format: text

text:
# A quantum perturbative pair distribution for determining interatomic potentials from EXAFS

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that EXAFS is a very sensitive and accurate technique for probing the structural and dynamical properties of materials in the neighborhood of the photoabsorber atom . In particular, the damping of the EXAFS signal induced by thermal broadening in the distribution of absorber–neighbour distances carrys quantitative information on the corresponding interatomic potentials .

The effects of thermal disorder are usually accounted for by introducing a temperature–dependent pair distribution function (PDF) $`g(r,T)`$, such that $`g_s(r,T)dr`$ is the normalised probability that the distance of an atom in the the $`s`$–th shell from the absorber lies in the interval \[$`r`$,$`r+dr`$\] at the temperature $`T`$. The corresponding single–shell EXAFS $`\chi _s(k)`$ is then obtained as

$$\chi _s(k)=_0^{\mathrm{}}g_s(r,T)\chi _s(k,r)𝑑r.$$
(1)
It is clear that the absorber–neighbour effective potential determine the shape of the PDF. The simplest structural model one can introduce is represented by a Gaussian distribution, i.e. harmonic interatomic potential. In this case, integration of eq. (1) is straightforward and the result is the well–known Debye–Waller multiplicative damping factor $`e^{2\sigma ^2k^2}`$, where $`\sigma ^2=[rr]^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}g(r,T)[rr]^2𝑑r`$.

The higher–order terms in the potential expansion are usually accounted for via the cumulant method . The cumulants $`C_n`$ are defined as the coefficients that enter the MacLaurin expansion of the function $`\mathrm{ln}[F(2k)]`$, where $`F(2k)`$ is the Fourier transform of the effective distribution function $`G(r,\lambda )=g(r)e^{2r/\lambda }/r^2`$, $`\lambda `$ being the photoelectron mean free path. The utility of this method is that the cumulants are related to the moments of the effective distribution. In particular, the first cumulant $`C_1`$ is the mean value of the interatomic distance, while $`C_2`$ is the variance of the effective distribution. The higher–order cumulants $`C_3`$ and $`C_4`$ are related to the skewness (asimmetry) and kurtosis (deviation from the Gaussian shape) of the distribution, respectively. The cumulant–expansion technique has been applied succesfully in the case of moderate anharmonicities both to bulk materials  and to the study of surfaces .

In such a framework, the following step towards a detailed understanding of disordered systems is to establish the direct relationship between the interatomic potential and cumulants. In the case of harmonic crystals, the second–order cumulants have been calculated quantum–mechanically for Debye crystals  and simple molecules . Other attempts in this direction exist in the literature which include third–order anharmonicities for simple systems .

A more straightforward alternative approach is to directly integrate the EXAFS by calculating explicitely the whole pair distribution function corresponding to a certain model potential. The simplest way a pair potential $`V(r)`$ may directly enter the distribution function is through the classical configurational integral scheme

$$g(r,T)=\frac{e^{V\left(r\right)/k_BT}}{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{V\left(r\right)/k_BT}𝑑r}.$$
(2)
where $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant. Expression (2) has been applied to the study of metals and ionic systems with different model potentials, from Lennard–Jones , Morse  to generic three–parameter Taylor expansions . However, eq. (2) is based on a classical treatment of the atomic vibrations. In general, depending both on the temperature and potential stiffness, the classical approximation may break down. In this case the full quantum treatment of lattice dynamics is in order, and one can proceed as follows.

First the Schrödinger equation of the absorber–neighbour pair has to be solved, and the eigenvectors $`\psi _n`$ and eigenvalues $`E_n`$ computed. The quantum–mechanical analogue of expression (2) can then be written as

$$g(r,T)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|\psi _n(r)|^2e^{E_n/k_BT}}{{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{E_n/k_BT}},$$
(3)
where $`r=|𝐱_1𝐱_2|`$ is the spatial coordinate describing the relative motion of the pair. Eq. (3) has been first introduced and used in ref.  to study the interatomic potential of the Cu–O(4) pair in the YBCO superconductor. The procedure is the following: one first introduces a model potential which is characterised by a set of parameters $`\{\lambda \}`$. Then a numerical routine is set up, which solves the radial Schrödinger equation for a particular choice of the set $`\{\lambda \}`$, builds the radial distribution function (3) and calculates the EXAFS signal $`\chi (k,\{\lambda \})`$. This routine is then incorporated in the fitting program that refines the free parameters $`\{\lambda \}`$ on a set of experimental data through ordinary $`\chi ^2`$ minimisation.

This procedure has the advantage that it allows an arbitrary analytical potential function to be used. This is the case of ref. , where a double–well potential is found. However, it is rather cumbersome and of little practical utility for routine fittings. In particular, a more concise and handy way of calculating expression (3) in a closed form would be of great advantage.

In this paper we compute an analytical expression for the function (3), based on a simple Taylor expansion of the potential function, and cast it in a simple form, suitable for inclusion in a simple routine attached to the fitting machinery. We organise our paper as follows. In section 2 we develop our quantum pair distribution function (QPDF). In section 3 we discuss on general grounds the validity of our theoretical framework. Furthermore, we develop a statistical tool to assess the sensitivity of the QPDF to the parameters describing the anharmonicities in the potential. Finally, in section 4 we test the QPDF by fitting an EXAFS spectrum of AgI at $`T=77`$ K. We end the paper by summarising our results and drawing our conclusions in section 5.

## 2  The Quantum Pair Distribution Function

Let us consider the pair formed by the photoabsorber and one of its neighbours from a given coordination shell. Let $`𝐱_𝐢`$ and $`m_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) denote the position vectors and atomic masses of the two atoms, respectively. Let $`V(r)`$ be the corresponding interatomic potential. We can write its Taylor expansion in the following fashion

$$V(r)=\frac{1}{2}k_2(rr_0)^2+V_1(r)+𝒪(|rr_0|^5),$$
(4)
where

$$V_1(r)=\frac{1}{3}k_3(rr_0)^3+\frac{1}{4}k_4(rr_0)^4\mathrm{and}k_m=\frac{1}{(m1)!}\left[\frac{d^mV(r)}{dr^m}\right]_{r=r_0},$$
(5)
$`r_0`$ being the equilibrium interparticle distance, given by the condition $`[dV(r)/dr]_{r=r_0}=0`$. We can follow the ordinary procedure to first separate the two–body Schrödinger equation by introducing the relative and centre–of–mass coordinates, and then decouple the angular and radial degrees of freedom in the Schrödinger equation for the radial motion. The pair wavefunction then reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱_1,𝐱_2)=\psi _G(𝐗)\left[\frac{u(r)}{r}\right]Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi ),$$
(6)
where $`𝐗=(m_1𝐱_1+m_2𝐱_2)/(m_1+m_2)`$, $`r=|𝐱_1𝐱_2|`$ and $`Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )`$ are the spherical harmonic functions . We require the wavefunction of the pair to have spherical symmetry, since we do not want the PDF to depend on the orientation of the absorber–neighbour bond in the crystal 111this also means that our formalism in its present form only applies to the study of K–edges.. We therefore set $`l=0`$. The radial equation then reduces to the one–dimensional problem

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}u}{dr^2}+\left[\frac{1}{2}k_2(rr_0)^2+V_1(r)\right]u=Eu,$$
(7)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the pair and we require $`u(r)|_{r=0}=0`$. In the spirit of ordinary time–independent perturbation theory, we consider the harmonic Hamiltonian as the unperturbed problem and the potential $`V_1`$ as the perturbation.

