $`\nu <0`$ the squeezed states define, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, physical states (with respect to any polynomial operator $`v(\text{})`$) whose spread in position can be made as small as we want. Therefore there is no minimal length in this case. The semi bounded case (corresponding to one of the $`\alpha `$ finite and the other not) will not be considered here.

## 4 Two physical illustrations

The previous analysis may appear to be formal and far from our physical apprehension of localization in ($`x`$)-space. So, to convince the reader that our approach is well founded, let us briefly discuss the quantization of a particle in a box  and the asymptotic behavior of the energy eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator .

Of course, we only have to consider the case that we have called compact, the one where the function $`z(p)`$ tends to finite value when $`|p|`$ goes to infinity. Let us introduce the inverse of this function, a function $`\zeta (z)`$ such that

$$\zeta [z(p)]p.$$
(41)
Note that this function becomes singular in $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\alpha _+`$. In $`x`$-space we may represent (formally) the  and  operators as:

$$\text{}=x,\text{}=\zeta (i_x).$$
(42)
For the problem of quantizing a particle of mass $`m`$ in a box of length $`L`$, we may take as domain the square integrable, $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`^2([0,L],dx)`$ functions, vanishing at $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$. To simplify the discussion, let us first assume that the function $`f(p)`$ is even and therefore that $`\zeta `$ is odd. We have to solve the eigenvalue equation:

$$\text{}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=2mE\mathrm{\Psi }\zeta (i_x)^2\psi (x)=2mE\psi (x)$$
(43)
whose solutions are

$$\psi (x)\mathrm{sin}(kx)\mathrm{with}kL=n\pi ,n_0\mathrm{and}2mE=\zeta (k)^2.$$
(44)
Imposing that the energy is bounded and is a monotone function of the number of nodes of the wave function, we deduce the existence of an upper bound $`N_{max}`$ on the number of nodes and therefore of the dimensionality of the Hilbert space of eigenstates:

$$N_{max}=\left[\alpha _+\frac{L}{\pi }\right]$$
(45)
where, as usual, the brackets represent the function ”integer part”. This illustrates the existence of a minimal length in the theory: distances less than $`\pi /\alpha _+`$ are not distinguishable. If the function $`\zeta `$ is not odd,the eigenvalue problem (43) is solved as follows. For definiteness, let us assume $`\alpha _+<\alpha _{}`$. We divide the interval $`[0,\alpha _+]`$ into subintervals of length $`\pi /L`$. In each of such subinterval we may find a value of $`k_+`$ such that there exists a value of $`k_{}`$ obeying the condition

$$k_{}=k_+2n\frac{\pi }{L}n\mathrm{so}\mathrm{that}\zeta (k_+)=\zeta (k_{}).$$
(46)
The solutions of eq. (43) are therefore of the form:

$$\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ik_+x)\mathrm{exp}(ik_{}x)$$
(47)
$$\mathrm{with}k_+L[(n1)\pi ,n\pi ],1n<\alpha _+\frac{\pi }{L}\mathrm{and}2mE=\zeta (k_+)^2=\zeta (k_{})^2.$$

The monotonic behavior of the function $`\zeta `$ ($`d\zeta (z)/dz=f[\zeta (z)]`$) insures the existence and uniqueness of these solutions for each value of $`n`$.

We also may easily obtain the asymptotic behavior of the energy eigenvalues of an harmonic oscillator. The eigenvalue problem to be solved is

$$\left(\frac{\text{}^2}{2m}+\frac{m\omega ^2}{2}\text{}^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_n=E_n\mathrm{\Psi }_n.$$
(48)
In term of the $`z`$ variable this problem is formally equivalent to the usual problem of a particle of mass $`1/m\omega ^2`$, in a potential that diverges like $`|\alpha _\pm z|^{\nu _\pm }`$. For large value of the energy $`E_n`$ we may approximate this as the motion of a free particle in a box of size $`\alpha _+\alpha _{}`$. Accordingly, the asymptotic eigenvalues of the energy are given by:

$$E_n\frac{m\omega ^2}{2}(\frac{\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}n)^2,$$
(49)
in accordance with the special case explicitly integrated in ref. . The physical interpretation of this result  is the following. When the wave function, confined in an $`x^2`$ potential, presents a large number $`n`$ of nodes its spatial extension is of the order on $`n|\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}|=n\frac{\pi }{\alpha _+\alpha _{}}`$ and its energy is, for large values of $`n`$, approximated by

$$E_n\frac{m\omega ^2}{2}(n|\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}|)^2$$
(50)
contrary to the standard case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}=\sqrt{\text{}^2}n/\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^2=\text{}^2mE_n`$, leading to $`E_nn\omega `$ for large value of $`n`$.

These examples already appear in the works , assuming $`f(p)=1+p^2`$. In this case, as we have emphasized in this article, one may also find maximal localization using squeezed states. Our point here is that one may derive maximal localization from analogous studies of the wave equation with more general functions $`f(p)`$, only subject to the conditions (21), in which case these maximally localized states are not squeezed states, but they can be derived from the variational principle exhibited in (32, 33). Furthermore the above techniques applied to the asymptotic part of the spectrum of the wave equation is clearly generalizable to any potential function which is sufficiently slowly varying in $`x`$ space.

## 5 Maximally localized states in $`n`$-dimension

The way to extend the commutation relation (2) to $`n`$ dimensions is not unique. Let us now assume that  and  (resp. $`𝐱`$ and $`𝐩`$) are vector-valued operators (resp. vectors) of components $`\text{}_j`$ and $`\text{}_k`$ (resp. $`𝐱_j`$ and $`𝐩_k`$) that obey the commutation relations

$$[\text{}_j,\text{}_k]=i\left[f(\text{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\delta _{jk}+g(\text{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\text{}_j\text{}_k\right]i\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{jk},$$
(51)
which ensure both translation and rotation invariance. Requiring the position operator components to satisfy $`[\text{}_j,\text{}_k]=0`$ further imposes the constraint (see \]

$$g=\frac{2f_{p^2}f}{f2p^2_{p^2}f}.$$
(52)
Similarly to what has been done in one dimension where $`z(p)`$ acted on the space $`^2([\alpha _{},\alpha _+],dz)`$ as an operator such that $`[\text{},\text{}]=i`$, we introduce the operator  whose components are canonically conjugated to the components of the position operator :

$$[\text{}_j,\text{}_k]=i\delta _{jk},$$
(53)
represented by functions $`𝐳_j(𝐩)`$ in $`p`$-representation. We can therefore, by representing $`\text{}_j`$ as the functions $`\zeta _j(𝐳)`$ in (51), rewrite this commutation relation as

$$_{z_j}𝐩_k=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{jk}.$$
(54)
Thus $`_{z_j}𝐩_k=_{z_k}𝐩_j`$ and therefore there exists a scalar function $`𝒰`$ generalizing $`[u(p)]`$ (8) such that

$$p_j=_{z_j}𝒰.$$
(55)
We shall assume this function $`𝒰`$ to depend only on the variable $`𝐳^2/2`$ in order to preserve rotation invariance. Denoting the derivative with respect to $`\text{z}^2/2`$ as

$$\frac{𝒰}{(\text{z}^2/2)}=𝒰^{},$$
(56)
we deduce from (54) and (55) that

$$f(\text{p})=𝒰^{}[\text{z}(\text{p})]\text{and}g(\text{p})=\frac{𝒰^{\prime \prime }[\text{z}(\text{p})]}{𝒰^{}[\text{z}(\text{p})]}.$$
(57)
Under the assumption that relation (55) can be inverted, we can, in principle, express $`|𝐳|`$ as a function of $`|𝐩|`$: $`|𝐳|=𝒵(|𝐩|)`$ and we may check that equation (52) is indeed verified. Furthermore eq. (55) defines a diffeomorphism between $`^n`$ and the $`n`$-dimensional ball :

$$^n=\{𝐳^n\text{such as}|𝐳|<\rho _+\}$$
(58)
where $`𝒵(+\mathrm{})=\rho _+<+\mathrm{}`$ in the compact case, the only one we consider here after.

