format: text

text:
# Rare 𝐵_𝑠→𝜈𝜈̄𝛾 decay beyond the standard model

## I Introduction

The experimental observation of the $`bs\gamma `$  and $`BX_s\gamma `$  processes opened a window to study possible rare $`B`$ meson decays, which will give important information about Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements. In the Standard Model rare $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay is forbidden due to the helicity conservation. When photon is emitted from structure dependent part (see below) the helicity conservation allows the decay $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$. Therefore, the investigation of the $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ rare decay becomes interesting.

The main interest in studying $`B`$ meson decays is to test the Standard Model (SM) predictions at loop level and extract new physics effects beyond the SM. The loop induced rare decays $`B_s(B_d)\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ within the SM have been studied using constituent quark model and pole model and the branching ratios are found to be $`10^8`$ for $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ and $`10^9`$ $`B_d\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ .

The decay rate of the $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ might have an enhancement comparing with the pure leptonic modes of $`B`$ meson. The new physics effects beyond SM can be also probed by studying this $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ rare decay properties.

In this paper, we study the sensitivity of the physically measurable quantities, branching ratio, photon energy distribution, to the new physics effects using the most general form of the effective Hamiltonian. The effects of the new Wilson coefficients $`C_X`$ on branching ratio and photon energy distribution is also investigated.

## II Effective Hamiltonian

The most general model independent form of the effective Hamiltonian for the process $`bq\nu \overline{\nu }`$ can be written in the following form ;

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F\alpha V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}}{4\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w}}\{C_{LL}^{tot}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{LR}^{tot}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu `$ (1)
$`+`$ $`C_{RL}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RR}\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRLR}\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1+\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RLLR}\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1+\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_{LRRL}\overline{s}(1+\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1\gamma _5)\nu +C_{RLRL}\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b\overline{\nu }(1\gamma _5)\nu `$
$`+`$ $`C_T\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\nu +iC_{TE}^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\nu \}`$
where the projection operators $`L`$ and $`R`$ in Eq.(1) are defined as $`L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$, $`R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$, and $`C_X`$ are the coefficients of the four-Fermi interactions. In this work, we restrict ourselves by considering only Dirac neutrino in order to avoid additional lepton-number-violating operators. Furthermore, the states $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _R`$ are well separated in the massless Dirac neutrino case. However, for the massive neutrino case we can change chirality with help of the mass, and therefore in this case it is necessary the right-handed neutrino to be heavy. In general, the Wilson coeeficients for $`bsl^+l^{}`$ and $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ processes are different. However, operator structures in both case must be the same, since for massive neutrino case charged lepton and neutrino except their electric charge are the same with respect to the SU(2). First four terms in the effective Hamiltonian are the vector interactions. The interaction terms with coefficients $`C_{LL}^{tot}`$ and $`C_{LR}^{tot}`$ which are present in the SM are given in the form,

$`C_{LL}^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}C_{10}`$
$`C_{LR}^{SM}`$ $`=`$ $`C_9^{eff}+C_{10}.`$
The contributions from the new physics can be described by redefining the Wilson coefficients as $`C_{LL(LR)}^{tot}=C_{LL(LR)}^{SM}C_X`$. The coefficients $`C_{LRLR},C_{RLLR},C_{LRRL}`$ and $`C_{RLRL}`$ describe the scalar type interactions which disappear in our calculations for $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ process. The remaining last two coefficients in Eq.(1), correspond to tensor type interactions. In general, these operators are possible and they can appear from the exchange of spin-2 particles. It is obvious that the effects of the $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$ operators will be larger, because there are more Lorentz indices, which means that summing over them will lead to larger effects. In order to calculate the matrix element for $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ decay we use the general form of the effective Hamiltonian and the standard definitions for the matrix elements  ;

$`\gamma (q)\left|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_B^2}}\{_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\epsilon ^\nu p^\lambda q^\sigma g(p^2)\pm i\left[\epsilon ^\mu (pq)(\epsilon ^{}p)q^\mu \right]f(p^2)\}`$ (2)
$$\gamma (q)\left|\overline{s}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B(p_B)=\frac{e}{m_B^2}_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\left[G\epsilon ^\lambda q^\sigma +H\epsilon ^\lambda p^\sigma +N(\epsilon ^{}p)p^\lambda q^\sigma \right]$$
(3)
$$\gamma (q)\left|\overline{s}(1\gamma _5)b\right|B(p_B)=0$$
(4)
where $`\epsilon _\mu ^{}`$ is the polarization vector of the photon. The $`p`$,$`q`$ and $`p_B`$ are the transfer momentum, photon momentum and the momentum of $`B`$ meson, respectively. Using Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) the matrix element for the process can be calculated as follows:

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F}{4\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_B^2}}\{\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)\nu [A_1_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta +iA_2(\epsilon _\mu ^{}(pq)(\epsilon ^{}p)q_\mu )]`$ (5)
$`+\overline{\nu }\gamma ^\mu (1+\gamma _5)\nu \left[B_1_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon ^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta +iB_2(\epsilon _\mu ^{}(pq)(\epsilon ^{}p)q_\mu )\right]`$
$`+`$ $`i_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\overline{\nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\nu \left[G\epsilon ^\alpha q^\beta +H\epsilon ^\alpha p^\beta +N(\epsilon ^{}p)p^\alpha q^\beta \right]`$
$`+`$ $`i\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\nu [G_1(\epsilon ^\mu q^\nu \epsilon ^\nu q^\mu )+H_1(\epsilon ^\mu p^\nu \epsilon ^\nu p^\mu )+N_1(\epsilon ^{}p)(p^\mu q^\nu p^\nu q^\mu )]\}`$
where we have used the definitions ;

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL})g,A_2=(C_{LL}^{tot}C_{RL})f,`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`(C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RR})g,B_2=(C_{LR}^{tot}C_{RR})f.`$
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`4C_Tg_1,N=4C_T{\displaystyle \frac{(f_1+g_1)}{p^2}},H=N(pq),`$
$`G_1`$ $`=`$ $`8C_{TE}g_1,N_1=8C_{TE}{\displaystyle \frac{(f_1+g_1)}{p^2}},H_1=N_1(pq).`$ (6)
with $`p^2=m_B^2(1x),pq=m_B^2x/2,x=2E_\gamma /m_B`$ where $`E_\gamma `$ is the photon energy. The double differential decay width of the $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ process in the rest frame of the $`B`$ meson can be written in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dxdE_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^3}}\left|M\right|^2`$ (7)
The bounds of the final neutrino energy $`E_1`$ and the dimensionless parameter $`x`$ for photon energy are determined from the following inequalities

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{2}}E_\gamma `$ $``$ $`E_1{\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{2}},0x1`$ (8)
In our calculations, we consider hard photon in the process $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ . For the experimental observability of photon we impose a cut on the minimum energy to be greater than 25 MeV which corresponds to $`x0.01`$ . We integrate the differential decay width over the neutrino energy $`E_1`$ to get the photon energy distribution

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dx}}`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha G_F}{4\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}m_Bx^3\{4\left[\right|H_1|^2(1x)+Re(G_1H_1^{})x]{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x^2}}`$ (9)
$``$ $`4\left[\left|H\right|^2(1x)+Re(GH^{})x\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m_B^2\left[2Re(GN^{})+m_B^2\left|N\right|^2(1x)\right](1x)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m_B^2\left[2Re(G_1N_1^{})+m_B^2\left|N_1\right|^2(1x)\right](1x)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}m_B^2\left[(|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2+|B_1|^2+|B_2|^2)(1x)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(|G|^2+|G_1|^2)\}`$
The form factors $`f,g,f_1`$ and $`g_1`$ ,which we have used in our numerical calculations, appearing in Eq.(6) can be obtained in the framework of light cone QCD sum rules given in  and their $`x`$ dependence with a good accuracy:

$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.8GeV}{(1\frac{(4.8)^2(1x)}{(6.5)^2})^2}},g(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1GeV}{(1\frac{(4.8)^2(1x)}{(5.6)^2})^2}},`$
$`f_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.68GeV^2}{(1\frac{(4.8)^2(1x)}{30})^2}},g_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3.74GeV^2}{(1\frac{(4.8)^2(1x)}{40.5})^2}}.(10)`$
## III Results and Discussions

We use the main input parameters $`m_B=5.28GeV,\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\right|=0.045,\alpha ^1=137,G_F=1.17\times 10^5GeV^2`$ in the numerical results. For the Wilson coefficients we take the values $`C_9^{eff}=4.344`$ and $`C_{10}=4.6242`$ given in the .

In this work, we assume that all new Wilson coefficients $`C_X`$ are real and vary in the region $`4`$ $`C_X+4`$. The experimental bounds on the branching ratios of the $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$  suggest that this is the right order of magnitude range for the vector and scalar interactions coefficients. Therefore, we assume that all new Wilson coefficients change in this range. The integrated branching ratio for the rare $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ decay depending on the new Wilson coefficients $`C_T,C_{TE},C_{RR},C_{RL},C_{LL},C_{LR}`$ is plotted in Fig. 1. It is clear from this figure that branching ratio increases when all new Wilson coefficients $`C_X>0`$ increase, for example, in the region $`4`$ $`C_T,`$ $`C_{TE}0`$ branching ratio decreases and it increases in the region $`0`$ $`C_T`$ $`,C_{TE}+4`$. Furthermore, the branching ratio remain approximately unchanged when the coefficients $`C_{RR},C_{LR}`$ varies and there is no sensitivity to these coefficients. The branching ratio weakly depends on the $`C_{RR},C_{RL},C_{LR}`$ coefficients.

However, one can conclude that the branching ratio is more sensitive to the tensor type $`C_T`$ and $`C_{TE}`$ coefficients. We find the branching ratio $`B(B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma )=1.2\times 10^8`$ for new Wilson coefficients are set to zero. The branching ratio for the contact interactions give symmetrical distribution with respect to zero. Measuring this branching ratio can give an information about the magnitude of this type tensor interactions, see Fig. 2. In addition, the $`C_{RL}`$ and $`C_{LL}`$ distribution can give an opportunity to detect the sign of these coefficients. We see that in dependence of the sign of the tensor interaction $`C_{TE}`$ differential branching ratio can be larger or smaller than SM prediction .

The photon energy distribution can also give information about new physics effects. In Fig. 3, we present the differential branching ratio for the rare $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ decay as a function of dimensionless variable $`x`$ for different values of coefficient $`C_{LL}`$. In this view the differential branching ratio measurement could give important information about the sign of new Wilson coefficient. The higher sensitivity can be obtained when the photon energy reaches $`0.6GeV`$.

In conclusion, using a general model independent effective Hamiltonian for the process $`B_s\nu \overline{\nu }\gamma `$ , the branching ratio and the photon energy distribution are found to be sensitive to the existence of new physics beyond the SM. Within a reasonable range of branching ratios, it would be possible to detect the rare processes in the future B-factories. At planning LHC-B and B TeV hadronic machines $`10^{11}10^{12}`$ $`bb`$ pair per years  will be produced. Therefore, the number of expected events are $`N10^310^4`$, which quite detectable this decay in the above mentioned colliders. Note that signature of this decay will be single photon and missing energy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank T.M. Aliev and S. Sultansoy for useful discussions. This research is partially supported by Turkish Planning Organization (DPT) under the Grant No 2002K120250.


text:
# References

Generalized Statistics and the Formation of a Quark-Gluon Plasma

A.M. Teweldeberhan1, H.G. Miller1, and R. Tegen1, 2

1Department of Physics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa

2Department of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, P.O. WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

September 12, 2002

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of a non-extensive form of statistical mechanics proposed by Tsallis on the formation of a quark-gluon plasma (QGP). We suggest to account for the effects of the dominant part of the long-range interactions among the constituents in the QGP by a change in the statistics of the system in this phase, and we study the relevance of this statistics for the phase transition. The results show that small deviations ($`10\%`$) from Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics in the QGP produce a noticeable change in the phase diagram, which can, in principle, be tested experimentally.