It is convenient to adopt the formalism of second quantisation. The unperturbed problem is defined by the eigenvectors $`|n`$ and the corresponding eigenvalues $`E_n^{(0)}=\mathrm{}\omega [n+1/2](n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, where $`\omega =\sqrt{k_2/\mu }`$. Recalling the well known commutation relations between creation and annihilation operators $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$, respectively, it is straightforward to write down the expression of the perturbation potential (5) in the $`n`$–representation. We get

$`𝒱=\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_3[\widehat{a}^3+\widehat{a}^3+3n\widehat{a}^{}+3(n+1)\widehat{a}]+`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_4[\widehat{a}^4+\widehat{a}^4+2(2n1)\widehat{a}^2+2(2n+3)\widehat{a}^2+3(n+1)^2+3n^2],`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_m=\frac{1}{2^{m/2}m}\left(\frac{k_mx_0^m}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)(m=3,4)\mathrm{and}x_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/\mu \omega }.$$
(9)
Recalling the definition of creation and annihilation operators we can easily evaluate the matrix elements $`k|𝒱|n`$. Let us define the four–dimensional quantity $`\beta `$ as

$$\beta (\sigma )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_3[\delta _{\sigma ,1}+\delta _{\sigma ,3}]+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4[\delta _{\sigma ,2}+\delta _{\sigma ,4}](\sigma =1,2,3,4),$$
(10)
where $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is the Kronecker integer delta function. We get

$$k|𝒱|n=n|𝒱|k=\underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{4}{}}\beta (\sigma )\left[\gamma _n^+(\sigma )\delta _{k,n+\sigma }+\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )\delta _{k,n\sigma }\right],$$
(11)
where we have explicitly used the hermiticity of $`𝒱`$, and defined

$$\gamma _n^+(\sigma )=\sqrt{\frac{(n+\sigma )!}{n!}}\alpha ^+(n,\sigma )\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{n!}{\left(n\sigma \right)!}}\alpha ^{}(n,\sigma )\hfill & n\sigma \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The coefficient $`\alpha ^\pm (n,\sigma )`$ are reported in table 1. We note that the coefficients $`\gamma _n`$ and $`\alpha ^\pm (n,\sigma )`$ satisfy to the following relations

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma _{n\sigma }^+(\sigma )\hfill & =\gamma _n^{}\hfill & \alpha ^+(n\sigma ,\sigma )\hfill & =\alpha ^{}(n,\sigma )\hfill \\ \gamma _{n+\sigma }^{}(\sigma )\hfill & =\gamma _n^+\hfill & \alpha ^{}(n+\sigma ,\sigma )\hfill & =\alpha ^+(n,\sigma ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Using eq. (11), (12) and (13), we can work out the second–order corrections to the energy levels $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n`$ and the normalised perturbed wavefunctions $`|n+|n^{}`$ in the usual way (see e.g. ref. ). After a somewhat lengthy calculation, we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n/\mathrm{}\omega =3\mathrm{\Lambda }_4(2n^2+2n+1)+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\sigma )^2}{\sigma }}\left[(\gamma _n^{}(\sigma ))^2(\gamma _n^+(\sigma ))^2\right].`$ (14)
$`|n^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\sigma )}{\sigma }}\left[\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )|n\sigma \gamma _n^+(\sigma )|n+\sigma \right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\sigma )\beta (\sigma ^{})}{\sigma (\sigma +\sigma ^{})}}\left[\gamma _n^+(\sigma )\gamma _{n+\sigma }^+(\sigma ^{})|n+(\sigma +\sigma ^{})+\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )\gamma _{n\sigma }^{}(\sigma ^{})|n(\sigma +\sigma ^{})\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\sigma )\beta (\sigma ^{})}{\sigma (\sigma ^{}\sigma )}}\left[\gamma _n^+(\sigma )\gamma _{n+\sigma }^{}(\sigma ^{})|n(\sigma ^{}\sigma )+\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )\gamma _{n\sigma }^+(\sigma ^{})|n+(\sigma ^{}\sigma )\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}}{\mathrm{}\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\sigma )}{\sigma ^2}}\left[\gamma _n^+(\sigma )|n+\sigma +\gamma _n^{}(\sigma )|n\sigma \right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|n{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2(\sigma )}{\sigma ^2}}\left[(\gamma _n^+(\sigma ))^2+(\gamma _n^{}(\sigma ))^2\right],`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^{(1)}=3\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_4(2n^2+2n+1)`$ are the first–order corrections to the energy levels.

We are now able to write down explicitly the expression for the QPDF from eq. (3). We have

$$g(r,T)=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n_M}{}}}[u_n(r)+u_n^{}(r)]^2e^{\left[E_n^{\left(0\right)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_n\right]/k_BT}}{{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n_M}{}}}e^{\left[E_n^{\left(0\right)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_n\right]/k_BT}},$$
(16)
where $`u_n(r)=r|n`$ are the unperturbed eigenfunctions, i.e. the eigenvectors of the one–dimensional harmonic oscillator, and $`u_n^{}(r)=r|n^{}`$ are the corrections (2). We have explicitly indicated the truncation of the summations as the integer $`n_M`$. In the computations one has to fix $`n_M`$ by requiring that the corresponding normalised Boltzmann factor $`z_{n_M}/Z`$ ($`Z`$ being the partition function) is negligible up to some specified tolerance $`tol=10^M`$, i.e.

$$z_{n_M}=e^{\left[E_{n_M}^{\left(0\right)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{n_M}\right]/k_BT}tol.$$
(17)
This condition fixes the number of levels which are included in the perturbative series (16). Of course, one also has to check that the energy of the highest level included is small compared to some estimate of the the potential well depth $`V_o`$. If we express energies in eV and temperature in Kelvin, from eq. (17) we get the condition

$$[M\mathrm{log}10]T\times 10^4<V_o.$$
(18)
It follows that, for potential well depths of the order of 1 eV, the condition (18) is fulfilled for $`M=45`$ for temperatures up to $`100`$ K.

## 3  Validity and sensitivity of the QPDF

The above described procedure to build the QPDF relies on two basic hypotheses: $`(i)`$ the classical approximation of lattice vibrations must be inadequate so that the quantum treatment of the two–body problem holds, and $`(ii)`$ the deviations of the absorber–neighbour potential from the harmonic approximations must be satisfactorily described by a perturbative treatment. As to the validity of condition $`(i)`$, the ratio $`_Q=\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT`$ ($`\omega =\sqrt{k_2/\mu }`$) provides a good qualitative indicator: if $`_Q`$ is of order one, the quantum energy scale is comparable with the thermal one, and the system requires the full quantum description. Regarding condition $`(ii)`$, we introduce the following parameter

$$_E\stackrel{def}{=}\frac{2V_1(\sqrt{(rr_0)^2_T})}{k_2(rr_0)^2_T}=\frac{1}{k_2}\left[\frac{2}{3}k_3\sqrt{(rr_0)^2_T}+\frac{1}{2}k_4(rr_0)^2_T\right],$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{}_T`$ is the configurational average performed with the QPDF. The indicator $`_E`$ gives a measure of the relative strength of the perturbed and unperturbed energies, and can always be computed a posteriori in order to assess the validity of the perturbative approximation. On the other hand, we also have to be concerned with the sensitivity of the QPDF to the parameters of the model potential. i.e. the minimum detectable anharmonicity within the present model at fixed temperature and potential stiffness ($`k_2`$). We shall here introduce a simple procedure for assessing the QPDF sensitivity, based on the statistical $`F`$–test.

Let us suppose that we are fitting $`N`$ experimental data points $`(k_i,\chi _i^{exp})`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, to a model that has $`p`$ adjustable parameters $`\lambda _j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},p`$. The model predicts a functional relationship between the measured independent and dependent variables

$$\chi (k)=\chi ^{the}(k;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p).$$

In the spirit of the maximum–likelihood method, we want to minimise a fit index (or residual function) of the kind

$$=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\chi _i^{exp}\chi ^{the}(k_i;\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _p)]^2w_i$$
(20)
where the $`w_i`$’s are some weight functions. In general, if the standard deviations $`\sigma _i`$ of the experimental data are known independently, the correct choice would be $`w_i1/\sigma _i^2`$. However, depending on the particular algorithm used to perform the fit, some other weighting functions may be preferred.

As a consequence of introducing the third– and fourth–order nonlinearities in the model potential, two more floating parameters are available to fit the EXAFS spectrum, namely $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$. In general, this will cause per se a reduction of the best–fit index minimum with respect to the harmonic model. Such a situation typically arises in EXAFS data analysis when it is to be decided whether a spectrum needs the introduction of an additional shell to be fitted (some physical information still present in the data) or, more generally, whether the improvement achievable by incrementing the number of free parameters is statistically meaningless . In our case, we are interested in assessing the sensitivity of the QPDF in capturing real physical information regarding the higher–order terms in the Taylor expansion of the potential.