A useful representation of the algebra displayed in (51) and (53), is on the Hilbert space $`^2(^n,d^nz)`$, as:

$`\text{}_j\psi (𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`i_{z_j}\psi (𝐳)`$
$`\text{}_j\psi (𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`z_j\psi (𝐳)`$
$`\text{}_j\psi (𝐳)`$ $`=`$ $`z_j𝒰^{}({\displaystyle \frac{𝐳^2}{2}})\psi (𝐳)`$ (59)
with $`\psi (𝐳)=𝐳|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. K. M. M. suggested to build maximally localized states by considering the solution of the $`n`$ equations

$`\text{Â}_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }[(\text{}_j\text{}_j)+i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{}_j\text{}_j))|\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (60)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has to be independent of the index $`j`$ for the equations to be consistent. Their common solution reads as

$$\psi (𝐳)\mathrm{exp}[i\text{}𝐳+\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{}𝐳\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒰(𝐳^2/2)].$$
(61)
But as we already discussed in the one-dimensional framework, this construction, excepted in a few special cases, does not lead to states with maximal localization or can even not be performed when no restriction ensuring that the operators $`\text{Â}_i`$ and $`\text{Â}_j`$ commute for all $`i`$ and $`j`$ is imposed on the commutation relations. In that case, we may decide to improve localization in some direction at the cost to deteriorate localization in another direction. As we illustrate below for the particular case $`g(\text{}^2)=1`$ considered in  where the squeezed states construction can be achieved, those states do not display the minimal length uncertainty. Here again, our purpose will be to define maximally localized states as those minimizing $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})^2`$ with $`\text{}=\xi `$ fixed and verifying suitable boundary conditions in order to be physically acceptable. Therefore, following the same procedure as in sect. (3), we find that the wave function reads as

$$\psi (𝐳)=\mathrm{exp}[i\xi .𝐳]\varphi (𝐳)\text{where}(𝚫+\mu ^2)\varphi (𝐳)=0,\varphi (𝐳)_{|^n}=0,$$
(62)
$`\xi `$ denoting now the vector mean position and $`𝚫`$ the $`n`$-dimensional Laplacian operator on $`^n`$. The boundary condition $`\psi (𝐳)_{(|𝐳|=\rho _+)}=0`$ leads to the quantization of $`\mu ^2`$, whose smallest value is obtained for the $`s`$-wave. The corresponding wave function, bounded at the origin, is

$$\psi (𝐳)=C_n\mathrm{exp}[i\xi .𝐳]|𝐳|^\nu J_\nu (\mu |𝐳|)\mathrm{where}\nu =\frac{n}{2}1$$
(63)
displaying the finite minimal uncertainty in position

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}^{min}=\frac{j_{\nu ,1}}{\rho _+},$$
(64)
$`j_{\nu ,1}`$ being the first zero of the $`J_\nu (x)`$ Bessel function.

We end up this section by comparing, for illustrative purpose, the spread in position of the squeezed states obtained by K. M. M. in the particular case for which

$$𝒰^{}(\frac{𝐳^2}{2})=\frac{1}{1𝐳^2/2}$$
(65)
with the spread (64). The normalized squeezed states with $`\text{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\text{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ read as

$$\psi _\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐳)=\left[(2\pi )^{n/2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{n}{2}+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+1)}\right]^{1/2}\left(1\frac{𝐳^2}{2}\right)^\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(66)
The squared uncertainty in position computed from these states, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱^2)=\frac{n\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}\frac{n+4\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }1}$$
(67)
whose minimum is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}_{squeezed}^{min})^2=\frac{n}{8}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{n}{2}}\right)\left(\frac{n+2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{n}{2}}}+2\right)\text{for}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{n}{2}}$$
(68)
is always greater than the one given by eq. (64). Incidentally, let us notice that from eqs (64) and (68) we obtain the inequality

$$j_{\nu ,1}<\sqrt{\left(\nu +\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\nu +2\sqrt{\nu +\frac{3}{2}}+\frac{5}{2}\right)}$$
(69)
which provides an upper bound to the first non-trivial zero of $`J_\nu (x)`$ when $`2\nu +1`$ is an integer.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown the emergence of a minimal length in quantum mechanics starting from very general assumptions on the commutation relations. We have clarified the meaning of maximally localized states, using to build them the most natural definition we may consider: a variational principle minimizing the spread of the state in space. We have also shown that the K. M. M. construction of such states in terms of squeezed states in general fails to provide maximally localized states. A particularly interesting physical consequence of our discussion is that in the regime where the minimal length becomes sensitive, the physics seems to become independent of the details of the modification of the commutation relations and depends only on the convergence of the integral $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}f(p)^1𝑑p`$, as our analysis of the free particle and the harmonic oscillator examplifies. Our definition of maximally localized states extends also, without difficulties, to any number of dimensions. As a mathematical by-product of our discussion, we obtain a large class of majoration of the first zero of a family of Bessel functions. Indeed for each choice of the function $`𝒰`$ we may obtain a relation like eq. (69), the one displayed in the text being better than the Schafheitlin’s one (for the values of the index $`\nu `$ considered here) .

## 7 Acknowledgments

We thank A. Kempf for many valuable comments on a preliminary version of this paper and for having drawn our attention on one of its previous work in which a similar variational principle was considered to determine the state of lowest momentum uncertainty for a particle in a box (see sect. 2.1 of ref. ). We are also particular grateful to M. Lubo for stimulating discussions and comments. Moreover, one of us (Ph.S.) would like to thanks its colleagues R. Brout, C. Demol and C. Troestler for enlightening conversations. Ph.S. acknowledges support from the Belgian Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FRFC contracts).