1. Introduction

In the past few years the non-extensive form of statistical mechanics proposed by Tsallis  has found applications in astrophysical self-gravitating systems , solar neutrinos , high energy nuclear collisions , cosmic microwave back ground radiation , and high temperature superconductivity . In these cases a small deviation of q ($`10\%`$) from Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) statistics reduces the discrepancies between experimental data and theoretical models.

Substantial theoretical research has been carried out to study the phase transition between hadronic matter and the QGP \[8-12\]. When calculating the QGP signatures in relativistic nuclear collisions, the distribution functions of quarks and gluons are traditionally described by BG statistics. In this paper we investigate the effect of the non-extensive form of statistical mechanics on the formation of a QGP. The crucial difference between the hadronic and QGP phase is the relative importance of short-range and long-range interactions among the constituents on either side of the anticipated phase transition. The hadronic phase is characterized by a dominant short-range interaction among hadrons (which lends itself to BG statistics) while the QGP phase has a greatly reduced short-range interaction (due to “asymptotic freedom”) and consequently a dominant long-range interaction. We suggest in this communication to account for the effects of the dominant part of this long-range interaction by a change in statistics for the constituents in the QGP phase. In addition we deem the non-dominant part of this long-range interaction negligible for the purpose of the phase diagram which we study here in detail. This latter view is supported by the empirical insensitivity of the phase diagram to details of the interaction among constituents on either side of the phase transition. Therefore, we use the generalized statistics of Tsallis to describe the QGP phase while maintaining the usual BG statistics in the hadron phase (as we shall see this may also be regarded as choosing Tsallis statistics in the hadron phase with the Tsallis parameter q=1).

Since hadron-hadron interactions are of short-range, BG statistics is successful in describing particle production ratios seen in relativistic heavy ion collisions below the phase transition \[13-17\]. Our motivation for the use of generalized statistics in the QGP phase lies in the necessity to include the long-range interactions on the QGP side. It has been demonstrated  that the non-extensive statistics can be considered as the natural generalization of the extensive BG statistics in the presence of long-range interactions, long-range microscopic memory, or fractal space-time constraints. It was suggested in  that the extreme conditions of high density and temperature in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions can lead to memory effects and long-range colour interactions. Anticipating the formation of a QGP in heavy ion collisions, we use the generalized statistics to incorporate the effect of a long-range colour magnetic force in this phase.

The generalized entropy proposed by Tsallis  takes the form:

$$S_q=\kappa \frac{(1_{i=1}^wp_i^q)}{q1}(q\mathrm{}),$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is a positive constant (from now on set equal to 1), w is the total number of microstates in the system, $`p_i`$ are the associated probabilities with $`_{i=1}^wp_i=1`$, and the Tsallis parameter (q) is a real number. It is straightforward to verify that the usual BG logarithmic entropy, $`S=_{i=1}^wp_i\mathrm{ln}p_i`$, is recovered in the limit $`q1`$. Only in this limit is the ensuing statistical mechanics extensive . For general values of q, the measure $`S_q`$ is non-extensive. That is, the entropy of a composite system $`AB`$ consisting of two subsystems A and B, which are statistically independent in the sense that $`p_{i,j}^{(AB)}=p_i^{(A)}p_j^{(B)}`$, is not equal to the sum of the individual entropies associated with each subsystem. Instead, the entropy of the composite system is given by Tsallis’ q-additive relation ,

$$S_q(AB)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B)$$
(2)
The quantity $`|1q|`$ can be regarded as a measure of the degree of non-extensivity exhibited by $`S_q`$.

The standard quantum mechanical distributions can be obtained from a maximum entropy principle based on the entropic measure ,

$$S=\underset{i}{}[\overline{n}_i\mathrm{ln}\overline{n}_i(1\pm \overline{n}_i)\mathrm{ln}(1\pm \overline{n}_i)],$$
(3)
where the upper and lower signs correspond to bosons and fermions, respectively, and $`\overline{n}_i`$ denotes the number of particles in the $`i^{th}`$ energy level with energy $`ϵ_i`$. The extremization of the above measure under the constraints imposed by the total number of particles,

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{n}_i=N,$$
(4)
and the total energy of the system,

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{n}_iϵ_i=E,$$
(5)
leads to the standard quantum distributions,

$$\overline{n}_i=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\beta (\epsilon _i\mu )1},$$
(6)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{T}`$ and the upper and lower signs correspond to the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions, respectively.

To deal with non-extensive scenarios (characterized by $`q1`$), the extended measure of entropy for fermions proposed in  is:

$$S_q^{(F)}[\overline{n}_i]=\underset{i}{}\{(\frac{\overline{n}_i\overline{n}_i^q}{q1})+[\frac{(1\overline{n}_i)(1\overline{n}_i)^q)}{q1}]\},$$
(7)
which for $`q1`$ reduces to the entropic functional (3) (with lower signs).

The constraints

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{n}_i^q=N$$
(8)
and

$$\underset{i}{}\overline{n}_i^qϵ_i=E$$
(9)
lead to

$$\overline{n}_i=\frac{1}{[1+(q1)\beta (ϵ_i\mu )]^{\frac{1}{q1}}+1}$$
(10)
In the limit $`q1`$ one recovers the usual Fermi-Dirac distribution (6) (with lower sign).

Similarly,

$$\overline{n}_i=\frac{1}{[1+(q1)\beta (ϵ_i\mu )]^{\frac{1}{q1}}1}$$
(11)
for bosons. We now turn to the description of the system in the QGP phase.

2. The QGP phase

In this approach, the quarks and gluons are treated as forming an ideal gas, apart from the non-perturbative corrections to the pressure and energy density resulting from the bag model . We initially (a) describe the system by BG statistics in order to define our notation and general numerical procedure. In (b) we lay out the differences due to the non-extensive statistics. We emphasize that only (b) can incorporate the anticipated long-range forces in the QGP phase.

(a) Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) Statistics

According to the BG statistics the energy density, pressure and baryon number density for a QGP consisting of massless u and d quarks and anti-quarks, each with degeneracy factor $`d_Q=12`$, and gluons, with degeneracy $`d_G=16`$, at a temperature T and baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$ are given by

$$u_{QGP}=\frac{d_Q}{2\pi ^2}\{_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^3[\overline{n}_Q+\overline{n}_{\overline{Q}}]+\frac{d_G}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^3\overline{n}_G+B$$
(12)
$$p_{QGP}=\frac{d_QT}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^2\{\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{T}(\mu _Qk)]+\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{T}(\mu _Q+k)\}$$

$$\frac{d_QT}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2\mathrm{ln}[1\mathrm{exp}(\frac{k}{T})]B$$
(13)
and

$$n_{QGP}=\frac{d_Q}{6\pi ^2}\{_0^{\mathrm{}}dkk^2[\overline{n}_Q\overline{n}_{\overline{Q}}]$$
(14)
where

$$\overline{n}_{Q(\overline{Q})}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{T}(k\mu _Q)+1},$$
(15)
$$\overline{n}_G=\frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\frac{k}{T})1}$$
(16)
and $`\mu _Q=\frac{\mu }{3}`$.

Integration by parts of equation (13) yields

$$p_{QGP}=\frac{1}{3}(u_{QGP}4B)$$
(17)
Integration of equations (12)-(14) yields

$$u_{QGP}=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}(d_G+\frac{7}{4}d_Q)T^4+\frac{d_Q\mu ^2T^2}{36}+\frac{d_Q\mu ^4}{648\pi ^2}+B$$
(18)
$$p_{QGP}=\frac{\pi ^2}{90}(d_G+\frac{7}{4}d_Q)T^4+\frac{d_Q\mu ^2T^2}{108}+\frac{d_Q\mu ^4}{1944\pi ^2}B$$
(19)
and

$$n_{QGP}=d_Q[\frac{\mu T^2}{54}+\frac{\mu ^3}{486\pi ^2}]$$
(20)
where B is the bag constant which is taken here as (210 MeV)4  with an uncertainty of $`15\%`$.

(b) Generalized Statistics

If we use the generalized statistics to describe the entropic measure of the whole system, the distribution function can not , in general, be reduced to a finite, closed, analytical expression \[23-28\]. For this reason we use generalized statistics to describe the entropies of the individual particles, rather than of the system as a whole111For a more detailed account of this important point see ref. ..

The distribution function is then given by

$$\overline{n}_i=\frac{1}{[1+(q1)\beta (ϵ_i\mu )]^{\frac{1}{q1}}1},$$
(21)
where the upper and lower signs correspond to bosons and fermions, respectively . In this case

$$\overline{n}_{Q(\overline{Q})}=\frac{1}{[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)(k\mu _Q)]^{\frac{1}{q1}}+1}$$
(22)
and

$$\overline{n}_G=\frac{1}{[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)k]^{\frac{1}{q1}}1}$$
(23)
In the limit $`q1`$ one recovers equations (15) and (16).

The expression for the pressure is given by

$$p_{QGP}=\frac{d_QT}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2(\frac{f_Q^{q1}1}{q1}+\frac{f_{\overline{Q}}^{q1}1}{q1})$$

$$\frac{d_GT}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2(\frac{f_G^{q1}1}{q1})B$$
(24)
where

$$f_Q=1+[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)(k\mu _Q)]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(25)
$$f_{\overline{Q}}=1+[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)(k+\mu _Q)]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(26)
and

$$f_G=1[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)k]^{\frac{1}{1q}}$$
(27)
which in the limit $`q1`$ reduces to (13).

Since the integrals in (12)-(14) are not integrable analytically one has to calculate these integrals numerically. For $`q>1`$, the quantity $`[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)(k\mu _Q)]`$ becomes negative if $`\mu _Q>k`$. To avoid this problem we use ,

$$f_Q=1+[1+\frac{1}{T}(q1)(k\mu _Q)]^{\frac{1}{1q}},k\mu _Q$$
(28)
and

$$f_Q=1+[1+\frac{1}{T}(1q)(k\mu _Q)]^{\frac{1}{q1}},k<\mu _Q$$
(29)
In the limit $`q1`$ one recovers, of course, the appropriate Fermi-Dirac distribution in both cases. We now turn to the hadronic phase of the system which is more readily accessible to experiment.

3. The hadron phase

The hadron phase is taken to contain only interacting nucleons and antinucleons and an ideal gas of massless pions motivated by the findings in . The interactions between nucleons can be treated either by means of an excluded volume approximation or by a mean field approximation. The excluded volume approximation to hadron interactions is either thermodynamically inconsistent, or leads to computational difficulties in realistic calculations if the consistency problem is addressed. To treat the interactions we use the relativistic mean field or Hartree approximation proposed by Walecka  which is thermodynamically self-consistent. In this model the interaction between nucleons is described by the scalar-isoscalar $`\sigma `$ and vector-isoscalar $`\omega ^\mu `$ mesonic fields with baryon-meson interaction terms in the Lagrangian: $`g_\sigma \overline{\psi }\psi \sigma `$ and $`g_\omega \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi \omega _\mu `$. For nuclear matter in thermodynamical equilibrium these mesonic fields ($`\sigma `$ and $`\omega ^\mu `$) are considered to be constant classical quantities. The scalar field $`\sigma `$ describes the attraction between nucleons and lowers the nucleon (antinucleon) mass M to $`M^{}=Mg_\sigma \sigma `$. The nucleon-nucleon repulsion is described by the vector field $`\omega ^\mu `$ which changes the nucleon (antinucleon) energy by $`(\pm U(n))`$ 222The odd G-parity of the $`\omega `$-meson is responsible for the attractive $`\omega `$-exchange in $`N\overline{N}`$ scattering as compared to the repulsive $`\omega `$-exchange in $`NN(\overline{N}\overline{N})`$ scattering..