A general theorem in statistics states that the minimum of the residual function $`_{min}`$ is distributed as a $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with $`\nu _1=N(p+1)`$ degrees of freedom  222This result strictly holds when $`(i)`$ the measurement errors are normally distributed, and either $`(ii)`$ the model is linear in its parameters or $`(iii)`$ the sample size is large enough that the uncertainties in the fitted parameters do not extend outside a region in which the model could be replaced by a suitable linearised model. Fits in EXAFS are usually at the limit of validity of condition $`(iii)`$. However, all the statistical analysis that stems from this basic theorem is routinely applied in EXAFS data analysis (see e.g. ).. Let us assume we want to compare an harmonic model potential (fit with $`p`$ parameters) to a potential obtained by adding some anharmonicity (fit with $`p+p^{}`$ parameters, $`p^{}=1,2`$). We want to assess whether the latter model significantly improves the fit (given the automatic improvement following the introduction of any additional free parameter). Let us consider the ratio of the normalised minima of the two corresponding fit indeces

$$F=\frac{_{min}(p)/\nu _1}{_{min}(p+p^{})/\nu _2},$$
(21)
where $`\nu _2=[N(p+p^{}+1)]`$. It can be shown that, as a consequence of the above theorem, the ratio (21) follows an $`F_{\nu _1,\nu _2}`$ distribution , whose density function is

$$𝒟_{\nu _1,\nu _2}(F)dF=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\nu _1+\nu _2)/2][(\nu _1/\nu _2)F]^{\nu _1/21}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _2/2)[(\nu _1/\nu _2)F+1]^{(\nu _1+\nu _2)/2}}dF.$$
(22)
In particular, if both the harmonic and anharmonic models were appropriate to explaining all of the signal, one would expect the function

$$f=\frac{\nu _2}{p^{}}\left(\frac{_{min}(p)}{_{min}(p+p^{})}1\right)$$
(23)
to follow an $`F_{p^{},\nu _2}`$ distribution. The F–test is then conducted as follows. (1) Based on some estimate of the experimental standard deviation, one generates an artificial experimental data set from the anharmonic model, e.g. by adding some Gaussian noise. (2) The two residuals $`_{min}(p)`$ and $`_{min}(p+p^{})`$ are calculated and the value of $`f`$ obtained. (3) One can now fix the preferred confidence level $`c`$ and compare $`f`$ with $`F_{p^{},\nu _2}^c`$, given by the following relation

$$c=1_0^{F_{p^{},\nu _2}^c}𝒟_{p^{},\nu _2}(F)𝑑F.$$
(24)
Here $`c`$ is the percentage probability of obtaining a reduction $`_{min}(p)_{min}(p+p^{})`$ as large as actually observed, when the added anharmonicity is not physically meaningful. We shall call such confidence level the rejection probability, which expresses the probability that the harmonic and anharmonic model are equivalent – that is, if $`c=1`$ the two models are by all means statistically indistinguishable, while if $`c=0`$ the probability that the harmonic model could explain the data instead of the anharmonic one vanishes identically.

## 4  The Ag–I potential in Silver Iodide

Silver iodide (AgI) is known for being a highly–anharmonic material . Hence, it appears a good candidate for providing a bench–mark to test the above described data analysis framework. As an example, we analyse here an Ag K–edge EXAFS spectrum collected at $`T=77`$ K. The details of the experiment and of the extraction of the EXAFS signal $`\chi ^{exp}(k)`$ from the raw absorption data are reported elsewhere .

The classical expression (2) of the PDF has been recently used in an EXAFS study of AgI at the I K–edge to measure the first three coefficients of the Taylor expansion of the Ag–I potential at $`T=300`$ K and $`T=600`$. Following ref , we get $`_Q(T=77)0.5`$. We conclude that at $`T=77`$ K the classical expression of the PDF is non longer valid and one has to work in the quantum regime. In order to calculate the model EXAFS signal we re–write eq. (1) by using the standard formula of single–shell single–scattering EXAFS in the following fashion

$$\chi (k,r)=S_o^2N_\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}g(u,T)\frac{e^{2[r_0+u]/\lambda (k)}}{k[r_0+u]^2}Im\left\{f_\mathrm{I}(\pi ,k)e^{2i\delta _{\mathrm{Ag}}}e^{2ik[r_0+u]}\right\}𝑑u,$$
(25)
where $`g(u,T)`$ is the QPDF as calculated from eq. (16) and we have made the substitution $`u=rr_0`$. Here $`N_\mathrm{I}`$ is the coordination number of the I ions, which we fixed at the crystallographic value $`N_\mathrm{I}=4`$, $`\delta _{\mathrm{Ag}}`$ is the central atom phase shift and $`f_\mathrm{I}(\pi ,k)=|f_\mathrm{I}(\pi ,k)|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _\mathrm{I})`$ is the complex backscattering amplitude of the I ions. The constant $`S_o^2`$ is the usual reduction factor which accounts for the inelastic losses, which we fixed at the value $`S_o^2=0.73`$ . The photoelectron mean free path is here assumed to depend on the wavevector $`k`$ as $`\lambda =k/\eta `$ , where $`\eta `$ is a constant. The backscattering amplitude $`f_\mathrm{I}(\pi ,k)`$ and total phase shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =2\delta _{\mathrm{Ag}}+\varphi _\mathrm{I}`$ have been taken from the tables in ref.  (reproduced from calculations based on the Herman–Skillman wavefunctions ).

Following the arguments developed in section 3, we carry out two separate non–linear least–square fittings, by comparing the experimental EXAFS $`\chi ^{exp}(k)`$ with the model signal calculated by eq. (25) from the two separate sets of floating parameters $`\{\lambda \}=\{r_0,\mathrm{\Delta }E_0,\eta ,k_2\}`$ and $`\{\lambda ^{}\}=\{r_0,\mathrm{\Delta }E_0,\eta ,k_2,k_3,k_4\}`$. The floating parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ must be included in the fit as usual in order to compensate for the uncertainty associated with the true value of the threshold energy, i.e. the minimum energy required to free the photoelectron.

The best–fit values of the free parameters are reported in table 2 for both the harmonic and anharmonic models, alongside with the corresponding fit index minimum $`_{min}`$. The quality of the fit with the anharmonic model is shown in fig. 1 (a), while the corresponding effective Ag–I potential is drawn in fig. 1 (b). In table 3 we report for comparison the values of the potential parameters as measured in ref. . We see that the overall agreement is good, although the value of $`k_4`$ reported in ref.  does not seem to be reliable. Moreover, if we use eq. (19) to estimate the strength of the perturbation energy corresponding to the best–fit values of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$, we get $`_E0.12`$. We conclude that our results of the analysis with the QPDF are consistent with the perturbative hypothesis. It is instructive to observe that the same analysis performed using the classical expression of the PDF eq. (2) with the parameter set $`\{\lambda ^{}\}`$ always yields a vanishing $`k_2`$ at the minimum $`_{min}`$. Correspondingly, the fourth–order constant $`k_4`$ is raised to unphysically high values, independently of the initial guess of the set $`\{\lambda ^{}\}`$. This scenario clearly confirms the inadequacy of the classical treatment of the pair dynamics in the present case.

We turn now to assessing the validity of our treatment on statistical grounds. The value of $`f`$ corresponding to the reduction of $``$ following the introduction of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$ can be calculated by eq. (23). Substituting $`N=150`$ and $`p^{}=2`$, we get $`f16.6`$. By substituting in turn $`F_{p^{},\nu _2}^c=f`$ in eq. (24) we get the corresponding rejection probability $`c3\times 10^7`$. We are then allowed to conclude that the anharmonic model is here capturing a real physical feature of the Ag–I pair dynamics. It is instructive to demonstrate this conclusion in a more pictorial fashion. It is a simple corollary to the first theorem mentioned in section 3 that, if only $`\nu `$ parameters are varied while keeping the other $`p\nu `$ fixed at their best–fit value, the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _\nu )_{min}`$ follows a $`\chi ^2`$ distribution with $`\nu `$ degrees of freedom. When $`\nu =2`$ this result provides the errors on selected parameter pairs $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ in the form of confidence ellipses through the simple condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=[\chi ^2]_{\nu =2}^c`$. Here $`[\chi ^2]_{\nu =2}^c`$ is the value of the $`\chi ^2`$ variable corresponding to the required confidence level (i.e. rejection probability) $`c`$ for $`\nu =2`$. In fig. 2 we show the contour levels of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(k_2,k_4)_{min}`$ computed for the minimum obtained within the harmonic model. The presence of a significant region (corresponding to the 99 % confidence level $`[\chi ^2]_{\nu =2}^{0.01}=9.21`$) of negative values away from the computed minimum explains the dramatic improvement of the fit upon introducing the nonlinearities in the potential. The same confidence analysis for the anharmonic model performed in four different parameter subspaces $`\{\lambda _1,\lambda _2\}`$ is reported in fig. 3, showing the quality of the best–fit minimum.