## Appendix A Appendix: an a priori minoration of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$

If $`f(\text{})`$ can be expressed as a series of even power of , with positive coefficients:

$$f(\text{})=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\text{}^{2n}\mathrm{with}c_n0.$$
(70)
we obtain

$$f(\text{})1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n\text{}^2^n.$$
(71)
The proof of this inequality leads on the positivity of

$$(\text{}^2\text{}^2)^2\text{}^{2n4}0$$
(72)
from which we deduce that

$$\text{}^{2n}2\text{}^2\text{}^{2n2}\text{}^2^2\text{}^{2n4}$$
(73)
and by recurrence that

$$\text{}^{2n}\text{}^2^n.$$
(74)
As a consequence, when formula (18) is valid, we deduce a lower bound for the squared position uncertainty on squeezed states :

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{})_{min}^2=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{min}\frac{f^2(\sqrt{\text{}^2})}{\text{}^2}.$$
(75)


format: text

text:
# Source Parameters from Identified Hadron Spectra and HBT Radii for Au-Au Collisions at √𝑠_{𝑁𝑁}=200 GeV in PHENIX

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Identified charged hadrons in 11 different centrality selections  and the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) dependence of HBT radii in 9 $`k_T`$ bins  are measured in Au-Au collisions at 200 GeV by the PHENIX Experiment . In both the 200 GeV and previously measured 130 GeV data , the $`p_T`$ of all particles increases from the most peripheral to the most central events and with heavier particle mass ($`m_0`$). The dependence of the $`p_T`$ on $`m_0`$ suggests a radial expansion, and its dependence on the number of participant nucleons ($`N_{part}`$) may be due to an increasing radial expansion from peripheral to central events. The $`k_T`$ dependence of the HBT radii was also observed and interpreted as a radial expansion.

Both the spectra and the $`k_T`$ dependence of the HBT radii are fit using parameterizations based on a simple model for the source, where fluid elements are each in local thermal equilibrium and move in space-time with a hydrodynamic expansion . The assumptions are: $`(1)`$ no temperature gradients, $`(2)`$ longitudinal boost invariance along the collision axis z, $`(3)`$ infinite extent in space-time rapidity $`\eta `$, and $`(4)`$ cylindrical symmetry with radius r. The particles are emitted along a hyperbola of constant proper time $`\tau _0=\sqrt{t^2z^2}`$ and short emission duration, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t<`$ 1 fm/c.

The $`m_T`$ dependence of the yield $`\frac{d^2N}{m_tdm_tdy}|_{y=0}`$ is calculated after integrating the source over space-time (azimuthal and rapidity coordinates) . It is assumed that all particles decouple kinematically on the freeze-out hypersurface at the same freeze-out temperature $`T_{fo}`$, and that the particles collectively expand with a velocity profile $`\beta _T\left(r\right)=\beta _Tr/R`$ where $`R`$ is the geometric radius, $`r`$ is the transverse coordinate, and $`\beta _T`$ is the surface velocity. (For a box profile, the average velocity is $`\beta _T`$ $`=2\beta _T/3`$ ). The particle density distribution is assumed to be independent of the radial position in the fits to the single particle spectra. In the previous 130 GeV analysis , a Gaussian density profile increases $`\beta _T`$ by $``$ 2% with a negligible difference in $`T_{fo}`$, while a parabolic velocity profile increases $`\beta _T`$ by 13% and $`T_{fo}`$ by 5%.

We use analytic expressions to calculate the HBT radii . A linear flow rapidity profile in the transverse plane is assumed and a Gaussian distribution is used for the particle density dependence on r. The parameters are the geometric radius R, the freeze-out temperature T, the flow rapidity at the surface $`\eta _T`$ ($`\beta _T`$ $`=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\eta _\mathrm{T}\right)`$) and the freeze-out proper time $`\tau _0`$.

## 2 RESULTS

### 2.1 Fitting the single particle spectra

In order to minimize contributions from hard processes, all $`m_T`$ dependent particle yields are fit in the range $`(m_Tm_0)<1`$ GeV. As resonance decays are known to produce pions at low $`p_T`$ , we place a lower $`p_T`$ threshold of 500 MeV/c on $`\pi `$ in the fit. A similar approach was followed by NA44, E814, and other experiments at lower energies. In Fig. 2, $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ yields are shown as a function of $`p_T`$ for each event centrality . The top 5 centralities are scaled for visual clarity. The solid lines are the simultaneous fits in the limited $`p_T`$ range. Similar results are obtained for $`K^\pm `$, $`\pi ^+`$, and p yields.

The systematic uncertainty in $`T_{fo}`$ is determined by adding in quadrature the change in inverse slope due to the $`p_T`$ dependent uncertainties in each particle yield at low $`p_T`$. For $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`K^\pm `$, and $`\overline{p}/p`$, the uncertainty is $`\pm 10`$, $`\pm 13`$, and $`16`$ MeV respectively. Added in quadrature, the total systematic uncertainty in the inverse slope is $`\pm 23`$ MeV. The systematic uncertainty in $`\beta _T`$ is dominated by the uncertainty in the $`\overline{p}/p`$ spectral shape at low $`p_T`$ and is determined by measuring the change in $`\beta _T`$ after fitting for $`p_T>0.85`$ GeV/c. The systematic uncertainty in $`\beta _T`$ is $`17.5\%`$.

For the 5% most central events, particles are coupled to an expanding system with a surface velocity of $`\beta _T=0.7\pm 0.2(syst.)`$ and decouple at a common temperature of $`T_{fo}=110\pm 23(syst.)`$ MeV with negligible statistical errors. For the most peripheral events, $`T_{fo}=135\pm 3(stat.)\pm 23(syst.)`$ and $`\beta _T=0.46\pm 0.02(stat.)\pm 0.2(syst.)`$. The statistical error only is included in the fit, resulting in $`\chi ^2/dof=260.9/52`$ for the most central and $`321.5/52`$ for the most peripheral events. At 130 GeV, similar results were obtained, with $`\beta _T=0.70\pm 0.01`$, $`T_{fo}=121\pm 4`$, and $`\chi ^2/dof=34.0/40.0`$ for the most central events (statistical and systematic errors are added in quadrature before the fit) .

The fit results of all particles within each event centrality are shown in Fig. 2. The top panel is $`T_{fo}`$ and the bottom panel is $`\beta _T`$, both plotted as a function of $`N_{part}`$. Within the systematic uncertainties, the expansion parameters respectively decrease and increase with the number of participants, saturating at mid-centrality.

### 2.2 Fitting the $`k_T`$ dependence of the HBT radii

The HBT radii are measured from identical charged $`\pi `$ pairs in 9 $`k_T`$ selections for 10% central events . The systematic uncertainty in the data is 8.2%, 16.1%, and 8.3% for $`R_\mathrm{s}`$, $`R_\mathrm{o}`$, and $`R_\mathrm{L}`$, respectively. A simultaneous fit to the HBT data could not be found over a broad range of parameter space. As an example, if the parameters $`\beta _T`$ and $`T_{fo}`$ are set to the values from the spectra analysis, then the fit to the HBT results constrains R and $`\tau _0`$ from the $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{L}`$ data respectively, yet the model overpredicts $`R_o`$ by more than 3$`\sigma `$ for all but the first $`m_T`$ data point (Fig. 3). The systematic uncertainties in $`\beta _T`$ and $`T_{fo}`$ are represented by the shaded region. Within these boundaries, R ranges between $`6.916.8`$ fm and $`\tau _0`$ ranges between $`11.216.7`$ fm/c.

The $`\chi ^2`$ contour levels of the expansion parameters $`T_{\mathrm{fo}}`$ (vertical) and $`\eta _\mathrm{T}`$ (horizontal) are shown for simultaneous fits to the spectra and separate fits to each HBT radius in Fig. 4. We note that no $`\chi ^2`$ minima are found, hence the contours are not closed. For the spectra, the contours are closed and show an anticorrelation, however there is no overlap with the HBT contours. The HBT radius $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ prefers large flow rapidity $`\eta _\mathrm{T}>1.0`$ and low temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{fo}}<50`$ MeV. The parameterization has the most difficulty reproducing $`R_\mathrm{o}`$.