The thermodynamically self-consistent equations of state (EOS) for nuclear matter are :

$$p(T,\mu )=\frac{\gamma _N}{3}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\overline{n}_N+\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})+nU(n)$$

$$_0^n𝑑n^{}U(n^{})+P(M^{})$$
(30)
$$\overline{n}_{N(\overline{N})}=[\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mu \pm U(n)}{T})+1]^1$$
(31)
$$(\frac{\delta P}{\delta M^{}})_{T,\mu }\frac{dP(M^{})}{dM^{}}\gamma _N\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{M^{}}{\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\overline{n}_N+\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})=0$$
(32)
$$n(T,\mu )=\gamma _N\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}(\overline{n}_N\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})$$
(33)
and

$$u(T,\mu )=\gamma _N\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}(\overline{n}_N+\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})+_0^n𝑑n^{}U(n^{})P(M^{}),$$
(34)
where p, n, and u are the pressure, baryon number density, and energy density respectively, $`\overline{n}_{N(\overline{N})}`$ is the distribution function of nucleons (antinucleons), $`\mu `$ is the baryon chemical potential, and $`\gamma _N`$ is the spin-isospin degeneracy of the nucleon which is 4 for symmetric nuclear matter. Equation (32) describes the dependence of the effective nuclear mass $`M^{}`$ on T and $`\mu `$ which is defined by extremizing the thermodynamical potential (maximizing the pressure).

If we choose ,

$$P(M^{})=\frac{1}{2C_\sigma ^2}(MM^{})^2,U(n)=C_\omega ^2n$$
(35)
where $`C_\sigma g_\sigma (\frac{M}{m_\sigma })`$, and $`C_\omega g_\omega (\frac{M}{m_\omega })`$. The parameter set (M, $`g_\sigma `$, $`g_\omega `$, $`m_\sigma `$, $`m_\omega `$) consists of phenomenological constants determined by experiment. We take here M= 0.940 GeV, $`M^{}`$= 0.543M, $`g_\sigma 11`$ GeV-1, $`g_\omega 14`$ GeV-1, $`m_\sigma `$= 0.520 GeV, $`m_\omega `$= 0.783 GeV, which reproduces data (see ref.  for details) in the hadronic phase.

The energy density, pressure, and baryon number density for the hadron gas taken to contain nucleons, antinucleons and an ideal gas of massless pions are:

$$u_H(T,\mu )=\frac{\gamma _N}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}(\overline{n}_N+\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})+\frac{1}{2}C_\omega ^2n^2+$$

$$\frac{1}{2C_\sigma ^2}(MM^{})^2+\frac{1}{10}\pi ^2T^4$$
(36)
$$p_H(T,\mu )=\frac{\gamma _N}{6\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dkk^4}{\sqrt{k^2+M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\overline{n}_N+\overline{n}_{\overline{N}})+\frac{1}{2}C_\omega ^2n^2$$

$$\frac{1}{2C_\sigma ^2}(MM^{})^2+\frac{1}{30}\pi ^2T^4$$
(37)
and

$$n_H(T,\mu )=\frac{\gamma _N}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kk^2(\overline{n}_N\overline{n}_{\overline{N}}),$$
(38)
where $`\overline{n}_{N(\overline{N})}`$ as in (31) with U(n) as in (35).

Finally, we address the phase transition from the hadronic to the QGP phase, within our model.

4. Phase transition

Assuming a first order phase transition between hadronic matter and QGP one matches an EOS for the hadronic system and the QGP via Gibbs conditions for phase equilibrium:

$$p_H=p_{QGP},T_H=T_{QGP},\mu _H=\mu _{QGP}$$
(39)
With these conditions the pertinent regions of temperature T and baryon chemical potential $`\mu `$ are shown in fig. 1 for q= 1, 1.1 (0.9) and 1.25 (0.75). The critical temperature at $`\mu =0`$ for q= 1, 1.1 (0.9) and 1.25 (0.75) are found to be 148 MeV, 122 MeV and 79 MeV, respectively. As the non-extensive parameter deviates from q= 1 to 1.25 (0.75), the critical temperature becomes almost independent of the baryon chemical potential which is associated with the number of particles. The variation of the bag constant B between (180 MeV)4 and (250 MeV)4 does not alter our findings significantly. One still observes a flattening of the T($`\mu `$) curves in fig. 1 as $`|1q|`$ increases. The only effect is a shift of the value of the maximal $`\mu `$ and T(0) in fig. 1. There is no significant change of the slope of T($`\mu `$) over the depicted range. The agreement between BG and the generalized statistics as the critical temperature approaches zero is evident from equations (13) and (24). Fig. 2 shows the dependence of the critical temperature on the non-extensive parameter at $`\mu =0`$, 250 MeV and 1000 MeV. The dependence is almost linear for small values of q with a slope $`|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{\mathrm{\Delta }q}|`$ 240 MeV. This can be interpreted as a new type of universality condition  which suggests that the formation of a QGP occurs (almost) independent of the total number of baryons in heavy ion collisions.

5. Conclusion

We have studied the phase transition from a system in the hadronic phase to the QGP phase. On the hadronic side the detailed form of the (short-range) interactions among hadrons turns out to be unimportant for the phase transition. On the QGP side the short-range interactions have died out (due to “asymptotic freedom”) and have made room for the only remaining long-range interactions among the constituents. We take account of the dominant part of this interaction by a change in the statistics of the system in the QGP phase. We present here testable consequences of using the non-extensive form of statistical mechanics proposed by Tsallis in the QGP. The resulting insensitivity of the critical temperature to the total number of baryons presents a clear experimental signature for the existence of non-extensive statistics for the constituents of the QGP.


text:
# Duality relation for frustrated spin models

## 1 The frustrated Ising model

A central problem in the study of lattice-statistical problems is the consideration of frustrated spin systems (see, for example,  \- ). A particularly useful tool in the study of spin systems is the consideration of duality relations (see, for example, ). Here we apply the duality consideration to frustrated discrete spin systems.

We consider first the Ising model on an arbitrary planar graph $`G`$. A planar graph is a collection of vertices and (noncrossing) edges. Place Ising spins at vertices of $`G`$ which interact with competing interactions along the edges. Denote the interaction between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ by $`J_{ij}=S_{ij}J`$ where $`S_{ij}=\pm 1`$ and $`J>0`$. Then the Hamiltonian is

$$(\sigma ;S)=\underset{<i,j>}{}S_{ij}J\sigma _i\sigma _j$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ is the spin at the site $`i`$ and the summation is taken over all interacting pairs.

The Hamiltonian (1) plays an important role in condensed matter physics and related topics. Regarding $`S_{ij}`$ as a quenched random variable governed by a probability distribution, the Hamiltonian (1) leads to the Edwards-Anderson model of a spin glasses . By taking a different $`S_{ij}`$, the Hamiltonian becomes the Hopfield model of neural networks . Here, we consider the Hamiltonian (1) with fixed plaquette frustrations.

Let $`G`$ have $`N`$ sites and $`E`$ edges. Then it has

$$N^{}=E+2N(\mathrm{Euler}\mathrm{relation})$$
(2)
faces, including one infinite face containing the infinite region and $`N^{}1`$ internal faces which we refer to as plaquettes. The parity of a face is the product of the edge $`S_{ij}`$ factors around the face which can be either $`+1`$ or $`1`$. A face is frustrated if its parity is $`1`$. An Ising model is frustrated if any of its plaquettes is frustrated, and is fully (totally) frustrated if every plaquette is frustrated. The fully frustrated model is also known as the odd model of the spin glass . As the parity of the infinite face is the product of the parities of all plaquettes, the parity of the infinite face in a totally frustrated Ising model is $`1`$ for $`N^{}=`$ even and $`+1`$ for $`N^{}=`$ odd. An example of a full frustration is the triangular model with $`S_{ij}=1`$ for all nearest neighbor sites $`i,j`$.

The values of parity associated with all plaquettes defines a “parity configuration” which we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The set of interactions $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ corresponding to a given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not unique. For the triangular model, for example, any $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ which has either one or three $`S_{ij}=1`$ edges around every plaquette is totally frustrated. For a given $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the partition function is the summation

$$Z\left(\{S_{ij}\}\right)=\underset{\sigma _1=\pm 1}{}\mathrm{}\underset{\sigma _N=\pm 1}{}\underset{E}{}e^{S_{ij}J\sigma _i\sigma _j}$$
(3)
where the product is taken over the $`E`$ edges of $`G`$.

### 1.1 Gauge transformation

A gauge transformation is site-dependent redefinition of the up/down spin directions. Mathematically a gauge transformation transforms the spin variables according to

$$\sigma _i\sigma _i^{}=w_i\sigma _i,i=1,..,N.$$
(4)
In the above if $`w_i=+1`$ the original definition of up/down spin directions is maintained, and if $`w_i=1`$ the definitions of up/down are exchanged. Under the gauge transformation the $`S_{ij}`$ in Eq. (1) transform as follow

$$S_{ij}S_{ij}^{}=w_iS_{ij}w_ji,j.$$
(5)
Since $`w_i^2=1`$, we have

$$(\sigma ;S)=(\sigma ^{};S^{}).$$
(6)
Clearly, the gauge transformation (5) leaves the parity configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ unchanged, i.e.,

$$\underset{\mathrm{face}}{}S_{ij}=\underset{\mathrm{face}}{}S_{ij}^{}\mathrm{face}.$$
(7)
For each parity configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there are $`2^{N1}`$ different $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ patterns consistent with it. To see that we note in Eq. (5) each of the $`2^N`$ choices of $`\{w_i\}`$ leads to a new $`\{S_{ij}^{}\}`$ except the negation of all $`w_i`$ which leaves $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ unchanged. Conversely, any two sets of interactions $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ and $`\{S_{ij}^{}\}`$ for the same $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are related by a gauge transformation which can be constructed as follows. Starting from any spin, say, spin 1, assign the value $`w_1=+1`$. One next builds up the graph by adding one site (and one edge) at a time. To the site $`2`$ connected to $`1`$ by the edge $`\{12\}`$, one assigns the factor $`w_2=w_1S_{12}S_{12}^{}`$ which yields $`w_1S_{12}w_2=S_{12}^{}`$ consistent to (5). Proceeding in this way around a plaquette until an edge, say $`\{n1\}`$, completes a plaquette. At this point one has

$$w_nS_{n1}w_1=\left(\underset{\mathrm{plaquette}}{}S_{ij}\right)\left(\underset{\mathrm{plaquette}}{}S_{ij}^{}\right)S_{n1}^{}=S_{n1}^{}$$
(8)
which is again consistent to (5). Continuing in this way one constructs all $`w_i`$ which transform $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ into $`\{S_{ij}^{}\}`$. Note that if we had started with $`w_1=1`$, we would have resulted in the negation of all $`w_i`$. Thus, the bijection between the $`2^{N1}`$ sets $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ and $`2^{N1}`$ gauge transformations is one-one.

In addition to Eq. (7), the gauge transformation also leaves the partition function invariant , i.e.

$`Z\left(\{S_{ij}\}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\{\sigma \}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}e^{S_{ij}J\sigma _i\sigma _j}={\displaystyle \underset{\{\sigma ^{}\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{E}{}}e^{S_{ij}^{}J\sigma _i^{}\sigma _j^{}}=Z\left(\{S_{ij}^{}\}\right).`$ (9)
As a result the partition function only depends on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and we can rewrite (3) as

$$Z(\mathrm{\Gamma })=2^{(N1)}\underset{\{S_{ij}\}}{}Z\left(\{S_{ij}\}\right)$$
(10)
where the summation is over all $`2^{N1}`$ distinct $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ consistent with the parity configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the same partition function. This expression of the partition function is used to derive the duality relation in ensuing sections.

### 1.2 The fully frustrated Ising model

For our purposes it is instructive to consider first the case of full frustration. Duality properties of fully frustrated model have previously been considered by a number of authors  for regular lattices. We present here an alternate formulation applicable to arbitrary graphs and arbitrary frustration.