We end this section by showing how one can conduct the $`F`$–test described in section 3 to examine the QPDF sensitivity in the present case. Let us fix the temperature and the harmonic constant $`k_2`$ at its best–fit value. We can then use eqs. (25),(20) and (23) with $`p^{}=1`$ to calculate the value of $`f`$ for any choice of $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$, where in place of the experimental spectrum we use an artificial data set constructed as described in section 3. In particular, we just add to the model signal a Gaussian noise with standard deviation $`\sigma (k,T)=\sigma _0[k_0/k]^{3/2}\sqrt{T/T_0}`$, with $`\sigma _0^2=0.0016`$, $`k_0=12.7`$ Å-1 and $`T_0=77`$ K (see fig. 1 (a)). Finally, we calculate the corresponding rejection probability by means of eq. (24) with $`F_{p^{},\nu _2}^c=f`$. For example, this procedure can be used to construct the functions $`c(k_3,k_4=0,T)`$ and $`c(k_3=0,k_4,T)`$ (one–parameter sensitivity curves). Alternatively, the same procedure with $`p^{}=2`$ can be used to look at the contour sections of the function $`c(k_3,k_4,T)`$ (two–parameter sensitivity curves). In fig. 4 we show an example of one–parameter sensitivity curves calculated at three different temperatures for both the $`k_3`$ and $`k_4`$ parameters. We clearly see that the lowest detectable anharmonicity is well below the measured one in both cases. In particular, the rejection probability decays exponentially with increasing magnitude of the anharmonic constant.

## 5  Conclusions

In this paper we introduced a pair distribution function valid in the quantum regime based on a Taylor expansion of the absorber–neighbour potential, suitable for the analysis of single–scattering EXAFS. In particular, we used ordinary time–independent non–degenerate quantum perturbation theory to cast the QPDF in a simple analytical form, which can be easily calculated in a subroutine incorporated in the fitting program. Moreover, we showed how the limits of validity (sensibility of the quantum treatment and perturbative hypothesis) can be monitored and we described how to implement a simple statistical test to estimate the sensitivity of the QPDF to the third– and fourth–order terms in the potential. The latter procedure can be used a posteriori to check whether the best–fit values of the anharmonic parameters are above the sensitivity level (minimum detectable anharmonicity). Alternatively, the same procedure may be applied a priori in order to assess whether the QPDF is suitable for the analysis of the problem at hand. We applied our formalism to the case of Silver Iodide, showing how the potential anharmonicity can be measured in a temperature range where the classical expression of the PDF could not be used. In particular, we demonstrated how a simple harmonic model is not adequate to describing the dynamics of the Ag–I pair, in agreement with previous studies performed in the classical regime.

As a final remark, it should be noted that the example we chose to test the QPDF concerns a very symmetric lattice structure. It is well known that an additional broadening of the distributions of absorber–neighbour distances may be produced by static disorder. The latter may be associated for example with the presence of a coordination shell made of $`N`$ identical atoms at slightly different distances from the photoabsorber, that can not be resolved in different subshells (e.g. $`N_1`$ at distance $`r_1`$ and $`N_2`$ at distance $`r_2`$, with $`N_1+N_2=N`$). For small static disorder ($`|r_1r_2|r_1,r_2`$), one can prove that such shell is equivalent to a shell with coordination $`N`$ and mean distance $`r_0=(N_1r_1+N_2r_2)/N`$, provided one introduces in the Debye–Waller factor the additional variance $`\sigma _{\mathrm{stat}}^2=N_1N_2|r_1r_2|^2/N^2`$ . In the framework of our model, this is expected to correspondingly rescale the harmonic constant $`k_2`$. However, it should not alter in general the information carried by the EXAFS signal regarding the anharmonic terms of the absorber–neighbour effective potential. Hence, we expect that our model of lattice anharmonicities may be sensibly used in its present form also in the presence of small static disorder.

Concluding, we developed an easy technique to study interatomic potentials from single–scattering EXAFS in the quantum regime of atomic vibrations. A full–featured FORTRAN package containing the relevant programs is made available by the author to the interested scientists upon request.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr Paolo Ghigna for providing the EXAFS spectrum analysed in the present work and, more importantly, for his constant help and support. The author is also indebted to Dr Luciano Cianchi for numerous precious discussions.

This work has been partly supported by Heriot–Watt University, Edinburgh, during the Ph.D. course of the author under the supervision of Dr Eitan Abraham.

## References


text:
# A New General Relativistic Cosmology

## I Introduction

In the 3+1 formulation mtw  of General Relativity, source matter or energy data can be specified on an “initial” spacelike hyper-surface and, that data can be evolved using the Einstein field equations. Different four-dimensional spacetime geometries are obtainable for different initial data.

When matter or energy is present over all of the initial hyper-surface, we obtain a “cosmological” situation or a “cosmological” spacetime.

A famous is the case of maximally symmetric, homogeneous and isotropic, Friedmann-Lemaítre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spacetime of the Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) mtw ; sussp ; stdbooks .

Now, to fix ideas, recall that the Newtonian Law of Gravitation is a statement of the force of attraction between two mass points in space. The presence of other mass-points does not alter the statement of this Law of Gravitation. Moreover, re-distribution of mass-points does not affect the statement of this Law of Gravitation.

General Relativity prescribes a spacetime geometry for a Law of Gravitation. In analogy with the Newtonian case, we therefore seek a spacetime that “does not change” its geometrical or physical characters when matter or energy is differently distributed on its initial hyper-surface. Moreover, the requirement that the addition of “more” matter or energy does not change the geometrical characters of this spacetime means that it is also a “cosmological” spacetime.

But, we note that the FLRW spacetime does change its geometrical characters when matter is differently distributed, say, in some inhomogeneous way, on its initial hyper-surface.

Therefore, we consider here a Petrov-type D, cosmological spacetime which “does not change” its geometrical characters under redistribution of matter on its initial hyper-surface and explore the cosmology implied by it.

## II Spacetime metric

Consider the spacetime metric:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`X^2Y^2Z^2dt^2+\gamma ^2X_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Y^2Z^2B^2dx^2`$ (1)
$`+\gamma ^2X^2\overline{Y}^2Z^2C^2dy^2`$
$`+\gamma ^2X^2Y^2\stackrel{~}{Z}^2D^2dx^2`$
where $`XX(x)`$, $`YY(y)`$, $`ZZ(z)`$, $`BB(t)`$, $`CC(t)`$, $`DD(t)`$ and $`\gamma `$ is a constant. Also, $`X^{}=dX/dx`$, $`\overline{Y}=dY/dy`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}=dZ/dz`$.

### Singularities and Degeneracies of (1)

There are, in general, two types of singularities of the metric (1). The first type is when any of the temporal functions $`B`$, $`C`$, $`D`$ is vanishing and the second type is when any one of the spatial functions $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ is vanishing. Singularities of the second type constitute a part of the initial data, singular initial data, for (1). On the other hand, vanishing of the temporal functions is a singular hyper-surface of (1).

The locations for which the spatial derivatives vanish are, however, coordinate singularities. The curvature invariants of (1) do not blow up at such locations. Therefore, before such coordinate singularities are reached, we may transform coordinates to other suitable ones.

There are also obvious degenerate metric situations when any of the spatial functions is infinite for some range of the coordinates.

In what follows, we shall assume, unless stated explicitly, that there are no singular initial-data and that there are no degenerate situations for the metric (1).