## 3 CONCLUSION

The single particle spectra are qualitatively described by a hydrodynamic parameterization that assumes boost invariance and a linear transverse flow profile. The transverse expansion in 11 different centrality classes is extracted from the single particle spectra. Within the systematic uncertainties, the expansion parameters $`T_{\mathrm{fo}}`$ and $`\beta _\mathrm{T}`$, respectively decrease and increase with the number of participants, saturating at mid-centrality. Expressions for the HBT radii based on similar hydrodynamic assumptions and Gaussian density profiles do not describe the identical $`\pi `$ pair data. Such fits worked well at CERN SPS energies , but fail at RHIC energies.


text:
# Diophantine approximation and the solubility of the Schrödinger equation

## 1 Introduction

Number theoretical considerations arise naturally in the theory of partial differential equations in connection with the notorious problem of small denominators. In this paper, we examine such a problem occurring in the Schrödinger equation for a particle moving on a two-dimensional torus in a potential. We also briefly discuss the corresponding but much more difficult problem associated with the classical wave equation.

A natural way to study the solubility of partial differential equations on a torus is using Fourier series. Solving these equations for the Fourier coefficients formally yields ratios in which the denominators are on the form

$$a_1x_1+\mathrm{}+a_kx_k+a_0,$$

where the $`x_j`$ are dependent on the partial differential equation in question and the $`a_i`$ are drawn from certain subsets of the integers, with each choice of $`a_i`$’s corresponding to an eigenfrequency. When these denominators become small, the corresponding eigenvalue may become large, depending on the value of the numerator. If too many of the denominators become too small, the Fourier series may fail to converge. Diophantine approximation is a suitable tool for studying the exceptional set in which this happens.

The techniques needed for the resolution of the small denominator problem for the Schrödinger equation on the two-dimensional torus have essentially been obtained in a purely number theoretical setting . However, those papers made no connection between the number theoretical results and physics. In this paper, the connection between the theory of Diophantine approximation and the Schrödinger equation is made, and the relevant results are adapted to the particular small denominator problem associated with the Schrödinger equation.

## 2 Solubility of the Schrödinger equation

For a single particle on a two dimensional torus with dimensions $`\alpha \times \beta `$, the Schrödinger equation reads

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{u(x,y,t)}{t}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2u(x,y,t)=V(x,y,t)u(x,y,t),$$
(1)
where $`V`$ denotes a smooth potential on the torus. We assume that the potential is periodic in $`t`$ with period $`\gamma >0`$. We are looking for smooth solutions $`u`$ with the same period in $`t`$.

We may interpret the above setup as considering a particle moving according to the Schrödinger equation in the compact spacetime given by the three dimensional torus with dimensions $`\alpha \times \beta \times \gamma `$ and with signature $`(+,+,)`$. This spacetime is acausal, as it contains closed timelike curves. Thus, in discussing the solubility of the Schrödinger equation in this setting, we are in fact examining whether or not such a spacetime is consistent with quantum physics and in particular with the Schrödinger equation. In popular terms, we are examining whether or not quantum physics objects to certain types of time machines.

As we are assuming that both $`u`$ and $`V`$ are periodic in all three variables, we may expand them in their Fourier series,

$$u(x,y,t)=\underset{a,b,c}{}u_{a,b,c}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\left[\frac{a}{\alpha }x+\frac{b}{\beta }y+\frac{c}{\gamma }t\right]\right)$$
(2)
and

$$V(x,y,t)=\underset{a,b,c}{}V_{a,b,c}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\left[\frac{a}{\alpha }x+\frac{b}{\beta }y+\frac{c}{\gamma }t\right]\right).$$

Assume for the moment that we have a solution $`u`$ to (1) and define the forcing term

$$f(x,y,t)=u(x,y,t)V(x,y,t)=\underset{a,b,c}{}f_{a,b,c}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\left[\frac{a}{\alpha }x+\frac{b}{\beta }y+\frac{c}{\gamma }t\right]\right)$$

where

$$f_{a,b,c}=\underset{a^{},b^{},c^{}}{}u_{a^{},b^{},c^{}}V_{aa^{},bb^{},cc^{}}.$$
(3)
Now, equation (1) becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{u(x,y,t)}{t}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2u(x,y,t)=f(x,y,t).$$
(4)
Consider the corresponding homogeneous equation where $`f=0`$. In this case, inserting the Fourier series for $`u`$ in (4) yields the only solution $`u=0`$.

Integrating on both sides and inserting the Fourier series, we see that $`f𝑑x𝑑y𝑑t=0`$ or equivalently $`f_{0,0,0}=0`$. This follows by the periodicity requirements and the fundamental theorem of calculus. This in turn implies that for the solution $`u`$, we must have $`u_{0,0,0}=0`$.

To obtain the required Fourier coefficients for $`u`$ when $`(a,b,c)(0,0,0)`$, we insert the Fourier series for $`u`$ and $`f`$ in (4) and identify the coefficients to obtain a formula for each of the Fourier coefficients of $`u`$ in terms of the coefficients for the forcing term $`f`$,

$$u_{a,b,c}=\frac{\gamma }{2\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{f_{a,b,c}}{\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\alpha ^2}a^2+\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\beta ^2}b^2+c}.$$
(5)
We are assuming that a smooth solution does indeed exist, so that (5) makes sense. This gives rise to two sufficient conditions for a solution to (1) to exist. The first condition relates to the numerator in (5). Since both $`V`$ and $`u`$ are assumed to be smooth, the Fourier coefficients of the product must decay faster than the reciprocal of any polynomial. This implies that for any polynomial $`P`$,

$$\left|f_{a,b,c}\right|=\left|\underset{a^{},b^{},c^{}}{}u_{a^{},b^{},c^{}}V_{aa^{},bb^{},cc^{}}\right|=o\left(P(a,b,c)^1\right).$$
(C1)
where we also require that

$$f_{0,0,0}=\underset{a^{},b^{},c^{}}{}u_{a^{},b^{},c^{}}V_{a^{},b^{},c^{}}=0.$$
(C1’)
Condition (C1’) is equivalent to the requirement that $`f𝑑x𝑑y𝑑t=0`$. These condition relates the wave function to the potential.

The second condition relates to the denominator in (5). The Fourier expansion of $`u`$ will converge if we have for some $`v>0`$ and some $`K>0`$,

$$|\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{2m\alpha ^2}a^2+\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{2m\beta ^2}b^2+c|>K\mathrm{max}(a^2,b^2)^v\text{ for any }a,b,c.$$
(C2)
This condition relates the possible periods in $`t`$ to the possible dimensions of the tori for which the Schrödinger equation (1) may be solved. If conditions (C1), (C1’) and (C2) are satisfied, (2) defines a smooth function on the torus, which satisfies (1). Thus these are indeed sufficient for a solution to exist.