The graph $`D`$ dual to $`G`$ has $`N^{}`$ sites each residing in a face of $`G`$, and $`E`$ edges each intersecting an edge of $`G`$. We restrict to $`N^{}=`$ even so that all faces of $`G`$ including the infinite face are frustrated. This restriction has no effect on the taking of the thermodynamic limit in the case of regular lattices. Since the signs $`S_{ij}`$ around each face are subject to the constraint $`S_{ij}=1`$, we introduce in the summand of (10) a face factor $`(1S_{ij})/2`$ and sum over $`S_{ij}=\pm 1`$ independently. Similarly, writing $`\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _i\sigma _j`$, we can replace summations over $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ in (10) by $`\sigma _{ij}=\pm 1`$ by introducing a factor $`(1+\sigma _{ij})/2`$ to each face. Thus, (10) becomes

$$Z_{FF}=\left[\frac{22^{(N1)}}{2^{2N^{}}}\right]\underset{\{\sigma _{ij}\}}{}\underset{\{S_{ij}\}}{}\left[\underset{E}{}e^{S_{ij}\sigma _{ij}J}\right]\underset{\mathrm{face}}{}\left[(1+\sigma _{ij})(1S_{ij})\right]$$
(11)
where the subscript FF denotes full frustration, and the extra factor 2 in (11) is due to the $`21`$ mapping from $`\sigma _i`$ to $`\sigma _{ij}`$.

For a face having $`n`$ sides we rewrite the face factors as

$`1+{\displaystyle \sigma _{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle F(\sigma _{ij};\mu )}`$ (12)
$`1{\displaystyle S_{ij}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle G(S_{ij};\nu )}`$ (13)
where each product has $`n`$ factors

$`F(\sigma ;\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu +}+\sigma \delta _\mu `$
$`G(S;\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\nu +}+S\omega _n\delta _\nu ,`$ (14)
$`\delta `$ is the Kronecker delta function and $`\omega _n=(1)^{1/n}=e^{i\pi /n}`$.

We now regard $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ as indices of two Ising spins residing at each dual lattice site. After carrying out summations over $`\sigma _{ij}`$ and $`S_{ij}`$, the partition function (11) becomes

$$Z_{FF}=2^{EN^{}}\underset{\{\mu \}}{}\underset{\{\nu \}}{}\underset{E}{}B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})$$
(15)
where we have made use of the Euler relation (2) and $`B`$ is a Boltzmann factor given by

$$B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})=\underset{\sigma =\pm 1}{}\underset{S=\pm 1}{}e^{S\sigma J}F(\sigma ;\mu )F(\sigma ;\mu ^{})G(S;\nu )G(S;\nu ^{}).$$
(16)
Here $`G(S;\nu ^{})`$ is given by (14) with $`\omega _n\omega _n^{}=e^{i\pi /n^{}}`$ and the two faces containing spins $`\{\mu ,\nu \}`$ and $`\{\mu ^{},\nu ^{}\}`$ have respectively $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ sides.

Substituting (14) into (16) and making use of the identities

$`\delta _{\mu +}\delta _{\mu ^{}+}+\delta _\mu \delta _\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\mu \mu ^{})/2`$
$`\delta _{\mu +}\delta _\mu ^{}+\delta _\mu \delta _{\mu ^{}+}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu \mu ^{})/2,`$ (17)
one obtains

$$B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})=2A(1+\mu \mu ^{})\mathrm{cosh}J+2B(1\mu \mu ^{})\mathrm{sinh}J$$
(18)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\nu +}\delta _{\nu ^{}+}+\omega _n\omega _n^{}\delta _\nu \delta _\nu ^{}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _n\delta _\nu \delta _{\nu ^{}+}+\omega _n^{}\delta _{\nu +}\delta _\nu ^{}`$ (19)
Number the four states $`\{\mu ,\nu \}=\{+,+\},\{,\},\{,+\},\{+,\}`$ respectively by $`1,2,3,4`$. The Boltzmann factor (18) can be conveniently written as a $`4\times 4`$ matrix

$$B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B_{11}& B_{12}& 0& 0\\ B_{21}& B_{22}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& B_{11}& B_{12}\\ 0& 0& B_{21}& B_{22}\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
where

$`B_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{cosh}J,B_{12}=4\omega _n^{}\mathrm{sinh}J,`$
$`B_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`4\omega _n\mathrm{sinh}J,B_{22}=4\omega _n\omega _n^{}\mathrm{cosh}J.`$ (21)
Thus the partition function of the $`\{\mu ,\nu \}`$ spin model is twice that of an Ising model on the dual lattice. The exchange coupling constant $`K`$ and the magnetic field $`h`$ in the dual model are determined by

$`B_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`De^{K+(h/n)+(h^{}/n^{})},B_{12}=De^{K+(h/n)(h^{}/n^{})}`$
$`B_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`De^{K(h/n)+(h^{}/n^{})},B_{22}=De^{K(h/n)(h^{}/n^{})}.`$ (22)
Here $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ are the number of edges incident at the two dual sites respectively.

The solution of the above equations gives

$`e^{2K}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}J>0,D=4(\omega _n\omega _n^{})^{1/2}\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}J\mathrm{cosh}J}`$
$`e^{2(h/n)}`$ $`=`$ $`1/\omega _n=e^{i\pi /n},e^{2(h^{}/n^{})}=1/\omega _n^{}=e^{i\pi /n^{}},`$ (23)
or equivalently

$$K=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\mathrm{tanh}J\right)\mathrm{and}h=h^{}=\frac{i\pi }{2}.$$
(24)
Thus, we have established the equivalence

$$Z_{\mathrm{FF}}(J)=2^{N1}i^N^{}(\mathrm{sinh}J\mathrm{cosh}J)^{E/2}Z_{\mathrm{Ising}}^{(D)}(i\frac{\pi }{2},K)$$
(25)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{Ising}}^{(D)}(i\pi /2,K)`$ is the partition function of a ferromagnetic Ising model on $`D`$ with interactions $`K>0`$ and an external field $`i\pi /2`$. In writing down (25) we have made use of the identity $`22^{(E+N^{})}4^E=2^{N1}`$ and the fact that $`(\omega _n\omega _n^{})^{E/2}=(i)^N^{}=i^N^{}`$ for $`N^{}=`$ even.

Remarks:

1. The duality relation (25) has previously been obtained by Fradkin et al. , and for the square lattice by Suzuki  and Sütõ , and by Au-Yang and Perk  in another context.

2. The duality relation (25) is different from the Kadanoff-Ceva-Merlini scheme  of replacing $`K`$ by $`K+i\pi /2`$ (corresponding to $`J<0`$ in (23)) in the ferromagnetic model. Suzuki  has made the explicit use of the Kadanoff-Ceva-Merlini scheme in deriving (25) for the square lattice. For fully frustrated systems the Suzuki method can be extended to any graph whose dual admits dimer coverings.

3. The duality relation (25) holds for a fixed $`\{S_{ij}\}`$ without probability considerations, and therefore differs intrinsically from that of a spin glass obtained recently by Nishimori and Nemoto  using a replica formulation.

4. The duality relation (25) which holds for any lattice appears to support the suggestion  that all fully frustrated Ising models belong to the same universality class.

### 1.3 The thermodynamic limit

The partition function (25) for an Ising model in a uniform field $`i\pi /2`$ can be exactly evaluated for regular lattices. Defining the per-site ”free energy”

$$f=\underset{N^{}\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N^{}}\mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{Ising}}^{(D)}(i\frac{\pi }{2},K),$$
(26)
Lee and Yang  have obtained a closed form expression of $`f(K)`$ for the square lattice. Their result, which was later derived rigorously by McCoy and Wu  and others , is

$$f=i\frac{\pi }{2}+C+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\theta _\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{ln}[z+z^1+24\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ],$$
(27)
where $`C=[\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{sinh}2K)]/2,z=e^{4K}`$. The free energy (27), which is the same as that obtained by Villian , is analytic at all nonzero temperatures.

The solution for the triangular Ising model in a field $`i\pi /2`$ has also been deduced previously . However, it can also be obtained most simply by observing that the honeycomb lattice, which is the dual of the triangular lattice, has a coordination number 3. It follows that we can recast the field Boltzmann weights as $`e^{i\pi \sigma _j/2}=i\sigma _j=i\sigma _j^3`$ and redistribute the $`\sigma _j^3`$ factor at site $`j`$ to its three incident edges. Then, as pointed out by Suzuki , each edge can be associated with a factor $`i\sigma _i\sigma _je^K=e^{(K+i\pi /2)\sigma _i\sigma _j}`$ and the desired solution can be obtained from that of the zero-field honeycomb lattice with the simple replacement $`KK+i\pi /2`$. This gives

$$f=i\frac{\pi }{2}+C+\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\theta _\pi ^\pi 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{ln}\left[(1+e^{4K})^2+4\mathrm{cos}\varphi (\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\right],$$
(28)
where $`C=[\mathrm{ln}(2\mathrm{sinh}2K)]/2`$ and $`K`$ is the Ising interaction on the honeycomb lattice. Again, there is no finite temperature phase transition.

### 1.4 Arbitrary plaquette parities

In a similar fashion one can extend the above analysis to Ising models with arbitrary face parities. All steps of previous subsections can be carried through except that for faces which are not frustrated we must replace $`\omega _n`$ by $`1`$ at the corresponding dual sites. This results in a zero field (instead of a field $`i\pi /2`$) at these sites. Thus, for an Ising model with arbitrary parity configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, its dual model has fields $`0`$ and $`i\pi /2`$, respectively, at sites in faces of parity $`+1`$ and $`1`$. Explicitly, we find

$$Z(\mathrm{\Gamma })=2^{N1}(i)^{N_F}(\mathrm{sinh}J\mathrm{cosh}J)^{E/2}Z_{\mathrm{Ising}}^{(D)}(\{h_j\},K)$$
(29)
where the dual partition function is

$$Z_{\mathrm{Ising}}^{(D)}(\{h_j\},K)=\underset{\{\mu _i\}}{}\underset{E}{}e^{K\mu _i\mu _j}\underset{\mathrm{face}}{}e^{h_i\mu _i}.$$
(30)
Here, $`N_F`$ is the number of frustrated faces and the external field at site $`j`$ is $`h_j=i\pi /2`$ or $`0`$ depending on whether the face associated with the site is frustrated or not.

Remarks.

1. The duality relation (30) for Ising models with arbitrary frustrated plaquettes can be found as contained implicitly in .

2. By writing $`e^{i\pi \sigma /2}=i\sigma `$ in the dual partition function, we see that the partition function of an Ising model with $`p`$ frustrated faces is dual to a $`p`$-spin Ising correlation function in zero field. Particular, the $`p=2`$ correlation problem has been studied in details  which now leads to a wealth of information on the correlation of two frustrated plaquettes.

## 2 Potts spin glass

Our analysis can be extended to a $`q`$-state spin model, the Potts spin glass. First, we recall the definition of a chiral Potts model. The chiral Potts model, which was first considered in , is a discrete $`q`$-state spin model with a cyclic Boltzmann factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\xi \xi ^{})`$ between two spins at sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ and in states $`\xi _i`$ and $`\xi _j=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$. The interactions are $`q`$-periodic, namely, the Boltzmann factor satisfies

$$U(\xi +q)=U(\xi ).$$
(31)
The interaction can be symmetric, namely, $`U(\xi )=U(\xi )`$, as in the case of the standard Potts model , but in our considerations this needs not be the case.

A Potts spin glass is a chiral Potts model with random interactions. To describe the randomness one introduces edge variables $`\lambda _{ij}=\lambda _{ji}=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$ and considers the partition function

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}\left(\{\lambda _{ij}\}\right)=\underset{\xi _i=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\underset{E}{}U(\xi _i\xi _j+\lambda _{ij}).$$
(32)
Note that if $`U`$ is symmetric and $`q=2`$, the partition function (32) reduces to (3). A plaquette has “flux” $`r`$ ($`=0,1,2,\mathrm{},q1`$) if

$$\underset{\mathrm{plaq}}{}\lambda _{ij}=r(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{q}).$$
(33)
A set of $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$ leads to a flux configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is specified by the values of the flux for all faces.