The metric (1) admits three hyper-surface orthogonal spatial homothetic Killing vectors (HKVs)

$`𝒳`$ $`=`$ $`(0,{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\gamma X^{}}},0,0)`$ (2)
$`𝒴`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{Y}{\gamma \overline{Y}}},0)`$ (3)
$`𝒵`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\gamma \stackrel{~}{Z}}})`$ (4)
Now, the existence of three HKVs is equivalent to two Killing vectors (KVs) and one HKV. Then, the metric (1) can be expressed in a form that displays the existence of KVs explicitly. However, we will use the form (1) in this paper.

The spacetime of (1) is required, by definition, to be locally flat at all of its points. In general, this will require some conditions on the metric functions $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$.

Then, the Einstein tensor has the components

$`G_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2C^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2D^2}}`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{D}}{BD}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\dot{D}}{CD}}`$
$`G_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2B^2X^2}{X^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{C}}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{D}}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\dot{D}}{CD}}`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2C^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2D^2}}]`$
$`G_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2C^2\overline{Y}^2}{Y^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{D}}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{D}}{BD}}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma ^2C^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2D^2}}]`$
$`G_{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2D^2\stackrel{~}{Z}^2}{Z^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{C}}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}}`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma ^2D^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^2C^2}}]`$
$`G_{tx}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}X^{}}{BX}}G_{ty}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\overline{Y}}{CY}}`$ (9)
$`G_{tz}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{D}\stackrel{~}{Z}}{DZ}}`$ (10)
$`G_{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{X^{}\overline{Y}}{XY}}G_{xz}=2{\displaystyle \frac{X^{}\stackrel{~}{Z}}{XZ}}`$ (11)
$`G_{yz}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Y}\stackrel{~}{Z}}{YZ}}`$ (12)
where an overhead dot is used to denote a time-derivative.

The four-velocity of the co-moving observer is $`U^a=\delta _{}^{a}{}_{t}{}^{}/XYZ`$. The expansion for (1) is: $`\mathrm{\Theta }\dot{B}/B+\dot{C}/C+\dot{D}/D`$.

Now, let the energy-momentum tensor be:

$`T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho +p+)U_aU_b+(p+)g_{ab}`$ (13)
$`+q_aU_b+q_bU_a+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$
where $`\rho `$ is the energy density, $`p`$ is the isotropic pressure, $`q_a=(0,q_x,q_y,q_z)`$ is the energy-flux four-vector, $``$ is the bulk-viscous pressure, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ is the anisotropic stress tensor etc. Note also that $`q_aU^a=0`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}U^b=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{a}{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ is symmetric, spatial and trace-free.

Now, from the Einstein field equations, with $`8\pi G/c^4=1`$, it follows that $`\rho =G_{tt}/X^2Y^2Z^2`$. The isotropic pressure is obtainable from the combination of (6), (7) and (8). The energy-fluxes $`q_x`$, $`q_y`$ and $`q_z`$ are related to corresponding components of the Einstein tensor in (9)-(10) and the anisotropic stresses are related to corresponding components of the Einstein tensor in (11)-(12). All the spatial functions $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ are not determined by the field equations and, hence, are arbitrary.

Then, the “initial hyper-surface” is given by $`\dot{B}=\dot{C}=\dot{D}=0`$. Now, the energy-fluxes are vanishing for the initial hyper-surface. The anisotropic stresses get determined from the spatial functions $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ as a part of the initial data.

Now, to be able to explicitly solve the corresponding ordinary differential equations, we require physical information about matter or energy. To provide for the required information of “physical” nature is a non-trivial task in general relativity just as it is for the Newtonian gravity stars . The details of these considerations are, of course, beyond the scope of the present paper.

Also, the non-vanishing components of the Weyl tensor for (1) are:

$`C_{txtx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B^2\gamma ^2X^2Y^2Z^2}{6}}F(t)`$ (14)
$`C_{tyty}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C^2\gamma ^2X^2\overline{Y}^2Z^2}{6}}G(t)`$ (15)
$`C_{tztz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D^2\gamma ^2X^2Y^2\stackrel{~}{Z}^2}{6}}H(t)`$ (16)
$`C_{xyxy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B^2C^2\gamma ^4X^2\overline{Y}^2Z^2}{6}}H(t)`$ (17)
$`C_{xzxz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B^2D^2\gamma ^4X^2Y^2\stackrel{~}{Z}^2}{6}}G(t)`$ (18)
$`C_{yzyz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C^2D^2\gamma ^4X^2\overline{Y}^2\stackrel{~}{Z}^2}{6}}F(t)`$ (19)
where

$`F(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{C}}{C}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{D}}{D}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\dot{D}}{CD}}`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{D}}{BD}}`$
$`G(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{D}}{D}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{C}}{C}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\dot{D}}{CD}}`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{D}}{BD}}`$
$`H(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{C}}{C}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{D}}{D}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}\dot{D}}{CD}}`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{D}}{BD}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}}`$
Now, for (1), it can be verified that the non-vanishing Newman-Penrose (NP) complex scalars mtbh  are $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_40`$. Now, consider a NP-tetrad rotation of Class II, with complex parameter $`b`$, that leaves the NP-vector $`𝐧`$ unchanged, and demand that the new value, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(1)}`$, of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is zero. Then, we have:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_4b^4+6\mathrm{\Psi }_2b^2+\mathrm{\Psi }_4=0$$
(23)
This equation has two distinct double-roots. Thus, the spacetime of (1) is of Petrov-type D.

It is well-known that Penrose penroseweyl  is led to the Weyl hypothesis on the basis of thermodynamical considerations, in particular, those related to the thermodynamic arrow of time. On the basis of these considerations, we may consider the Weyl tensor to be “some” sort of measure of the entropy in the spacetime at any given epoch.

Now, note that the Weyl tensor, (14) - (19), blows up at the singular hyper-surface of (1) but is “vanishing” at the “initial” hyper-surface for non-singular and non-degenerate data since $`\dot{B}=\dot{C}=\dot{D}=0`$ for the “initial” hyper-surface.

Then, we note that the entropy at the “initial” hyper-surface of (1) is “zero” while that at its singular hyper-surface is “infinite”.

This behavior of the Weyl tensor of (1) is in conformity with Penrose’s Weyl curvature hypothesis penroseweyl . Thus, the spacetime of (1) has the “right” kind of thermodynamic arrow of time in it.

### Other features of the metric (1)

The spatial distribution of matter is arbitrary for (1) and the evolution of non-singular and non-degenerate “initial data” is completely governed by only the temporal functions in (1).

Therefore, changing matter distribution on the initial hyper-surface does not change the geometrical properties of (1) for non-singular and non-degenerate data. Thus, (1) is the metric of the spacetime that we have been looking for.

Now, non-gravitational processes are included, in general relativity, via the energy-momentum tensor. Non-gravitational processes primarily determine the relation of density and pressure of matter - the equation of state. Matter properties, as are applicable at any given stage of evolution of matter, such as an equation of state of matter, the radiative characteristics of matter etc. determine the temporal functions of (1).

For physically realizable spacetime, matter must pass through different “physical” stages of evolution, namely, from dust to matter with pressure and radiation, to matter with exothermic nuclear reactions etc. This is the causal and, hence, physical, development of matter data. The spacetime of (1) therefore describes physical development of matter data.

Then, the initial hyper-surface, $`t\mathrm{}`$, has sparsely distributed matter for which the co-moving velocity of matter is vanishing. The $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ co-moving velocities are respectively $`\dot{B},\dot{C},\dot{D}`$ and, hence, $`\dot{B}=\dot{C}=\dot{D}=0`$ on the initial hyper-surface of (1).

Therefore, the temporal evolution in (1) for the non-singular and non-degenerate data leads only to a temporal singularity in the future.

Clearly, since the spatial distribution of matter is arbitrary for (1), the present structures can evolve out of some suitable density distribution.

The matter 4-velocity is

$$u^a=\frac{1}{XYZ\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(1,V^x,V^y,V^z)$$
(24)
where $`V^x=dx/dt`$, $`V^y=dy/dt`$, $`V^z=dz/dt`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`1\gamma ^2[{\displaystyle \frac{X^2B^2V_{}^{x}{}_{}{}^{2}}{X^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Y}^2C^2V_{}^{y}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Y^2}}`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Z}^2D^2V_{}^{z}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Z^2}}]`$
Now, it can be inferred physical  that the velocity of matter with respect to a co-moving observer is the speed of light at the singular hyper-surface of (1). At the singular hyper-surface of (1), $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$. Then, a co-moving observer also moves with the speed of light at the singular hyper-surface.