A word about the periodicity requirement on $`u`$. Inspired by Floquet’s Theorem, it is reasonable to conjecture that solutions of the form $`e^{\lambda t}u(x,y,t)`$ would exist with $`u`$ periodic. However, on substituting this expression into (1), dividing by $`e^{\lambda t}`$ and rearranging the terms gives us an equation of the same form as (1) with $`V(x,y,t)`$ replaced by $`V(x,y,t)i\mathrm{}\lambda `$ which $`u`$ must satisfy in order for the more general function to satisfy the original equation. Thus, the same obstructions exist when we consider solutions of this form. Note also, that for such solutions the topology of the spacetime changes, and we are no longer considering the same physical system. Even so, in this non-compact spacetime, the problem of small denominators persists.

In this paper, we are interested in the small denominator problem associated with the failure of Condition (C2) to hold. This means that in effect, we are studying the partial differential equation given by (4). where $`f`$ is smooth with $`f=0`$. Conversely, all our results apply to equations of that type.

For any $`x`$, we let $`x`$ denote the distance from $`x`$ to the nearest integer. Let $`v>0`$. We define the set

$$\begin{array}{c}=\{(x,y)[0,1]^2:a^2x+b^2y<\mathrm{max}(a^2,b^2)^v\hfill \\ \hfill \text{ for infinitely many }(a,b)^2\}.\end{array}$$
(6)
For any $`(\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\alpha ^2},\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\beta ^2})`$, Condition (C2) fails to hold.

More general forms of the set $``$ have been studied by Schmidt  and Rynne . The latter result was generalised to even more general sets by Dickinson and Rynne . Their results relating to the set $``$ are summarised in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1 (Corollary to  and )

Let $`v>0`$. The Lebesgue measure of the set $``$ is full when $`v1`$ and null when $`v>1`$. When $`v>1`$, the Hausdorff dimension of $``$ is $`1+2/(v+1)`$.

Furthermore, if we let $`ϵ>0`$ and $`N(k,v;x,y)`$ denote the number of solutions to

$$a^2x+b^2y<\mathrm{max}(a^2,b^2)^v$$

with $`1a,bk`$, then for almost all $`x,y`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}N(k,v;x,y)=\left(\underset{h=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{h^v}\right)^2+O\left(\underset{h=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{h^v}\right)^{1+ϵ}\hfill \\ \hfill =\{\begin{array}{cc}O(1)\hfill & \text{when }v>1\hfill \\ (\mathrm{log}k)^2+O\left(\mathrm{log}k\right)^{1+ϵ}\hfill & \text{when }v=1\hfill \\ \frac{1}{v+1}k^{2(v+1)}+O\left(\frac{1}{v+1}k^{(v+1)}\right)^{1+ϵ}\hfill & \text{when }v<1.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(7)
Note that the final asymptotic formula implies the measure results of the theorem. The theorem characterises the values of $`(\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\alpha ^2},\frac{\pi \mathrm{}\gamma }{m\beta ^2})`$ for which Condition (C2) fails to hold. Indeed, the set of such points must have measure zero and even Hausdorff dimension $`1`$, as the condition is required to hold for all $`v>0`$.

In physical terms, The first part of this result states that for most of the spacetimes discussed, the Schrödinger equation may be solved using Fourier series. Furthermore, (7) characterises the number of small denominators occurring for $`1a,bk`$. Each such small denominator causes the Fourier coefficient to become large, and thus corresponds to a comparatively large frequency in the spectrum of the wave function.

###### Remark 2

A direct but rather lengthy proof of the measure and dimension results of Theorem 1 is possible, using methods from Dodson’s paper .

A related problem is the problem of characterising the problematic periods in the classical, inhomogeneous wave equation,

$$\frac{^2u(t,x,y)}{t^2}^2u(t,x,y)=f(t,x,y).$$

On the one dimensional torus, this was studied by Novák  and later in more generality by Fečkan  and in even higher generality by Gramchev and Yoshino , who obtained necessary and sufficient conditions for solubility of a large class of partial differential equations including the wave equation. However, the problem is unsolved for the two dimensional torus. In this case, the analogue of Condition (C1) disappears, as $`u`$ does not occur on the right hand side. Condition (C1’) reduces to the condition that $`f=0`$. The Diophantine condition corresponding to Condition (C2) becomes

$$|a^2x+b^2yc^2|>K\mathrm{max}(a^2,b^2)^v$$
(8)
for some $`v>0`$ and some $`K>0`$ for all $`(a,b,c)^3`$ with $`(a,b)(0,0)`$. From Theorem 1, it follows that the set for which this fails to be the case has measure zero and dimension $`1`$. However, finding the critical exponent $`v`$ where the measure of the set associated with the failure of (8) drops from full to null and finding the dimension of this set in the null-region turns out to be very difficult.

It should be noted that since

$$a^2x+b^2yc^2=\left(\sqrt{a^2x+b^2y}\left|c\right|\right)\left(\sqrt{a^2x+b^2y}+\left|c\right|\right),$$

we may instead of (8) consider the condition

$$|\sqrt{a^2x+b^2y}|c\left|\right|>K^{}\mathrm{max}(a^2,b^2)^v^{}$$
(9)
for some $`v^{}>0`$ and some $`K^{}>0`$ for all $`(a,b,c)^3`$ with $`(a,b)(0,0)`$. This follows as the second term in the product is always positive (in fact it is to the order of $`\mathrm{max}(\left|a\right|,\left|b\right|)`$). Unfortunately, analysing the Diophantine condition (9) appears to be no less difficult than the original problem (8).

## Acknowledgements

I thank Todor V. Gramchev for his inspirational comments and insight. I also thank Chris Fewster for pointing out the significance of closed timelike curves and Maurice Dodson for his comments on the various drafts of the paper. Finally, I thank the referees for their helpful comments.


text:
# Scattering amplitudes for e+e⁻→ 3 jets at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD

## 1 Introduction

Today’s high energy collider experiments have reached such an accuracy that next-to-leading order (NLO) theoretical predictions are no longer sufficient. While for inclusive observables like for example the total hadronic cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation the step from NLO to next-to-next-leading order (NNLO) is far less demanding – and has been taken a long time ago – the contrary is true for less inclusive quantities as for example jet rates. Given these difficulties it is clear that only for specific reactions NNLO calculations can be envisaged. Important reactions for which one should go beyond the NLO approximation are for example: Bhabha scattering, $`pp,p\overline{p}2\text{jets}`$, and $`e^+e^{}3\text{jets}`$. Among these examples the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into 3 jets is of particular interest. Historically this reaction was one of the first clean tests of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) as the theory of strong interaction. Today the 3-jet production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is still an excellent laboratory for precise tests of QCD and jet physics.

If one studies how a jet is modeled in the perturbative prediction, it also becomes obvious that only in higher order perturbation theory will give a reliable description (c.f. fig. 1). Due to the fact that lepton colliders provide a very clean environment for QCD analyses $`e^+e^{}3\text{jets}`$ is also an excellent reaction for measureing the QCD coupling $`\alpha _s`$ with high accuracy. It is exactly here where the need for NNLO predictions for 3-jet production becomes most prominent: at present the measurements of $`\alpha _s`$ are plagued by scale uncertainties of the theoretical predictions  (see also H. Stenzel, these proceedings). These uncertainties arise from uncalculated higher order contributions. They can be reduced by a NNLO calculation. For a 3-jet prediction at NNLO accuracy several ingredients are needed: First the matrix elements for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}ggg,q\overline{q}q^{}\overline{q}^{}g`$ have to be evaluated. They are obtained from a leading-order calculation and are known for a long time . Second the one-loop matrix elements for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}gg,q\overline{q}q^{}\overline{q}^{}`$ are needed. They have been calculated in refs. . Finally one needs the NNLO amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}g`$ . In the following the calculation of the NNLO matrix elements is reported. One should keep in mind that the combination of these 3 ingredients into an infrared finite cross section is still a highly non-trivial – and so far unsolved – problem.