### 2.1 Gauge transformation

A gauge transformation for the Potts spin glass is the mapping

$`\xi _i`$ $``$ $`\xi _i^{}=\xi _i+\theta _i`$
$`\lambda _{ij}`$ $``$ $`\lambda _{ij}^{}=\lambda _{ij}+\theta _i\theta _j,`$ (34)
where $`\theta _i=0,1,\mathrm{},q1`$. It is clear that this mapping leaves the flux configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ unchanged, i.e.,

$$\underset{\mathrm{plaq}}{}\lambda _{ij}=\underset{\mathrm{plaq}}{}\lambda _{ij}^{}.$$
(35)
Since a global change of all $`\xi _i`$ by the same amount preserves $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$, the total number of distinct $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$ consistent with a particular flux configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`q^{N1}`$. Conversely, any two sets of $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _{ij}^{}\}`$ giving rise to the same flux configuration are related through a gauge transformation. To see this we start from a arbitrarily chosen site, say site 1, and set $`\theta _1=0`$. Next we assign $`\theta _2=\theta _1+\lambda _{12}\lambda _{12}^{}`$ to site 2 connected to site 1 by an edge. Continuing in this way as in the Ising case, one eventually determines a set of $`\theta _i`$ which transforms $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$ into $`\{\lambda _{ij}^{}\}`$ , and vice versa. The bijection between the $`q^{N1}`$ configurations of $`\lambda _{ij}`$ and gauge transformations for a given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is one-one.

In addition to leaving the flux configuration unchanged, gauge transformation also leaves the partition function invariant, namely,

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}\left(\{\lambda _{ij}\}\right)=Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}\left(\{\lambda _{ij}^{}\}\right).$$
(36)
Thus, in analogous to (10), we have

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=q^{(N1)}\underset{\{\lambda _{ij}\}}{}Z\left(\{\lambda _{ij}\}\right)$$
(37)
which is used to derive a duality relation. Again, the sum in Eq. (37) run through all $`\{\lambda _{ij}\}`$ consistent with a given flux configuration $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### 2.2 Duality relation

In the Potts partition function (32), write $`\xi _{ij}=\xi _i\xi _j`$ and to each face having a flux $`r`$ introduce two factors

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{q1}{}}}e^{i2\pi \mu (\xi _{12}+\xi _{23}+\mathrm{}+\xi _{n1})/q}`$ $`=`$ $`1,\mathrm{if}\xi _{12}+\mathrm{}+\xi _{n1}=0(\mathrm{mod}q)`$
$`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{otherwise}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{q1}{}}}e^{i2\pi \nu (\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{23}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{n1}r)/q}`$ $`=`$ $`1,\mathrm{if}\lambda _{12}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{n1}=r(\mathrm{mod}q)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{otherwise}.`$
This permits us to sum over $`\xi _{ij}`$ and $`\lambda _{ij}`$ independently. Thus, in analogous to (15), we obtain

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=q^{EN^{}}\underset{\{\mu \}}{}\underset{\{\nu \}}{}B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})$$
(39)
where

$`B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\xi }{}}U(\xi +\lambda )`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i2\pi }{q}}\left((\mu \mu ^{})\xi (\nu \nu ^{})\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{r\nu }{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^{}\nu ^{}}{n^{}}}\right)\right]`$ (40)
and $`n,n^{}`$ are the numbers of sides of the two plaquettes containing $`\{\mu ,\nu \}`$ and $`\{\mu ^{},\nu ^{}\}`$, and flux $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ respectively.

Carry out the summations in (40) after introducing the Fourier transform

$$U(\xi +\lambda )=\frac{1}{q}\underset{\eta =0}{\overset{q1}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )e^{i2\pi \eta (\xi +\lambda )/q}$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $`U`$ . One obtains

$$B(\mu ,\nu ;\mu ^{},\nu ^{})=q\delta _{\mu \mu ^{},\nu \nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\nu \nu ^{})e^{i2\pi r\nu /qn}e^{i2\pi r^{}\nu ^{}/qn^{}}.$$
(42)
In the above $`\delta _{\mu \mu ^{},\nu \nu ^{}}`$ sets $`\mu \mu ^{}`$ to $`\nu \nu ^{}`$ (mod q).

The substitution of (42) into (39) followed by summing over $`\mu `$ now yields the result

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=q^{1N^{}}Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}{}_{}{}^{(D)}(\{h_j\},\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(43)
where

$$Z_{\mathrm{Potts}}{}_{}{}^{(D)}(\{h_j\},\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{\{\nu _i\}}{}\left[\underset{E}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\nu _i,\nu _j)\right]\left[\underset{\mathrm{face}}{}e^{h_j\nu _j}\right].$$
(44)
is the partition function of a chiral Potts model on the dual graph $`D`$, which generalizes (29) to Potts spin glasses. The dual chiral Potts model has Boltzmann weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mu _i,\mu _j)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mu _i\mu _j)`$ and external fields

$$h_j=i\frac{2\pi r_j}{q},j=1,2,\mathrm{},N^{},r_j=0,1,\mathrm{},q1$$
(45)
on the spin in plaquette $`j`$ which has a flux $`r_j`$. When $`r_j=0`$ for all $`j`$, (43) reduces to the duality relation for the zero-field chiral Potts model given by Eq. (13) in .

## 3 Summary and acknowledgments

We have obtained duality relations for planar Ising and chiral Potts models on arbitrary graphs and with fixed plaquette parity or flux configurations. Our main results are the equivalences (25) for the fully frustrated Ising model, (29) for the Ising model with arbitrary plaquette parity, and (43) for the chiral Potts model with arbitrary flux configurations. In all cases the dual models have pure imaginary fields applied to spins in plaquettes that are frustrated and/or having a nonzero flux.

We thank H. Kunz for a conversation which motivated this work. We are also indebted to C. Henley, H. Nishimori, J. H. H. Perk, L. Pryadko, and A. Sütõ for calling our attention to relevant references.

Work has been supported in part by NSF Grants DMR-9971507 and DMR-9980440.


text:
# Operation Time of Quantum Gates

## Abstract

We consider a quantum gate that complements the state of a qubit and then adds to it an arbitrary phase shift. It is shown that the minimum operation time of the gate is $`\tau =\frac{h}{4E}(1+2\frac{\theta }{\pi })`$, where $`h`$ is Planck’s constant, $`E`$ is the quantum-mechanical average energy, and $`\theta `$ is the phase shift modulo $`\pi `$.

It had been shown in  that there exists a fundamental limit to the speed of dynamical evolution of a quantum system. Namely, the minimum time required for a system to go from a given state to one orthogonal to it is

$$\tau =\frac{h}{4E},$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is Planck’s constant and $`E`$ is the quantum-mechanical average energy of the system. Expression (1) applies to the *autonomous* time evolution of a system, and it is not immediately applicable to changes in the system state caused by the interaction with another (external) system.

This paper considers the question of what is the minimum time of operation of quantum gates that operate on qubits (i.e., quantum systems with two-dimensional Hilbert space).

Let

$$\psi _1(0)=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right]\text{and}\psi _2(0)=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right]$$
(2)
be the two initial orthogonal stationary states of a qubit. Consider a “gate” that complements the state of the qubit (a quantum inverter or a controlled-not gate with the controlling qubit in logical state 1) and then adds to it an arbitrary phase shift $`\theta `$. This is a device that applies an external interaction to the system for a certain time $`\tau `$ such that at the end of this time interval

$$\psi _1(\tau )=\psi _2(0)e^{i\theta }\text{and}\psi _2(\tau )=\psi _1(0)e^{i\theta }$$
(3)
i.e., the two orthogonal states are swapped and a given phase shift $`\theta `$ is added to the resulting state. During this time the evolution of the system is governed by a unitary operator $`𝐔(t)`$, so that

$$\psi _i(t)=𝐔(t)\psi _i(0)=e^{\frac{i𝐇}{\mathrm{}}t}\psi _i(0),(i=1,2),$$
(4)
where $`𝐇`$ is the total Hamiltonian of the system (including the interaction Hamiltonian) and $`\mathrm{}=h/2\pi `$. Note that, owing to linearity, (3) is a necessary and sufficient condition for an *unknown* quantum state $`a\psi _1(0)+b\psi _2(0)`$ of a qubit to be converted into the ortogonal state with a phase shift $`\theta `$, provided that $`\text{Re}(ab^{})=0`$ (this condition specifies a two-parameter family of states). Note also that the overall phase of the state is essential, since this qubit is intended to be part of a many-qubit system.

Recall that any unitary time evolution operator has a diagonal form,

$$𝐔_{\text{diag}}(t)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\frac{E_1}{\mathrm{}}t}& 0\\ 0& e^{i\frac{E_2}{\mathrm{}}t}\end{array}\right],$$
(5)
where $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ are the eigenvalues of $`𝐇`$. The most general form of a unitary operator with the diagonal form (5) can be written as follows:

$`𝐔(t)=e^{i\frac{E_1+E_2}{2\mathrm{}}t}\times `$
$`\times \left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _1e^{i\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t}+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _1e^{i\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t}& 2ie^{i\varphi _2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t\\ 2ie^{i\varphi _2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t& \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _1e^{i\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t}+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _1e^{i\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t}\end{array}\right],`$
where $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are arbitrary phase parameters. (Note that, in fact, $`𝐔(t)`$ has three independent parameters—not four.)

It is readily shown that, to satisfy (3) and to provide for the minimum time $`\tau `$, one should choose $`\varphi _1=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ and $`\varphi _2=0`$. Hence the operator $`𝐔(t)`$ has—in the original basis of the system (the one with basis vectors $`\psi _1(0)`$ and $`\psi _2(0)`$)—the following unique form

$$𝐔(t)=e^{i\frac{E_1+E_2}{2\mathrm{}}t}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t& i\mathrm{sin}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t\\ i\mathrm{sin}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t& \mathrm{cos}\frac{E_2E_1}{2\mathrm{}}t\end{array}\right].$$
(6)
The corresponding Hamiltonian is

$$𝐇=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{E_1+E_2}{2}& \frac{E_1E_2}{2}\\ \frac{E_1E_2}{2}& \frac{E_1+E_2}{2}\end{array}\right]=\frac{E_1+E_2}{2}𝐈+\frac{E_1E_2}{2}𝝈_x,$$
(7)
where $`𝐈`$ is the identity operator and $`𝝈_x`$ one of the Pauli matrices. It follows from (4) and (6) that, for a proper choice of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$,

$`\psi _1(\tau )=𝐔(\tau )\psi _1(0)=\psi _2(0)e^{i\theta },`$ (8)
$`\psi _2(\tau )=𝐔(\tau )\psi _2(0)=\psi _1(0)e^{i\theta }.`$
Equation (8) holds if $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are chosen so that

$`E_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\theta +\pi }}E_2`$ for $`0\theta <\pi ,\text{and}`$ (9)
$`E_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\theta \pi }{\theta }}E_1`$ for $`\pi \theta <2\pi .`$
Then the minimum time $`\tau `$ of operation of the quantum gate is given by

$$\tau =\frac{h}{2|E_2E_1|}.$$
(10)
The average energy of the system is

$$E=\psi _i|𝐇|\psi _i=\frac{E_1+E_2}{2},(i=1,2).$$
(11)
From (9), (10), and (11) it follows that

$$\tau =\tau (\theta )=\frac{h}{4E}\left(1+2\frac{\theta mod\pi }{\pi }\right).$$
(12)
It may seem that $`\tau `$ could be made arbitrarily small by increasing the energy difference $`|E_2E_1|`$. However, this is not possible in a real physical situation, which is not completely described by the qubit model. For example, if $`\psi _1(0)`$ and $`\psi _2(0)`$ are two stationary states of an electron in an atom or ion, with energies $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$ respectively, then it is advantageous to let $`E_2E_1`$ be equal to the resonant frequency,

$$E_2E_1=E_2^{}E_1^{}$$

(cf. \[2, Ch. 6\]). As a numerical example, consider experiments  made with Ca+ ions in an ion trap. The characteristic wavelength of the transition between the two relevant Ca+ energy levels is $`\lambda =397\text{nm}`$, which yields $`\tau =\frac{\lambda }{2c}6.6210^{16}\text{s}`$.