After all, matter everywhere should become relativistic as different mass condensates continue to grow (due to accretion onto them) to influence the entire spacetime to become relativistic everywhere. This is happening asymptotically for infinite co-moving time.

Consequently, in the cosmology of (1), the universe begins in the infinite past as “cold” but ends as a soup of high energy plasma and radiation in the infinite future. This is evidently consistent with the behavior of the Weyl tensor as a measure of the entropy.

Now, if $`d\tau _{CM}`$ is a small time duration for a co-moving observer and if $`d\tau _{RF}`$ is the corresponding time duration for the observer in the rest frame of matter, then we have

$$d\tau _{CM}=\frac{d\tau _{RF}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(26)
From (26), we also get the red-shift formula

$$\nu _{CM}=\nu RF\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}z=\frac{\nu RF}{\nu CM}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}$$
(27)
in the spacetime of (1) where $`\nu _{CM}`$ is the frequency of a photon in the co-moving frame, $`\nu _{RF}`$ is the frequency in the rest frame and $`z`$ is the total red-shift of a photon.

Then, the red-shift, (27), depends on $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ which determine the spatial density of matter and, of course, on the temporal functions in (1). In the absence of expansion in (1), the entire red-shift is indicative of the state of collapse of matter at given co-moving time.

Now, we have sufficient characteristics of the spacetime of (1) to discuss its cosmological implications to which we now turn to.

## III Cosmological implications

Firstly, the universe of (1) need not be expanding, rather, different matter condensates in it could simply be contracting and collapsing onto more massive condensates.

This is true unless, of course, “matter or energy” properties are such as to lead to positive expansion, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, for (1). But, no matter condensate in (1) is then collapsing in all dimensions. There must be, at least, one direction in which matter must expand sufficiently rapidly for, say, $`\dot{B}/B`$ to dominate over other negative terms in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Now, it has been aptly emphasized arp  that the red-shift of an object should have an “intrinsic” component, over and above that due to expansion. Then, for (1), the red-shift, (27), has both the contributions, from expansion, if any, and from density characteristics of the object.

Note also that the entire red-shift is “intrinsic” to the object or is “gravitational of origin” if the expansion of the universe is non-existent for the spacetime of (1).

However, correlation of the red-shift with distance could also arise from the initial density distribution if distant objects are more collapsed in it. In this connection, we note that the observational basis for the Hubble Law of expansion of the universe has also been called into question from time to time arp .

For (1), two neighboring objects, physically connected with luminous bridges, can be in different states of gravitational collapse and, hence, can show different red-shifts. There is therefore a natural explanation in the present cosmology for the discordant or anomalous red-shifts of quasars and galaxies that Arp arp  has been observing in quasar-galaxy associations. The famous such case is that of NGC 7619 and its companion.

An important issue partridge ; cobe  is that of the observed Microwave Background Radiation (MBR). The early universe of (1) is cold since matter is pressureless and radiation-less close to the initial hyper-surface. Thus, the MBR can only arise as thermalized radiation emitted by all the radiating matter in the universe of (1).

Then, it is remarkable that a spacetime that does not change its geometrical properties under redistribution of mass on its initial hyper-surface leads to only such an explanation of the MBR. We also note here that the energy density in the microwave, $`\rho _{mbr}`$, is the same as that found in the starlight of our own galaxy. This is suggestive arp  of the importance of thermalization of light from radiating matter in the universe.

However, we note that all the earlier considerations of radiation by warm dust producing the observed MBR consider an expanding universe. As a result, these considerations face the problem of energy supply needed to heat the dust for large red-shifts in an expanding universe.

Another objection to the explanation of MBR as re-emission of radiation from small-sized dust is that the spectrum of radiation from such dust is unlikely to be black-body 0209386  while the spectrum of MBR is closely that of a black-body at $`2.75^o`$K. Small dust particles are inefficient radiators at long wavelengths.

However, sufficiently large ($`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}100\mu m`$) sized dust particles would thermalize the stellar radiation. But, for expanding universe models, a prohibitively huge total dust mass is obtained. That is, there is the need for large amounts of dust, almost comparable to the density of heavy elements in the universe partridge . Such an era is not available for most cosmological models.

Note, however, that the present cosmological model based on (1) begins with an era of entire matter as being dust. Consequently, for this model the above objections against the explanation of MBR as thermalized emission by dust need to be re-examined in details.

Now, since the entire matter in the present cosmology is expected to attain the speed of light in the asymptotic future, we also expect that the temperature of MBR should increase with time. This is, therefore, a definite and falsifiable prediction of this cosmology.

Any conclusive evidence that the temperature of MBR was more in the past would also falsify this cosmology and, with it, the premise that we need to seek a spacetime that “does not change” its geometrical characters when masses are differently distributed on its initial hyper-surface.

As a separate remark, we note that, following the works of Ellis and Sciama ellissciama , there is an interpretation tod  of Mach’s principle, namely that there should be no source-free contributions to the metric or that there should be no source-free Weyl tensor for a Machian spacetime.

We, therefore, note that the vacuum is a degenerate case for (1) and, hence, the metric (1) has no source-free contributions. Further, the spacetime of (1) does not possess the source-free Weyl tensor. The spacetime of (1) is, then, also a Machian spacetime in this sense.

###### Acknowledgements.

Some of the reported calculations have been performed using the software SHEEP and I am indebted to Malcolm MacCallum for providing this useful software to me. I am also grateful to Ravindra Saraykar for many helpful discussions.


text:
# CHARGINO PAIR PRODUCTION AT ONE-LOOP

## Abstract

We use the quantum corrected chargino production cross section, including information on the beam polarization and chargino helicities, to estimate the precision achievable at a 1 TeV, 500 $`\mathrm{f}b^1`$ Linear Collider on the determination of fundamental supersymmetric parameters from measurements of light chargino mass and production cross sections. We show that to get meaningful results higher order corrections should be included.

It has been established that it will be possible to make precision measurements of supersymmetric observables at a future Linear Collider . Therefore, it is imperative to match the experimental precision with higher order theoretical calculations . Chargino production at an LC,

$$e^+(p_2)+e^{}(p_1)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_b^+(k_2)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_a^{}(k_1)$$
(1)
is a well studied laboratory for the determination of the parameters of the MSSM. The total unpolarized cross section was first calculated at one-loop in the approximation where only quarks and squarks were included , while in the same approximation, the cross section with polarized beams was found in . These early works showed the importance of the quark-squark loops. The first complete one-loop calculation of the polarized production cross section is in , where the importance of box graphs was demonstrated. This was followed by the first calculation of polarized cross sections which keeps the full information on the helicity state of the charginos and includes self energies, triangles and boxes, excluding only the QED corrections . Here the cross sections are given in terms of helicity amplitudes,

$$\frac{d\sigma (\alpha ,\lambda _2,\lambda _1)}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_{\chi _a}^2,m_{\chi _b}^2)}{128\pi s}\left|𝒜_{\lambda _2,\lambda _1}^\alpha \right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are the helicities of the $`\chi ^{}`$ and $`\chi ^+`$ respectively, and $`\alpha `$ is the electron polarization. The renormalized helicity amplitudes are given in terms of generalized $`Q`$-charges, e.g.,

$`𝒜_+^L`$ $`=`$ $`𝒬_{31}^L(1+v)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝒬_{32}^Lsv(1+v)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (3)
$`𝒬_{41}^L(1v)(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝒬_{42}^Lsv(1v)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`4𝒬_{52}^L\sqrt{s}\sqrt{1v^2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$
where $`v`$ is the velocity of the chargino and $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle. All quantum corrections are included in the $`Q`$-charges.