## 2 Old and new approaches to calculate NNLO amplitudes

Due to the tremendous activities in the field enormous progress has been made in the past. All the relevant double box scalar integrals have been calculated . For a few reactions these results have been used to obtain NNLO scattering amplitudes . Today one can say that a standard approach to perform these calculations exist. Essentially it consists of three steps. First one generates automatically the relevant Feynman diagrams. In a second step the reduction of tensor integrals to scalar integrals is done via Schwinger parametrization . The scalar integrals obtained in this step appear in shifted dimensions and with raised powers of the propagators. In a last step, equations derived from partial integration and Lorentz invariance are used to reduce the scalar integrals to a small set of master integrals . The final result is than obtained in terms of these master integrals. They have to be calculated analytically. The bottleneck of this approach is that one has to create and to solve a huge system of equations to obtain the desired reduction to master integrals. In contrast to the naive expectation, topologies which at first glance look not so difficult may involve much more work than the more complicated once like for example the double box. In ref.  we have proposed a different method. The basic idea is that one applies only obvious reductions like for example the triangle rule. In particular one does not perform a complete reduction to master integrals. Instead one calculates the scalar integrals in higher dimensions and with raised powers of the propagators directly.

To illustrate the method let us consider the so-called penta-box. A corresponding Feynman diagram is shown in fig. 2a. Applying Schwinger parametrization one arrives at the scalar topology shown schematically in fig. 2b. An obvious application of the triangle rule allows the elimination of two propagators . The resulting topology is often called C-topology. This reduction is shown in fig. 3. As mentioned earlier the C-topology appears in higher dimensions $`(d=2m2ϵ,mN)`$ and with raised powers of the propagators $`(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _5)`$.

In the approach advocated here an analytic expression for the C-topology is needed. Such an expression can be obtained in terms of infinite sums . The generic structure is shown in eq. (2).

$`\text{C}(m={\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}+ϵ,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _5){\displaystyle \underset{i_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^{i_1}}{i_1!}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2^{i_2}}{i_2!}}[`$
$`x_1^{2m2ϵ\nu _{1235}}x_2^{2m2ϵ\nu _{2345}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1+2m2ϵ\nu _{125})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1+1+2m2ϵ\nu _{1235})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1+i_2+3m3ϵ\nu _{12345})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_2+1+2m2ϵ\nu _{2345})}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1+i_2+2m2ϵ\nu _{235})\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_2+2m2ϵ\nu _{345})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(i_1+i_2+4m4ϵ\nu _{12345}\nu _5)}}`$
$`+\mathrm{}]`$ (1)
It is obvious that such a representation is completely useless unless one is able to evaluate the $`ϵ`$-expansion in terms of known functions. Fortunately this is possible using a few basic algorithms for nested sums . The basic idea here is that one rewrites the sums using the relation

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{ij}=a_{00}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{0j}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{i0}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}a_{j(nj)}.$$
(2)
Furthermore one can expand the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-functions by the means of

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{ϵn!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ)(1+S_1(n)ϵ`$ (3)
$`+S_{1,1}(n)ϵ^2+S_{1,1,1}(n)ϵ^3+S_{1,1,1,1}(n)ϵ^4+\mathrm{}`$
and related identities . Here $`S_{1,\mathrm{}}(n)`$ denote the harmonic sums, see e.g. ref. . Inspecting the sums which appear using eq. (2) and eq. (3) one observes that the algorithms needed are just a generalization of the algorithms studied in ref. . In particular defining the nested sums as a generalization of the harmonic sums by

$`S(n;m_1,\mathrm{},m_k;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)={\displaystyle \underset{i_1=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_2=1}{\overset{i_1}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{i_k=1}{\overset{i_{k1}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^{i_1}}{i_1^{m_1}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{x_k^{i_k}}{i_k^{m_k}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^i}{i^{m_1}}}S(i;m_2,\mathrm{},m_k;x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ (4)
the following four basic operations are sufficient to evaluate the $`ϵ`$-expansion of the C-topology in terms of multiple polylogarithms :

1. Multiplication

$$S(n;m_1,\mathrm{};x_1,\mathrm{})\times S(n;m_1^{},\mathrm{};x_1^{},\mathrm{})$$
(5)
2. Sums involving $`i`$ and $`ni`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^i}{i^{m_1}}}S(i;m_2\mathrm{};x_2,\mathrm{})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{ni}}{(ni)^{m_1^{}}}}S(ni;m_2^{},\mathrm{};x_2^{},\mathrm{})`$ (6)
3. Conjugations:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ i\end{array}\right)(1)^i\frac{x_0^i}{i^{m_0}}S(i;m_1,\mathrm{},m_k;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)$$
(7)
4. Sums involving binomials and $`ni`$:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(1\right)^i{\displaystyle \frac{x_1^i}{i^{m_1}}}S(i;m_2\mathrm{};x_2,\mathrm{})`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{ni}}{(ni)^{m_1^{}}}}S(ni;m_2^{},\mathrm{};x_2^{},\mathrm{})`$ (11)

In ref.  we have given explicit algorithms for the four basic operations. These algorithms are well suited for an implementation in a computer algebra system. For their implementation we used Form3  and Ginac . Using these programs we calculated more than 300 C-topologies analytically. In particular we have checked that our results for the two master integrals $`\mathrm{C}(2,1,1,1,1,1),\mathrm{C}(2,1,1,1,1,2)`$ agree with those given by Gehrmann and Remiddi . All the simpler topologies can be calculated in the same way.

## 3 Results

The amplitude $`𝒜_\gamma `$ for the process

$$e^+e^{}\gamma ^{}q(p_1)g(p_2)\overline{q}(p_3)$$
(12)
can be written as a leptonic part $`L_\mu `$ multiplied by a hadronic part $`H_\mu `$:

$`𝒜_\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}H_\mu L^\mu `$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}g_s(H_\mu ^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}H_\mu ^{(1)}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}\right)^2H_\mu ^{(2)}+\mathrm{})L^\mu ,`$
with $`s=(p_1+p_2+p_3)^2`$ and $`g_s=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _s}`$. Furthermore the hadronic part can be decomposed according to the colour structure. In particular we have

$`H_\mu ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{q\overline{q}}^a(N^2H_{2,\mu }^{(2)}+H_{0,\mu }^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}H_{2,\mu }^{(2)}`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`n_fNH_{n_f,1,\mu }^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{N}}H_{n_f,1,\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}+n_f^2H_{n_f^2,\mu }^{(2)}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f({\displaystyle \frac{4}{N}}N)H_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_f,\mu }^{(2)}),`$
with $`T_{q\overline{q}}^a`$ the generator of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge group and $`n_f`$ the number of massless quarks. The last contribution arise from a closed quark loop coupled directly to the photon. (The factor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ involves a sum over the charges of the active quarks.) We note that the contribution proportional to $`n_f^2`$ is completly determined by the renormalization. It does not involve any non-trivial two-loop topology. In this talk we discuss only the contributions proportional to $`n_fN`$ and $`\frac{n_f}{N}`$. The hadronic contribution can also be decomposed according to the spinor structure:

$`H_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`c_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}p_1|/p_2|p_3ϵ_{g}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$ (15)
$`+c_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}p_1|/p_2|p_3(ϵ_gp_1)p_{3}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$
$`+c_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}p_1|/p_2|p_3(ϵ_gp_3)p_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$
$`+c_4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}p_1|/p_2|p_3(ϵ_gp_1)p_{1}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$
$`+\mathrm{}+c_{13}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}}p_1|/p_2|p_3(ϵ_gp_3)p_{2}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$
where the scalar functions $`c_1c_{13}`$ depend only on the ratios $`x_1=2(p_1p_2)/s`$, $`x_2=2(p_2p_3)/s`$. Due to various constraints arising from gauge invariance or quark anti-quark antisymmetry only 4 of them are needed. All the remaining ones can be expressed in terms of these 4 functions which we chose to be $`c_2,c_4,c_6`$ and $`c_{12}`$. The perturbative expansion in $`\alpha _s`$ of the functions $`c_i`$ is defined through

$$c_i=g_s(c_i^{(0)}+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right)c_i^{(1)}+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\right)^2c_i^{(2)}+O(\alpha _s^3)).$$
(16)
Using the methods described in the previous section we calculated all the 13 functions and used the constraints as an additional check of our calculation. Furthermore we checked the structure of the ultraviolet as well as the infrared divergencies . We have also compared our results with results published recently . In refs.  the result is written in terms of 2-dimensional harmonic polylogarithms instead of the multiple polylogarithms used here. Expressing the 2-dimensional harmonic polylogarithms in terms of multiple polylogarithms we found complete agreement for the $`n_fN`$ and $`\frac{n_f}{N}`$ contribution calculated here.

Following ref.  we used the general structure of the infrared divergencies as described by Catani  to define the finite parts of the coefficients $`c_i`$:

$`c_i^{(2),\text{fin}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{(1),\text{ren}}𝐈^{(1)}(ϵ)c_i^{(1),\text{ren}}𝐈^{(2)}(ϵ)c_i^{(0)},`$ (17)
with the one- and two-loop insertion operators $`𝐈^{(1)}(ϵ)`$ and $`𝐈^{(2)}(ϵ)`$ given in ref. . As an example, we present the result for the $`n_fN`$-contribution to the finite part $`c_4^{(2),\text{fin}}`$ at two loops,

$`c_4^{(2),\text{fin}}(x_1,x_2)|_{n_fN}=n_fN({\displaystyle \frac{19}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1(1x_2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(x_2)}{(1x_2)}}[36{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x_1)}{(x_1+x_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{59}{x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{50}{x_1(1x_2)}}`$
$`+12{\displaystyle \frac{(13x_1)(1x_1)}{x_1(1x_1x_2)}}]+{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)}{(x_1+x_2)^3}}\mathrm{R}_1(x_1,x_2)`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_2)}{x_1(1x_2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(x_1+x_2)^2}}\right]\mathrm{Li}_2(1x_2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_2)}{x_1(1x_2)^2}}[\mathrm{ln}(x_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\zeta _2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{(7x_15x_26x_1x_2+5x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+x_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}{(1x_2)x_1(1x_1x_2)(x_1+x_2)}}\mathrm{ln}(x_1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{R}(x_1,x_2)}{(1x_1x_2)(1x_2)(x_1+x_2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6}}x_2{\displaystyle \frac{35}{12}}x_1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{19}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x_1)}{(1x_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(13x_1)(1x_1)}{(1x_1x_2)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{5x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{12x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{x_1}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{x_1(1+x_1)}{(x_1+x_2)}}]`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2x_2)}{x_1(1x_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(x_1+x_2)^2}}]\mathrm{Li}_2(1x_1))`$
$`i\pi n_fN\left({\displaystyle \frac{(2x_2)\mathrm{ln}(x_2)}{2x_1(1x_2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x_1(1x_2)}}\right).`$ (18)
We have introduced the function $`\mathrm{R}(x_1,x_2)`$, which is well known from ,

$`\mathrm{R}(x_1,x_2)=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(x_1)\mathrm{ln}(x_2)\mathrm{ln}(x_1)\mathrm{ln}(1x_1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _2\mathrm{Li}_2(x_1))+(x_1x_2).`$ (19)
In addition, it is convenient, to define the symmetric function $`\mathrm{R}_1(x_1,x_2)`$, which contains a particular combination of multiple polylogarithms ,

$`\mathrm{R}_1(x_1,x_2)=(\mathrm{ln}(x_1)\mathrm{Li}_{1,1}({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_1+x_2}},x_1+x_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta _2\mathrm{ln}(1x_1x_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(x_1)\mathrm{ln}(x_2)\mathrm{ln}(1x_1x_2)`$
$`\mathrm{ln}(x_1)\mathrm{Li}_2(x_1+x_2)\mathrm{Li}_{1,2}({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_1+x_2}},x_1+x_2)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_{2,1}({\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{x_1+x_2}},x_1+x_2)+\mathrm{Li}_3(x_1+x_2))`$
$`+(x_1x_2).`$ (20)
As one can see all multiple polylogarithms have simple arguments. As a consequence it is straightforward to obtain the analytic continuation, which can be used for the crossing of the amplitude.

## 4 Conclusion

In this talk we have presented the calculation of a specific colour structure of the QCD two-loop amplitude $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}g`$. The computation has been done by a completely new method developed by the authors . It has been shown that the approach which is based on nested sums and their algebraic properties provides a very efficient method for two-loop calculations. Furthermore the tools developed in this approach can also be used for a systematic expansion of generalized hypergeometric functions. In addition the presented results provide a very important cross check on recently obtained results .

Acknowledgment: P.U. would like to thank the organizers for the pleasant atmosphere at QCD02.


text:
# Poster presented at “Lattice 2002” international symposium, June 24-29, 2002, Cambridge, MA, USAKEK-TH-846RBRC-250 Nucleon axial charge from quenched lattice QCD with domain wall fermions and DBW2 gauge action

## Abstract

The domain wall fermion (DWF) method, with its almost perfectly preserved chiral symmetry on the lattice, makes the calculation of the nucleon axial charge particularly easy. By maintaining chiral symmetry and using the Ward-Takahashi (WT) identity, one has $`Z_A=Z_V`$ and the bare lattice calculation yields the physical value without explicit renormalization. The DBW2 improved gauge action provides further enhancement of the symmetry and hence a more accurate WT identity at coarse lattice spacing. Taking advantage of these methods, we confirmed a significant volume dependence of the nucleon axial charge on $`(1.2\mathrm{fm})^3`$ and $`(2.4\mathrm{fm})^3`$ lattice volumes.