Consider now a one-qubit quantum gate that makes an arbitrary unitary transformation of a *known* state such that the absolute value of the inner product

$$\left|\psi (\tau _\alpha )|\psi (0)\right|=\mathrm{cos}\alpha .$$

A similar analysis shows that, for any $`\alpha `$ ($`0\alpha \frac{\pi }{2}`$), the minimum time required for this operation is

$$\tau _\alpha =\frac{\alpha h}{2\pi E}=\frac{2\alpha }{\pi }\tau (0).$$
(13)


text:
# Linear Σ model in the Gaussian wave functional approximation II: Analyticity of the S-matrix and the effective potential/action

## 1 Introduction

In the present paper we extend the study of a chirally invariant, Lorentz invariant, self-consistent mean-field, variational approximation, that goes by the name of Gaussian wave functional approximation  to the linear sigma model, that was begun in Ref. . We have shown in Ref.  how to ensure chiral symmetry in the Gaussian approximation method, a major improvement over previous treatments. A number of questions have remained open after that paper, however. In particular we have not addressed the connection between the Gaussian approximation to the canonical equations of motion and the Gaussian effective potential (EP) method, that is rather popular in finite temperature applications . There the meson masses are defined in terms of the curvature (second derivative) of the effective potential evaluated at the minimum. It used to be believed that this definition leads to a violation of the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) theorem for the $`\pi `$ fields , even in the chiral limit. This misunderstanding was cleared up in Ref. ; moreover it was shown there that one ought not to minimize the effective potential, which is momentum independent; rather one must minimize the effective action (EA) which leads to momentum-dependent equations. The latter mass definition leads to an equation to be solved for $`m_\sigma `$. Yet there have been no attempts to solve this equation in the literature, save for Ref. . Thus, most $`m_\sigma `$ values present in the literature are not acceptable. The equation for $`m_\sigma `$ is a transcedental one, however, with infinitely many Riemann sheets and an apparently indeterminate number and properties of solutions. Furthermore, the Gaussian method involves certain auxilliary objects, such as the solutions to the gap equations (that are often interpreted as meson masses) whose physical role is also unclear. Similarly, the canonical Gaussian approach involves two-body scattering Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equations that do not seem to appear in the EP approach.

In this paper we shall answer the aforementioned questions and some others not mentioned above: For example we show that exactly the same equations for the meson mass appear in the canonical Gaussian approximation and the Gaussian effective action approach: indeed these equations are the net result of the coupled Bethe-Salpeter and the gap equations. Of course, this fact does not make them any easier to solve, but it offers a useful perspective on the number and nature of the solutions. Inhomogeneous BS equations are scattering equations, and in this particular approximation they will be shown to be equivalent to N/D equations of dispersion theory , that ensure manifest unitarity. Some properties of their solutions, such as analyticity, and the physical interpretation of the solutions, follow from unitarity and causality, and have been known since the early 1960’s . Another well known property of N/D equations is the arbitrary number of their solutions: this is the Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson \[CDD\] ambiguity . The Gaussian approximation is more restrictive than the N/D approximation, however: all properties, such as the number of CDD poles and values of subtraction constants are determined by the gap and BS equations that are a part of the canonical Gaussian approximation.

In Ref.  we have numerically solved the BS equation in the scalar channel on the real $`s`$ axis and found multiple solutions for certain parameter values, and no solutions at all for others. Yet, in the weak-coupling limit the Gaussian solution is unique and smoothly connected to the perturbative one. We use the Källén-Lehmann spectral representation to show that the “heavy” solutions do not have particle-like properties. In consequence of this, we show that there is only one solution in each spin-parity-isospin channel.

Thus we have established an explicit connection between some previously separate formalisms, such as the effective potential/action (a.k.a. Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis (CJT)) method , the Hartree \+ Random Phase Approximation (RPA), and the N/D method in dispersion theory, as well as shed light on the particle content in this approximation.

This paper falls into five sections. After the Introduction, in Sect. II we outline the Gaussian effective potential/action method and prove its equivalence with the Gaussian approximation to the canonical equations of motion. In Sect. III we demonstrate the latter’s connection with the N/D equations of S-matrix theory. In Sect. IV we show and discuss the numerical solutions to the gap and the Bethe-Salpeter equations, calculate the Källén-Lehmann spectral function and analyze the particle content of the solutions. Finally in Sect. V we summarize and draw conclusions.

## 2 The Gaussian effective potential/action

We shall use the notation and conventions of Ref. . In Sect. II and III we shall work in the chiral limit $`(\epsilon =0)`$, so as to avoid unnecessary complications. Extension to the non-chiral case is straightforward. Of course, we use the non-chiral equations in the numerical solutions in Sect. IV.

The effective potential, and the effective action methods in quantum field theory (QFT) were popularized in the mid-70’s. These two are objects with certain intriguing theoretical properties: the former is the generating function for the zero-momentum one-particle irreducible (OPI) graphs, the latter is the generating functional for arbitrary momentum OPI graphs . At first only the one-loop perturbative approximation was calculated in the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory. These two objects need not be perturbative, however, and first attempts at their non-perturbative evaluation were made slightly later.

The Gaussian effective potential is a natural product of a variational calculation based on the Gaussian ground state trial wave functional  of a scalar single component $`\varphi ^4`$ quantum field theory (QFT). The O(N) symmetric effective potential was calculated e.g. in Ref. . In another original approach Cornwall, Jackiw and Tomboulis \[CJT\], Ref.  used certain disconnected (“vacuum”) two-particle irreducible diagrams to define and calculate the ground state (“vacuum”) energy, as per Goldstone’s (many-body) theorem . The resulting vacuum energy defines a (non-perturbative) effective potential , which together with the kinetic energy defines the effective action. When one minimizes the CJT vacuum energy using a particular variational Ansatz, the resulting minimization conditions, or the gap equations are equivalent to the ones obtained in the canonical Gaussian variational approximation. It is less obvious that the two-body (Bethe-Salpeter) equation in the latter formalism is equivalent to the mass equation in the former, in the case of spontaneous symmetry breaking. We shall explicate here the proof given in Refs. .

Instead of the Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis \[CJT\] appproach we follow Stevenson, Allès and Tarrach’s more direct calculation  based on the Gaussian vacuum wave functionals. The latter authors found the “vacuum” (ground state) energy density $`(M,\mu ;\mathit{\varphi })`$ given by Eq. (3.2) in Ref. . By definition , the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(m_i,\varphi _i)`$ is

$`V_\mathrm{G}(m_i,\varphi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`(m_i,\varphi _i)(m_i,\varphi _i=0).`$ (1)
One may identify the $`\mathrm{}I_1(m_i)`$ term in Eq. (3.2) in Ref.  with the familiar “zero-point” energy density of a free spinless field of mass $`m_i`$ 111Indeed, many finite-temperature/density studies  have been based on this observation, as the zero-point energy and the effective potential point of view offer an “obvious” extension of the zero-temperature/density formalism.. This seems to imply that such one meson states are present in the Gaussian approximation to this theory and that $`m_i`$ are their physical masses. That is not the case, however, as we shew in Ref.  (see, also later): The $`m_i`$ are merely auxilliary quantities (variational parameters) that determine the position of certain particle production thresholds and the the corresponding branch cuts, but there are no poles in the propagators at those mass values.

On the other hand it has been shown in two different ways  that there are three massless (Nambu-Goldstone) and one massive ($`\sigma `$) state (with a mass different from any of the $`m_i`$) in the Gaussian approximation. Thus the physical content of the Gaussian approximation, though formally well established, remains one of its intuitively most confusing aspects. By working out the connection between various formalisms we shall shed more light on this issue.

### 2.1 The Gaussian effective potential

We shall use the fact that the effective potential is the generating function of OPI zero-momentum Feynman diagrams. In other words, the $`n`$-th derivative of the effective potential is the OPI Green’s function evaluated at zero external momenta. Thus the curvature (the second derivative) of the effective potential with respect to the corresponding fields evaluated at the minimum yield the inverse of the two-point Green functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^1`$ evaluated at zero momentum squared $`p^2=0`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^1(p=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_\mathrm{G}(\varphi _j)}{d\varphi _i^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (2)
which, in turn, are interpreted as squared masses of the corresponding states by way of

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^1(p=0)`$ $`=`$ $`m_i^2,`$ (3)
thus equating the meson masses with Eqs. (2). It had been tacitly assumed that such a definition of $`\sigma ,\pi `$ masses

$`m_\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_\mathrm{G}(\varphi _j)}{d\varphi _0^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}}`$
$`m_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2V_\mathrm{G}(\varphi _j)}{d\varphi _i^2}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}},i=1,2,3,`$ (4)
is equivalent to the “single-particle”, or “gap equation” masses $`M,\mu `$, i.e. that $`m_\sigma =M`$ and $`m_\pi =\mu `$, but that assumption leads to an apparent violation of the Nambu-Goldstone \[NG\] theorem, since $`\mu >0`$, even in the chiral limit ($`\epsilon =0`$). This conclusion is incorrect, albeit very common in the literature. Many studies were devoted to attempts at its rectification: for example it was shown that $`\mu 0`$ in the $`1/N0`$ limit, and that was supposed to restore the NG theorem, see Ref. . A straightforward evaluation of the derivatives in Eq. (4) yields , however,

$`m_\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+2\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(0)I_{\mu \mu }(0)\right]24\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(0)I_{\mu \mu }(0)}{1\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(0)+5I_{\mu \mu }(0)\right]+12\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(0)I_{\mu \mu }(0)}}\right)M^2`$ (5)
$`m_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0\mu ^2,`$ (6)
where $`I_{\mu \mu }(p^2),I_{MM}(p^2)`$ are logarithmically multivalued functions of $`p^2`$ defined by

$`I_{mm}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{\left[k^2m^2+iϵ\right]\left[(kp)^2m^2+iϵ\right]}},`$ (7)
where $`m=M`$, or $`\mu `$, explicitly evaluated in Eqs. (3.21), (3.22) and (3.23) in Ref. .

The result Eq. (6), of course, restores the NG theorem, but it does so almost per fiat: it gives one no insight into the mechanism that brought it about, e.g. it tells us nothing about the sum of Feynman diagrams that leads to it. After all, each effective potential generates a certain class of loop diagrams (at zero external momenta) that one may wish to identify. It is very difficult to see which class of diagrams corresponds to Eqs. (5),(6), and which Schwinger-Dyson \[SD\] equations sum up that class. The first, brief answer to that question was given in Ref. ; now we shall elaborate on it. Once we have identified the Feynman diagrams one immediately sees that Eq. (5) is not quite right. That fact was also recognized earlier, Ref. , but without reference to Feynman diagrams, and the correction was also given there, but only with a formal mathematical justification. Here we shall give an explicit Feynman diagrammatic interpretation of that formal definition.

### 2.2 The Gaussian effective action

We shall use the fact that the effective action is the generating functional of one-particle irreducible (OPI) Green functions , i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^1(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2S[\varphi _k]}{\delta \varphi _i(x)\delta \varphi _j(y)}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}},`$ (8)
where $`\delta `$ is the functional derivative. Then the correct definition of the particle mass is the position of the pole in the two-point Green function, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}^1(p^2=m_i^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{G}[\varphi _k]}{\delta \varphi _i(p)\delta \varphi _j(0)}}\right)_{\mathrm{min}},`$ (10)
and $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is the Fourier transform of the (Gaussian) effective action,

$`S_\mathrm{G}[\varphi _i]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(TV_\mathrm{G}\right)},`$ (11)
$`T=\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \varphi _i)^2`$ is the kinetic energy density. Eq. (9) shows the distinction between the effective action and the effective potential methods: the effective potential is momentum independent and thus cannot correctly describe the pole in the propagator, except when the pole happens to be at zero momentum/mass. Thus the mass obtained from the effective potential method agrees with the one obtained from the effective action only when the mass vanishes. Therefore we must solve only Eq. (9) for the mass, as the latter appears on both sides of the equation. This distinction is insignificant for massless (NG) states and its importance increases with the mass: once the mass crosses the lowest (particle pair) production threshold, it acquires an imaginary part that cannot be neglected. Thus the pion mass calculated via the effective potential might be OK, because it lies below all hadronic production thresholds, but the scalar meson mass is definitely not OK.