Here we are interested in the determination of MSSM parameters from chargino observables hypothetically taken at an LC with 1 TeV center of mass energy and $`500\mathrm{f}b^1`$ integrated luminosity. To this end we use a $`\chi ^2`$ analysis whose input is the Supergravity benchmark model B  with $`m_0=100`$ GeV, $`M_{1/2}=250`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, and $`\mu >0`$. In this model, the lightest chargino has a mass $`m_{\chi _1^+}=181`$ GeV and it is pair produced at the LC with an unpolarized cross section $`\sigma =420`$ fb, expecting of the order of $`10^5`$ events. Other observables we include in our $`\chi ^2`$ are the left cross sections $`\sigma _L^{++}=15`$ fb, $`\sigma _L^+=250`$ fb, and $`\sigma _L^+=140`$ fb, and the right cross sections $`\sigma _R^{++}=0.05`$ fb, $`\sigma _R^+=0.44`$ fb, and $`\sigma _R^+=0.29`$ fb. We do not include observables from the heavy chargino. For the cross sections we consider only the statistical error ($`N\pm \sqrt{N}`$), and for the chargino mass we take a 1% error.

The results of the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis are summarized in Fig. 1, where regions of normalized $`\chi ^2<1`$ are depicted (inner ellipses). For comparison we also show the regions where $`\chi ^2<4`$ (central ellipses) and $`\chi ^2<10`$ (outer ellipses). The center of each ellipse indicates the output of the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis which should coincide with the input, and the width of each ellipse indicates the error in the determination of the corresponding parameter. Filled circles in two of the quadrants correspond to the tree level prediction, with a mediocre normalized $`\chi ^2=65`$. These results are summarized in Table LABEL:tab:cases.

From the parameters in the chargino mass matrix at tree level, the gaugino mass $`M_2`$ and the higgsino mass $`\mu `$ can be determined within 2-3%, but $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is determined within $`30\%`$ due to a weaker dependence of the observables on this parameter. The tree level mass matrix is diagonalized with two rotation matrices defined by the angles $`\varphi _L`$ and $`\varphi _R`$ and their cosine can be found with a 2-4% error. The heavy chargino and the sneutrino masses (the former intervenes at tree level into the production cross section with left handed polarized electrons) can be found with a 2-3% error. Last but not least, we can see in Fig. 1 the determination of the stop quark mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, which is a pure one-loop effect: it is found to be $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=450\pm 110`$ GeV, while the input from benchmark B is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=392`$ GeV. This is very interesting since it indicates that precision measurements in the chargino sector may shed light into the squark sector, in the same way that the SM precision measurements gave us information on the top quark mass (and after its discovery, on the Higgs mass).

In summary, we have shown that in order to determine the underlying parameters of the MSSM in the chargino sector, it is necessary to work with the one-loop corrected cross sections and masses. In addition, precision measurements in the chargino sector can give us information on the squark masses.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence  provides a description of the large N limit of $`𝒩=4`$ SU(N) SYM theory as type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S_5`$. This has led to much progress in the understanding of SYM theories in the ’t Hooft limit . However the precise correspondence between states in $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ and operators in the SYM theory is not known in general. Most developments111See  for a review and a complete set of references. are based on the relation between chiral primary operators in the SYM theory and supergravity modes in $`AdS_5\times S_5`$, as well as in the relation between Wilson loop operators and semiclassical world-sheets in $`AdS_5\times S_5`$. In , Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase extended the correspondence to a set of operators in the SYM theory corresponding to excited string states in $`AdS_5\times S_5`$ with large angular momentum along the $`S_5`$. In a related development, Gubser, Klebanov and Polyakov 222See also the recent works . suggested that states with angular momentum in the $`AdS_5`$ part should correspond to twist two operators in the SYM theory. In free field theory these are the operators with lowest conformal dimension for a given spin $`S`$ one example being:

$`𝒪_{\{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _S\}}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^I_{\{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _S\}}\mathrm{\Phi }^I,`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ are the scalars of the $`𝒩=4`$ theory, and the indices $`\{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _S\}`$ are symmetrized and traces removed so that the operator carries spin $`S`$. The conformal dimension in free field theory is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=S+2`$, and the twist $`\mathrm{\Delta }_SS=2`$. Other twist two operators can be constructed using the gauge field or the fermions instead of the scalar fields. The interest of these operators is that in QCD they give the leading contribution to deep inelastic scattering . The proposal of  is that such operators can be described, in the dual supergravity picture, as macroscopic rotating strings whose energy turns out to be, for large $`S`$,

$$ES+\frac{\sqrt{g_sN}}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}S,(S\mathrm{}).$$
(2)
In the CFT, $`E`$ is interpreted as the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ of the corresponding operator, and in fact, in the field theory, a similar behavior is obtained at one loop for the operators (1) except that the coefficient in front of $`\mathrm{ln}S`$ is linear in $`g_sN`$, where $`g_s=g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2`$ . The field theory result is obtained by evaluating the expectation value

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒪_s}^{[2]}=p|𝒪_s|p=C_S(ip_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )^S\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)^{\gamma _S},$$
(3)
where $`|p`$ is a one particle $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ state with momentum $`p`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mu `$ are UV and IR cut offs and $`\gamma _S`$ is the anomalous dimension ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=S+2+\gamma _S`$). The operator $`𝒪_s`$ is defined as

$$𝒪_S(\mathrm{\Delta })=Tr\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^I_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}_{\mu _S}\mathrm{\Phi }^I\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mu _S},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ is an arbitrary vector which is taken to be light-like so that only the traceless part contributes to $`𝒪_s`$. The Green function in eq.(3) can be evaluated perturbatively as in  and the result is that, at one loop, the leading contribution (for $`S\mathrm{}`$) to the anomalous dimension comes from the diagram in fig. 1a. which gives the logarithmic dependence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=S+2+\gamma _S`$, $`\gamma _S\mathrm{ln}S`$, $`(S\mathrm{})`$. This behavior persist at two loops in supersymmetric and not supersymmetric theories333See  for a review of these results and references to the extensive literature in the subject..

In , it was observed that the anomalous dimension, for large $`S`$, can also be computed by using Wilson loops. More precisely, that it is related to the anomalous dimensions of Wilson loops with cusps. This suggests an alternative method to use the AdS/CFT correspondence to perform the calculation which is to compute the relevant Wilson loop by using the results of . In this paper we pursue this idea an obtain exactly the same result as with the rotating string, giving support to the identification between the operators $`𝒪_S`$ and the rotating strings.

In the next section we review the calculation of  using rotating strings an explain how it can be done in an alternative way by using Wilson loops. In section 3 we perform the calculation of the Wilson loop by doing an analytic continuation of previous results in Euclidean AdS space . In section 4 we analyze these results and give its interpretation in terms of an Euclidean word-sheet in $`AdS_5\times S_5`$. In particular we show that the relevant world-sheet is completely determined by symmetry considerations. Finally, we give our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 Rotating strings and Wilson loops

In this section, after reviewing the calculation of the string rotating in $`AdS_5`$  we summarize the argument of Korchemsky and Marchesini  which suggests an alternative computation using Wilson loops.

In  it was proposed that twist two operators corresponded to (semiclassical) rotating strings in $`AdS_5`$. The $`AdS_5`$ metric in global coordinates (see Appendix) is

$$ds^2=g_{tt}dt^2+d\rho ^2+g_{\varphi \varphi }d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(5)
with $`g_{tt}=\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho `$ and $`g_{\varphi \varphi }=\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho `$. A rotating string is given by $`\rho =\sigma `$, $`t=\tau `$ and $`\varphi =\omega \tau `$ where $`\varphi `$ is an angle around a maximal circle in the $`S^3`$. Using the Nambu-Goto action it is easy to compute the energy and angular momentum as functions of the parameter $`\omega `$. In the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$ we have $`\omega 1`$ and

$`P_+`$ $`=`$ $`E+\omega S=4{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\rho _0}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle \frac{g_{tt}+\omega ^2g_{\varphi \varphi }}{\sqrt{g_{tt}\omega ^2g_{\varphi \varphi }}}}{\displaystyle ^{\rho _0}}𝑑\rho e^{2\rho }e^{2\rho _0},`$ (6)
$`P_{}`$ $`=`$ $`E\omega S=4{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\rho _0}}𝑑\rho \sqrt{g_{tt}\omega ^2g_{\varphi \varphi }}4{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\rho _0}}𝑑\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}2\rho _0,`$ (7)
where $`\rho _0`$ is such that $`\omega =g_{tt}(\rho _0)/g_{\varphi \varphi }(\rho _0)`$ and consequently $`\rho _0\mathrm{}`$ as $`\omega 1`$. The approximations in (6), (7) are valid in that limit and, the one in (6) only up to a constant factor. From (6),(7), and using that $`R^2/\alpha ^{}=\sqrt{g_sN}`$, we can derive (2) which, within this approximation can be written as

$$P_{}\frac{\sqrt{g_sN}}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}P_+.$$
(8)
The approximate results can be thought of as arising from a string in a metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\rho }dx_+dx_{}+dx_{}^2+d\rho ^2+dy_{[2]}^2,0<\rho <\rho _0,$$
(9)
and extending along $`\rho `$ and $`x_+`$. This metric is invariant under translations of $`x_{}`$ and under a combined translation in $`\rho `$ and rescaling in $`x_+`$. This fact results in all segments $`d\rho `$ of the string contributing equally to $`P_{}`$ (in (7)) but weighted by $`e^{2\rho }`$ to $`P_+`$ (in (6)), resulting in $`P_{}\mathrm{ln}P_+`$. According to the rules of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the integrals in $`\rho `$ should be interpreted in the field theory as sums of contributions from different scales and it would be interesting to see if their behavior can be derived by field theory considerations alone.