Domain wall fermions (DWF)  preserve chiral symmetry on the lattice by introducing a fictitious fifth dimension in which the symmetry violation is exponentially suppressed. The DBW2 (“doubly blocked Wilson 2”) improved gauge action  improves the approach to the continuum by adding rectangular (2$`\times `$1) Wilson loops to the action. By combining the two, the “residual mass,” which controls low energy chiral behavior, is driven to as small as $`am_{\mathrm{res}}<O(10^4)`$, or $`1\mathrm{MeV}`$. Successful numerical lattice calculations investigating chiral symmetry and the ground-state hadron mass spectrum , Kaon matrix elements , and negative-parity excited nucleon ($`N^{}`$) mass  have been reported. Here we apply the method to the axial charge, $`g__A`$, the simplest of nucleon electroweak matrix elements.

From neutron $`\beta `$ decay, we know $`g__V=G_F\mathrm{cos}\theta _c`$ and $`g__A/g__V=1.2670(35)`$ . These quantities are defined as $`q^20`$ limits of the form factors $`g__V(q^2)`$ and $`g__A(q^2)`$ in the relevant vector and axial current matrix elements, $`n|V_\mu ^{}(x)|p`$,

$$i\overline{u}_n[\gamma _\mu g__V(q^2)+q_\lambda \sigma _{\lambda \mu }g__M(q^2)]u_pe^{iqx},$$

and $`n|A_\mu ^{}(x)|p`$,

$$i\overline{u}_n\gamma _5[\gamma _\mu g__A(q^2)+q_\mu g__P(q^2)]u_pe^{iqx}.$$

On the lattice, in general, we calculate the relevant matrix elements of these currents with a lattice cutoff, $`a^1`$ $``$ 1-2 GeV, and extrapolate to the continuum, $`a0`$, introducing lattice renormalization: $`g_{{}_{V}{}^{},_{A}^{}}^{\mathrm{ren}}=Z_{{}_{V}{}^{},_{A}^{}}^{\mathrm{lat}}g_{{}_{V}{}^{},_{A}^{}}^{\mathrm{lat}}`$. Also, unwanted lattice artefacts may result in unphysical mixing of chirally distinct operators. DWF make the calculation particularly easy, because the chiral symmetry is almost exact; the relation $`Z__A=Z__V`$ is maintained, so the lattice ratio $`(g__A/g__V)^{\mathrm{lat}}`$ directly yields the renormalized ratio.

It is interesting to note the pre-QCD model estimations for this quantity. The non-relativistic quark model in its simplest form gives $`5/3`$, and the MIT bag model gives 1.07. The lattice QCD calculations with Wilson or clover fermions underestimate $`g_A`$ by 10 to 25 % . These calculation also suffer from systematic errors arising from $`Z__AZ__V`$ and other renormalization complications.

Our formulation follows the standard one, and was summarized in our Lattice 2001 proceedings . In addition to the wall sources, sequential sources are added .

Numerical calculations with Wilson (single plaquette) gauge action were performed at $`\beta =6.0`$ on a $`16^3\times 32\times 16`$ lattice and $`M_5=1.8`$ with nucleon source at $`t=5`$, sink at 21, and current insertions in between. Results from 400 gauge configurations are summarized as follows. The local vector current renormalization $`Z__V=1/g__V^{\mathrm{lattice}}`$ is well-behaved: the value $`0.764(2)`$ at $`m_f=0.02`$ agrees well with $`Z__A=0.7555(3)`$ of the corresponding local axial current renormalization . A linear fit gives $`Z__V=0.760(7)`$ at $`m_f=0`$, and a quadratic fit, 0.761(5). The axial to vector charge ratio, $`g__A/g__V`$, averaged in $`10t16`$ time slices, yields a value of 0.81(11) in the linearly extrapolated chiral limit $`m_f=0`$. These are essentially the same as last year , but have been confirmed with much higher accuracy obtained through higher statistics.

Possible reasons for this small value of $`g__A/g__V`$ are finite lattice volume , excited states (small separation between $`t_{\mathrm{source}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{sink}}`$), and quenching (zero modes, absent pion cloud, and so on). Here we concentrate on the first possibility. To investigate size-dependence, we need good chiral behavior or sufficient proximity to the continuum, and big enough lattice spatial volume at the same time. Improved gauge actions help both . In particular the DBW2 action  gives very small residual chiral symmetry breaking, $`am_{\mathrm{res}}<10^3`$, at a lattice spacing of $`a`$ $``$ 0.15 fm. At this lattice cutoff the hadron mass spectrum is well-behaved in the chiral limit too: $`am_\rho =0.592(9)`$, $`m_\rho /m_N0.8`$, and $`m_\pi (m_f=0.02)0.3a^1`$.

DBW2 calculations are performed with both wall and sequential sources on two lattices: $`8^3\times 24\times 16`$ ($``$ $`(1.2\mathrm{fm})^3`$), 405 configurations (wall and sequential), and $`16^3\times 32\times 16`$ ($``$ $`(2.4\mathrm{fm})^3`$), 100 configurations (wall) and 204 (sequential). Nucleon source-sink separation is set at about 1.5 fm, and quark mass values of $`m_f`$ = 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 and 0.10 are used. So the pion mass is as low as $`m_\pi 390\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and satisfies $`m_\pi L4.8`$ and 2.4, respectively. The residual mass at this cutoff is about 0.8 MeV or $`am_{\mathrm{res}}6\times 10^4`$.

Again the vector and axial current renormalization factors are well-behaved (see Figure 1.)

The vector renormalization, $`Z__V`$, calculated as $`1/g__V`$, shows slight quadratic dependence on $`m_f`$ as expected: $`V_\mu ^{\mathrm{conserved}}=Z__VV_\mu ^{\mathrm{local}}+𝒪(m_f^2a^2)`$, yielding a value $`Z__V=0.791(17)`$ in the chiral limit. This agrees well with the axial renormalization, $`Z__A=0.77759(45)`$, obtained from $`A__\mu ^{\mathrm{conserved}}(t)[\overline{q}\gamma _5q](0)=Z__AA_\mu ^{\mathrm{local}}(t)[\overline{q}\gamma _5q](0)`$ . This assures that the lattice calculation of the axial-to-vector ratio directly yields its continuum value without any further renormalization: $`(g__A/g__V)^{\mathrm{lat}}=(g__A/g__V)^{\mathrm{ren}}`$.

In Figure 2 the quark-mass dependence of the ratio obtained from sequential source calculations is summarized for the two lattice volumes:

Clear volume dependence is seen between $`(2.4\mathrm{fm})^3`$ and $`(1.2\mathrm{fm})^3`$ volumes. The large volume results with the sequential source show a very mild $`m_f`$ dependence and extrapolate to a value of $`(g__A/g__V)^{\mathrm{ren}}=1.21(3)(+4)`$. The first error is statistical and the second is systematic from a preliminary finite-size analysis. At the lightest quark mass value of $`m_f`$=0.02, the volume dependence is no longer statistically significant. Indeed at this $`m_f`$ even the larger volume may not be big enough. In Figure 3 the same data are presented in physical units together with the small volume Wilson gauge action results.

The smaller volume results with Wilson ($`16^3\times 32`$ at $`a`$ $``$ 0.1 fm) and DBW2 ($`8^3\times 24`$ at $`a`$ $``$ 0.15 fm) actions are mutually consistent. In summary we confirmed a lattice-volume dependence of the nucleon axial charge, $`g__A/g__V`$. Similar dependence was seen in the bare tensor charge. Further investigation is under way.