Equations resulting from Eq. (10) in the linear $`\sigma `$ model have been written down, but not solved (except in the trivial NG pion case) in Ref. : Eqs. (10) yield (N - 1) = 3 massless states (pions in the chiral limit) and one massive state ($`\sigma `$ meson) whose mass $`p^2=m_\sigma ^2`$ is determined by the roots of the following equation

$`p^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(p^2)+I_{\mu \mu }(p^2)12\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(p^2)I_{\mu \mu }(p^2)\right]}{1\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(p^2)+5I_{\mu \mu }(p^2)\right]+12\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(p^2)I_{\mu \mu }(p^2)}}\right).`$ (12)
After making the replacement $`p^2=m_\sigma ^2`$, and a slight rearrangement Eq. (12) turns into

$`m_\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+2\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(m_\sigma ^2)I_{\mu \mu }(m_\sigma ^2)\right]24\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(m_\sigma ^2)I_{\mu \mu }(m_\sigma ^2)}{1\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(m_\sigma ^2)+5I_{\mu \mu }(m_\sigma ^2)\right]+12\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(m_\sigma ^2)I_{\mu \mu }(m_\sigma ^2)}}\right).`$ (13)
To show equivalence of these results to those of the canonical Gaussian approximation, we must first remember that in Ref.  we showed the scalar ($`\sigma `$) sector coupled Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equations that sum infinite classes of connected, though not necessarily OPI Feynman diagrams. The mass of the scalar meson is determined by the “pole condition” in the scalar channel BS solution, Eq. (3.26) in Ref. , that reads

$`(sM^2)𝒟(s)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (14)
where

$`𝒟(s)`$ $`=`$ $`1\lambda _0\left[3\left(1+3{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{sM^2}}\right)I_{MM}(s)+\left(5+3{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{sM^2}}\right)I_{\mu \mu }(s)\right]`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`2\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(s)I_{\mu \mu }(s)\left(1+3{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{sM^2}}\right),`$
is the discriminant of the coupled BS equations (see Ref. ). Collecting terms we find

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+2\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(s)I_{\mu \mu }(s)\right]24\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(s)I_{\mu \mu }(s)}{1\lambda _0\left[3I_{MM}(s)+5I_{\mu \mu }(s)\right]+12\lambda _0^2I_{MM}(s)I_{\mu \mu }(s)}}\right)`$ (16)
Upon replacing $`s=m_\sigma ^2`$, this equation becomes identical to Eq. (13) for the $`\sigma `$ mass. In other words, the results of the Gaussian effective action approach are exactly identical to those of the Gaussian BS equation (or, in the many-body theory language, to the mean-field theory + RPA), proving which was one of our goals.

As stated above, in the Gaussian approximation, it is unclear which (classes of) OPI diagrams are generated by the effective action. We have readily calculated the analytic form of the effective potential curvature at the minimum, Eq. (13), but it would be a major challenge to identify the corresponding class of OPI diagrams without the benefit of the above insights obtained from the Gaussian Bethe-Salpeter equation in Ref. . Furthermore, the factor $`(sM^2)`$ in the equation (14) explicitly shows that the $`M`$-particle pole has been “amputated” from the amplitude, i.e., that the summed diagrams are one-$`M`$-particle irreducible. Some confusion arose due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(p^2=s)`$ is a two-point OPI Green function, whereas the BS equation defines a connected four-point Green function. There is no contradiction, however, as one can see after “amputating” the external “legs” of the BS amplitude: the result is just an $`s`$-channel propagator, i.e., a two-point Green function. We have thus given an explicit proof of a formal property of the effective action, but this does not begin to tell us what branch of Eq. (13) to solve.

As the solutions to Eq. (13) are expected to lie in the complex $`p^2`$ plane, one must specify the sheet (“branch”) of the Riemann surface that one is working in. That is, in the effective action/potential approach at least, a priori impossible: there is no reason why one branch should be preferred to another. Moreover, equations, similar to Eq. (13), in models with fermions  have been found to contain roots on the real axis of the second-, as well as of infinitely many other lower Riemann sheets. In the present case there are bound to be even more roots as there are two thresholds and two sets of infinitely many Riemann sheets. This (“sheet”) ambiguity in the effective potential formalism can be resolved by referring to its connection to the BS equation. So we turn to the study of analytic properties of the Gaussian BS equation.

## 3 Analyticity of the Gaussian BS equation

We shall show the exact equivalence of the solutions to the Gaussian BS equation and the so-called N/D equations in S-matrix theory. N/D equations are one way of implementing the (two-body) unitarity and causality conditions in a relativistic setting, which, in turn translate into analytic properties of the scattering amplitude. These analytic properties are important as they tell us what branch of the equation to solve and the solution’s physical interpretation (bound state, resonance, “anti-bound state”) .

The broken-symmetry connected four-point Green function, Eq. (3.12) in Ref. , for the scattering of two non-identical (“pion-sigma” scattering) scalar particles has the same generic form of a geometric series as in the symmetric phase, see Ref. , but with an additional pole term in the “potential” due to the “elementary” (massive) “pion” excitation, see Eq. (3.11) and Fig. 4 in Ref. . Such a pole term is known in the S-matrix literature as the Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson (CDD) pole. It has been known for some time  that such a geometric progression of Feynman diagrams corresponds to the solution of the (S-wave) N/D equations in the $`s`$-channel

$`D_\pi (s)={\displaystyle \frac{N_\pi (s)}{1+\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{dt}{tsiϵ}N_\pi (t)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (t)}}`$ (17)
The solutions to the N/D equations are not unique, however, the arbitrariness showing up in the form of so called Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson (CDD) poles. The position of a CDD pole, and the coefficient multiplying it are arbitrary in the usual S-matrix, or “bootstrap” approach, but in our approach they are completely determined by the Gaussian approximation to the underlying $`\sigma `$ model Lagrangian. The physical interpretation of CDD poles used to be controversial, but the present-day consensus is that they correspond to elementary particles/fields in the theory, which conjecture is confirmed by our results in the Gaussian approximation.

We may rewrite the pion-channel kernel (“polarization function”) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (s)`$ of the Bethe-Salpeter equation

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (s)`$ $`=`$ $`I_{M\mu }(s),`$ (18)
in the “dispersive” form (see Eqs. (20)

$`I_{M\mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{\left[k^2M^2+iϵ\right]\left[(kP)^2\mu ^2+iϵ\right]}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`I_{M\mu }(0){\displaystyle \frac{s}{(4\pi )^2}}K_{M\mu }(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2M^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s}{(4\pi )^2}}K_{M\mu }(s)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2M^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{s}{16\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{tsiϵ}\mathrm{Im}K_{M\mu }(t)},`$
where $`s=P^2`$ and the real and imaginary parts are

$`\mathrm{Im}K_{M\mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\mathrm{Im}I_{M\mu }(s)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{s}}\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(M\mu )^2}{s}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(M+\mu )^2}{s}}\right)}\theta (s(M+\mu )^2)`$
$`\mathrm{Re}K_{M\mu }(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{s}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2\mu ^2}{2s}}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2+\mu ^2}{M^2\mu ^2}}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu }})`$ (20)
$``$ $`\sqrt{\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(M\mu )^2}{s}}\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(M+\mu )^2}{s}}\right)}\mathrm{tanh}^1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s(M+\mu )^2}{s(M\mu )^2}}}].`$
The (momentum) $`s`$ dependent part of this integral is an analytic function in the cut complex $`s`$ plane. There are in general two logarithmic branch cuts (one stretching from $`M+\mu `$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, another from $`M\mu `$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, though on the first (“physical”) sheet only the right-hand-side cut appears) determining a Riemann surface with infinitely many sheets. This is rather different from the corresponding nonrelativistic case which has only one (square root) cut with two sheets.

Comparing Eq. (3.12) in Ref.  with Eq. (17) above, it becomes clear that the form of the Gaussian approximation $`\pi `$ propagator demands that the numerator function $`N_\pi (s)`$ equal the pion channel “potential” $`V_\pi (s)`$, Eq. (3.11) in Ref.  and the form of the denominator in Eq. (17):

$`N_\pi (s)`$ $`=`$ $`V_\pi (s)=2\lambda _0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{s\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dtN_\pi (t)}{tsiϵ}\mathrm{Im}I_{M\mu }(t)}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\pi (s)\left[I_{M\mu }(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t(tsiϵ)}\mathrm{Im}I_{M\mu }(t)}\right].`$ (22)
Equation (21) tells us that $`s=\mu ^2`$ is the position, and $`2\lambda _0M^2`$ is the coupling strength of the CDD pole, whereas Eq. (22) dictates the value of the “subtraction constant”

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`I_{M\mu }(0)={\displaystyle \frac{I_0(M)I_0(\mu )}{M^2\mu ^2}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda _0}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M^2\epsilon /v}{M^2\mu ^2}}\right),`$
that is, in turn, fixed by the gap equations.

Since the N/D approximation is unitary by construction we conclude that the $`s`$ channel Gaussian BS scattering amplitude is also unitary. By the same token, one can show that the $`\sigma `$ channel propagator can be written as a solution to the matrix N/D equations, see Ref. . The subtraction constants are fixed as in Ref. .

Now that we have established analytic properties of the Gaussian BS equation, we may look for its solutions. As noted above, physically interesting solutions are to be found as follows: (1) bound states on the real axis of the physical sheet, below all thresholds; (2) resonances in the fourth quadrant of the “second” sheet; (3) “antibound states” on the real axis of the second sheet, below both thresholds. There are also new kinds of S-matrix singularities in the relativistic quantum field theory (QFT) that do not appear in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. One such possible new relativistic singularity is the CDD “pole” (or “zero” in the denominator). CDD poles are associated with “elementary” particles/fields in the theory, see p. 400 in Ref. . In our case this means a field in the $`\sigma `$ model Lagrangian, If we remember that the linear $`\sigma `$ model has been shown to be the low-energy limit of the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) chiral quark model, we may say that the “elementary” particles here are just the bare NJL quark-antiquark states. These states lead to real poles only in the weak meson-meson coupling limit, as we shall show below. Thus the $`\sigma `$ resonance may become a stable state only in the limit of weak interactions.

It should be noted, however, that $`I_{MM}(s),I_{\mu \mu }(s)`$ are analytic functions with imaginary parts above the corresponding thresholds, so that Eq. (14) actually implies two equations: one for the real and one for the imaginary part. Usually only the real part is considered, however. That is all right if the (real part of the) root lies below all thresholds. If it does not, as in our case, one must look at the equation for the imaginary part, as well. As one moves away from the real $`s`$ axis, each equation yields a line of roots in the complex $`s`$ plane. The intersection of the two lines (the real and imaginary roots) then yields the position of the pole. Only the pole on the second lower sheet 222$`I_{MM}(s),I_{\mu \mu }(s)`$ have logarithmic branch points and therefore infinitely many sheets, in contrast with the nonrelativistic case where the branch points are of the square root type, with only two sheets., if it exists at all, determines the mass and width of the resonance.

We have numerically solved the real part of the scalar meson mass/Gaussian BS equation on the real axis of the physical sheet, looking for bound states. The results are shown in Fig. 9 of Ref.  . Note the double-valuedness of the solutions. The question arises: can one ascribe particle-like properties to the heavy branch of the solution. Short of a pole search in the second sheet, that question can only be answered by calculating the Källén-Lehmann spectral function.

## 4 Källén-Lehmann Spectral function

As argued in Sect. III, the Gaussian pion propagator $`D_\pi (s)`$ is an analytic function in the cut $`s`$-plane and, as such, it allows a dispersive, or Källén-Lehmann representation

$`D_\pi (s)={\displaystyle 𝑑t\frac{\rho _\pi (t)}{tsiϵ}},`$ (24)
where

$$\rho _\pi (s)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}D_\pi (s),$$

is the spectral density function. The latter represents the mass distribution of physical excitations in this channel. In Ref.  we have explicitly shown that in the pion ($`J^P=0^{}`$) channel and in the chiral limit, the spectral function

$`\rho _\pi (s)`$ $`=`$ $`a\delta (s)+c(s)\theta (s(M+\mu )^2),`$ (25)
contains only one Dirac delta function, instead of two, as naively expected. In Fig. 1 we show the same spectral density in the nonchiral case (explicitly broken O(4) symmetry) and again find only one Dirac delta function, this time at $`\sqrt{s}=140`$ MeV. Another way of saying this is that the strength with which the state at $`s=\mu ^2`$ appears in the spectrum is zero, i.e., the state decouples from the single-particle spectrum. The heavier excitations $`\varphi _i,i=1,2,3`$ correspond to unstable quasi-particles  that decay into an odd number of lighter Goldstone bosons. Thus there is no particle doubling in the Gaussian approximation, contrary to suggestions e.g. by Törnqvist .

Similar comments hold for the $`\sigma `$ sector, the analysis being more complicated due to two different kinds of intermediate state being possible there. The sigma channel is phenomenologically more interesting than the pion one because that is where many experimental “supernumerary” states have been observed. In Figs. 2, 3, and 4 we show the scalar Källén-Lehmann spectral density

$$\rho _\sigma (s)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}(D_\sigma (s)),$$

at various free parameter values. Here the scalar propagator is defined as

$`D_\sigma (s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda _0}{(sM^2)𝒟(s)}},`$ (26)
the remaining terms in the $`D_{ij}`$ matrix elements contribute to the effective $`\sigma \varphi _i\varphi _i,i=0,1,2,3`$ vertex form factors. Once again we find only one bump, or Dirac delta function in the density of states, depending on the coupling strength $`\lambda _0`$ and other free parameters.

We showed in Fig. 8 of Ref.  that the scalar channel (dressed $`\sigma `$ meson) pole position is always shifted downward from the “elementary” sigma field’s ($`\varphi ^0`$) CDD pole at $`s=M^2`$, in accord with the variational nature of the Gaussian approximation. As the coupling constant $`\lambda _0`$ drops below some critical value $`\lambda _c`$, which is a function of the masses $`\mu ,M`$ and the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the $`\sigma `$ meson mass becomes purely real as its position drops below the $`4\mu ^2`$ threshold, see Fig. 2. Thus, within the Gaussian approximation, the $`\sigma `$ meson can be (quasi-)stable at weak couplings, but at moderate and strong couplings it is always a broad resonance. The behaviour of the critical value of the $`\sigma `$ meson mass $`m_\sigma ^c`$ as a function of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be gleaned from Fig. 8 in Ref.  (and similar graphs for values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ between 0.4 and 1 GeV): the crossing point of the $`m_\sigma (M)`$ and $`2\mu (M)`$ curves lies around $`M`$ 300 - 400 MeV until it disappears altogether for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0.5`$ GeV.

In Ref.  (see Fig. 9.) we showed that at intermediate values of the coupling $`\lambda _0`$ and low cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ there is a second, much heavier solution to the real part of the BS equation besides the usual light one. Thus there is once again the possibility of a second pole in the S matrix. Such a conclusion would be premature, as can be seen in Fig. 3, and 4: there is no enhancement of the scalar spectral function at high energy, whereas at low $`s`$ the standard solution pole can be seen as a Dirac delta function turning first into a narrow then a wider peak as one moves up in energy. Thus we see that there is no enhancement in the density of states at the corresponding energy/mass and thus there is no second resonance peak. We conclude that the heavy solution exists only in the real part of the BS equation, whereas the imaginary part does not have a root in the vicinity.

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

The mean-field method was initially fraught with problems when applied to the linear $`\sigma `$ model with spontaneously broken internal symmetry - the Goldstone theorem did not seem to “work”. This problem was solved, at the price of opening new questions : The Goldstone boson found in the Gaussian approximation  turned out to be a composite state that apparently co-exists with the massive “elementary” state with identical quantum numbers. A similar situation occurs in the scalar sector. At first this looks like a “doubling” of the number of scalar states, sometimes invoked in the phenomenological literature on the $`\sigma `$ meson . We have showed here that this doubling is only apparent: we investigated the question of the particle content of the $`\varphi ^4`$ theory in the Gaussian approximation by employing the Källén-Lehmann representation . Thus we found that the massive “elementary” pion does not appear in the Källén-Lehmann spectral function as an excitation in the pseudoscalar channel. This is the same as saying that the Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson (CDD) “pole” in the $`\pi `$ channel has a vanishing residue in the MFA to the linear sigma model. Similarly, only one state has been found to exist in the $`\sigma `$ channel of the MFA. Moreover, we showed that the mass of the composite $`\sigma `$ state agrees exactly with that calculated in the CJT formalism. Another interpretation, (that might be only semantically different from the above one) was derived by using operator many-body (“quasi-particle RPA”) methods . In that theoretical framework the “lighter” states are particles and the “heavier” ones are so-called quasi-particles that appear due to the interactions of the particles.

In summary, we have: 1) established equivalence of the standard Gaussian approximation with the effective potential method; 2) shown equivalence to the N/D equations and thus proven unitarity. 3) solved the resulting equations and investigated the theories particle content via the Källén-Lehmann representation.

One of the authors \[V.D.\] wishes to thank Prof. Paul Stevenson for valuable conversations and correspondence relating to the Gaussian approximation in general and some of the problems treated here in particular. The same author would also like to acknowledge a COE Professorship at RCNP for the year 2000/1 at which time most of this work was done.


text:
# Power-like abundance of elements in Universe

## 1 Introduction

We would like to bring ones attention to the apparently not so well know fact that the abundance of all known elements in the Universe follow the characteristic (and so far unexplained) power law dependence as is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 1 111Consecutive steps of histogram in Fig. 1 denote the following nuclei: Ne, (Mg, Si), S, (K, Ca), Fe, (Cu, Zn), (Kr, Sr, Zr), (Te, Xe, Ba), (Rare earths), (Os, Ir,Pt, Pb).. Between the heaviest atomic elements and neutron stars (which can also be regarded as a kind of ”element”) lies then a vast unpopulated ”nuclear desert”. We would like to propose that actually this ”nuclear desert” can be populated by nuggets of the Strange Quark Matter (QSM) called strangelets which, according to our estimations , follow the $`A^{7.5}`$ power-like dependence indicated in Fig. 1. Referring to our works  for details we would like to mention only here that all known candidates for strangelets  fit very nicely to the expected behaviour of such objects (cf. Fig. 4 in ). In order to solve the apparent contradiction that, although strangelets seem to follow the normal nuclear $`A`$-dependence of sizes, i.e., $`r_S=r_0A^{1/3}`$ (with $`r_01.2`$ fm ), nevertheless they do occur deeply in the atmosphere, we have proposed  the following scenario: strangelets entering the atmosphere of Earth are big, with atomic number $`A`$ of the order of $`A=1000÷2000`$. Being rather ”big bags” of quarks than normal nuclei they do not, however, disintegrate during the consecutive interactions with the atmospheric nuclei but simply become smaller. Only after reaching some critical size of $`A_{crit}=200÷400`$ they do disintegrate into baryons222It is quite plausible that the famous Centauro events are caused by precisely such mechanism, see  for details..

Such scenario allows to estimate the flux of strangelets reaching our atmosphere, cf. Fig. 2, and to compare it with some other cosmological estimations, see Fig. 3 333In Fig. 2 the estimations are provided for two specific realizations of our propositions  out of which only one (solid line) results in power-like fit $`A_0^{7.5}`$ shown in Figs. 1 and 3.. We would like to stress here that with the flux of strangelets estimated in this way we were able to fit data on distribution of muons obtained by ALEPH detector at the CosmoLEP experiment (see Fig. 4 and  for details) (and it should be stressed that only in our approach can one fit the last $`5`$ events in Fig. 5 with unexpectedly large multiplicities $`N_\mu `$ (up to 150) which cannot be explained, even assuming pure iron primaries)444To do so we have used the so-called ”normal” chemical composition of primaries with 40% protons, 20% helium, 20% CNO mixture, 10% Ne-S mixture, and 10% Fe. It can describe low multiplicity ($`N_\mu 20`$) region only. Muon multiplicity from strangelet induced showers are very broad. As can be seen, the small amount of strangelets (with the smallest possible mass number $`A=400`$ (the critical mass to be $`A_{crit}=320`$ here)) in the primary flux can accommodate experimental data. Taking into account the registration efficiency for different types of primaries one can estimate the amount of strangelets in the primary cosmic flux. In order to describe the observed rate of high multiplicity events one needs the relative flux of strangelets $`F_S/F_{tot}2.410^5`$ (at the same energy per particle). . The above results clearly demonstrated the plausibility of our supposition expressed in Fig. 1, namely that it is quite possible that the power-law found when discussing the abundance of known elements in the Universe  is followed by the nuggets of SQM, strangelets, signals of which are accumulating . The $`A^{7.5}`$ dependence found (and in general, the reason for such power law to show up) is, to our knowledge, yet unexplained. We would like to mention here a very simple reasoning leading to such behaviour. Let us consider an object (nucleus or strangelet) carrying mass number $`A_i`$, which absorbs neutrons with probability $`W=\mathrm{\Phi }\sigma =A_iv\sigma `$. In time $`t`$ it travels distance $`L=vt`$. If absorptions of neutrons proceeds with cross section $`\sigma `$ and density of neutrons is $`n`$, then the increment of mass is $`A_i=nA_iL\sigma t/t`$. For the $`i`$-th such object

$$\frac{A_i}{A_i}=\alpha \frac{t}{t}A_i(t)=m\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{where}\alpha =nL\sigma $$
(1)
(where initial condition that $`i`$-th object occurs in time $`t_i`$ with mass $`A_i(t_i)=m`$ was used). Probability of forming an object of mass $`A_i(t)<A`$ is then

$$P(A_i(t)\frac{m^{1/\alpha }t}{A^{1/\alpha }}\right).$$
(2)
Assuming now uniform distribution of occuring of such objects in the system, the probability of adding such object in the unit time interval to the system is equal to $`P(t_i)=1/t`$ what leads to

$$P\left(t_i>\frac{m^{1/\alpha }t}{A^{1/\alpha }}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}P\left(t_i\frac{m^{1/\alpha }t}{A^{1/\alpha }}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{m^{1/\alpha }}{A^{1/\alpha }}.$$
(3)
Using now (2) one can write the probability of forming an object of mass $`A`$ in the following form

$$P(A)=\frac{P(A_i(t)<A)}{A}=\frac{m^{1/\alpha }}{1+1/\alpha }A^{(1+1/\alpha )}.$$
(4)
It means that we obtain in this way the following time-independent power-like distribution of abundance of elements,

$$P(A)A^\gamma \mathrm{with}\gamma =1+\frac{1}{\alpha }=1+\frac{1}{nL\sigma }.$$
(5)
In our case $`\gamma =7.5`$ corresponds to $`\alpha =nL\sigma =0.154`$ and this, for the tipical value of the cross section entering here, $`\sigma =30`$ mb, gives the thickness of the layer in which our objects are produced equal to $`nL=5.110^{24}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}=8.5`$ g/cm2. Assuming typical density on neutrons, $`n10^{20}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{3}=1.610^4`$ g/cm3 (and provided that the so-called $`r`$-process nucleosynthesis conditions can be meet ) it corresponds to a rather thin layer of thickness equal to $`L=0.5`$ km.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (GW) would like to thank the Bogolyubow-Infeld Program (JINR, Dubna) for financial help in attending the XXXII ISMD conference where the above material has been presented.