An alternative approach to computing the anomalous dimension is suggested by the fact that the operators $`𝒪_S(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in eq.(4) arise in a powers series expansion of

$$W_{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu }=Tr\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^I(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )e^{_0^\mathrm{\Delta }A_\mu (t\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu 𝑑t}\mathrm{\Phi }^I(0)\right)=\underset{S=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{S!}𝒪_S(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(10)
where the Wilson line is in the adjoint representation ($`A_\mu =A_\mu ^aC_{abc}`$). Again we can compute

$$p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|p=\frac{1}{S!}C_S(ip_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )^S\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\right)^{\gamma _S}.$$
(11)
Thus, the coefficient of $`(p\mathrm{\Delta })^S`$ in a power series expansion of $`p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|p`$ in $`(p\mathrm{\Delta })`$ determines the anomalous dimension of the operator $`𝒪_S`$. For example, a 1-loop calculation as in fig.1b gives the same result for $`\gamma _S`$ as the one obtained from fig.1a. In particular, the large $`S`$ behavior of $`\gamma _S`$ is related to the large $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ behavior of $`p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|p`$.

It was argued in  that, in this limit, the relevant contribution to the anomalous dimension comes from soft gluons444See  for a detailed description of these ideas. We thank G. Korchemsky for clarifying this point to us.. This fact allows the use of the eikonal approximation for the propagator of the external particles, in this case $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In Feynman diagrams, this amounts to replace the propagator of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with momentum $`pk`$ by:

$$\frac{1}{(pk)^2+iϵ}\frac{1}{2p.k+iϵ},$$
(12)
where $`p`$ is the momentum of the external $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ line ($`p^2=0`$) and $`k`$ the momentum of an attached gluon line.

The calculation is then reduced to the computation of a Wilson line ($`W_M`$) as the one in fig.1c, where the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagators are replaced by Wilson lines (in the adjoint representation) going from infinity to 0 and from $`x^\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ to infinity with momentum $`p`$ and $`p`$, respectively. These are joined by a Wilson line going from $`0`$ to $`x^\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ which is the same as the one appearing in fig. 1b. The precise relation is that

$$p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|pe^{ip.\mathrm{\Delta }}W_M,$$
(13)
where $`W_M`$ is the Wilson line previously discussed.

The Wilson line has an anomalous dimension due to the fact that it possesses cusps . As explained in  there is a subtlety because the expectation value of the Wilson loop diverges when part of it is light-like. If we regulate the Wilson loop by taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`p^2`$ non-vanishing, we expect, from , each cusp to contribute with

$$W_{\mathrm{cusp}}\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )},$$
(14)
where $`L`$ and $`ϵ`$ are IR and UV cut offs, and the anomalous dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )`$ is only a function of the angle between $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{cosh}\gamma =\frac{p.\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{p^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}.$$
(15)
Since we are interested in the region where $`p.\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is very large we should compute $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )`$ for large values of $`\gamma `$. It was shown in  that, in that limit, the anomalous dimension behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}|\gamma |\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}(p.\mathrm{\Delta }),(\gamma \mathrm{}),$$
(16)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ is a constant that depends only on $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ and $`N`$. In the last approximation we kept only the leading contribution for large $`(p.\mathrm{\Delta })`$ which is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`p^2`$. Considering the contribution of both cusps we obtain that

$$p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|pe^{ip.\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}(p.\mathrm{\Delta })}=e^{ip.\mathrm{\Delta }}(p.\mathrm{\Delta })^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)},$$
(17)
where the approximation is valid for large $`(p.\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The fact that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!}x^\alpha e^x,(x\mathrm{})\mathrm{if}a_nn^\alpha ,(n\mathrm{}),$$
(18)
allows us to conclude that

$$p|W(\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu )|p\underset{S}{}\frac{1}{S!}S^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)}(ip\mathrm{\Delta })^S=\underset{S}{}\frac{1}{S!}\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)^{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}S}(ip\mathrm{\Delta })^S.$$
(19)
The result (18) can be derived by showing that, if we define a function $`f(x)`$ through

$$a_n=_0^1s^nf(s)𝑑s,$$
(20)
then both, the behavior of $`a_n`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$ and the behavior of

$$e^xa_n\frac{x^n}{n!}=_0^1e^{(s1)x}f(s)𝑑s,$$
(21)
for $`x\mathrm{}`$, are determined by the properties of the function $`f(s)`$ near $`s=1`$.

Finally, comparing eq.(19) with eq.(11) we see that, after identifying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu L/ϵ`$, the anomalous dimension of the operator $`𝒪_S`$ is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_SS2=\gamma _S2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{ln}S,(S\mathrm{}).$$
(22)
The above argument ignores the problem of setting $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=p^2=0`$ since in that case the terms discarded in eq. (16) are singular. We refer the reader to the original reference  for a more rigorous treatment which gives the same result (22)555In  the result was equivalently expressed in terms of the splitting function $`P(z)`$..

In the next section we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ using the AdS/CFT correspondence to compute a Wilson loop with a cusp in Minkowski signature. This is simply an analytic continuation of the results of  where the calculation was done in Euclidean space. However, before that, we conclude this section by reviewing some properties of the Wilson loop cusp anomaly at one loop which will be useful to compare with the AdS/CFT result.

For the $`𝒩=4`$ case the one loop anomaly can be taken from , but its behavior with the angle is similar to the one in QCD . If the cusp has an angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi `$ defines a straight line) the Wilson loop behaves as

$`W_E`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{ϵ}}\right)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })},`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_sN}{4\pi ^2}}\left((\pi \mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{cot}\mathrm{\Theta }+1\right).`$ (24)
The result (24) can be continued to Minkowski space by replacing $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi +i\gamma `$. The resulting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(M)}(\gamma )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\pi +i\gamma )`$ satisfies:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(M)}(\gamma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_sN}{6\pi ^2}}\gamma ^2,(\gamma 0),`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(M)}(\gamma )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_sN}{4\pi ^2}}\gamma ,(\gamma \mathrm{}),`$ (26)
which then gives at 1-loop: $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}=(g_sN)/4\pi ^2`$.

As an aside note that the Euclidean result has the property

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })\frac{g_sN}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }},(\mathrm{\Theta }0),$$
(28)
which can be understood from conformal invariance. In fact the flat metric

$$ds^2=dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2,$$
(29)
is invariant (up to a conformal factor) under the transformation $`rr^\lambda `$, $`\theta \lambda \theta `$. This alters the periodicity of $`\theta `$ and so, is not actually a conformal transformation. However, in the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ we need to consider only small values of $`\theta `$ and the periodicity can be ignored implying that

$$W\left(\frac{L}{ϵ}\right)^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })},$$
(30)
is invariant only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })1/\mathrm{\Theta }`$, as obtained in (28).

## 3 Cusp anomaly from supergravity.

The cusp anomaly can be computed by means of the AdS/CFT correspondence by computing the expectation value of a Wilson loop with a cusp following . This computation was done in  in the Euclidean case.

In this section we summarize their calculation and perform an analytic continuation to Minkowski signature which allows us to compute $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ and, by plugging the result into (22), to reproduce (2).

In the next section we reobtain these results by a direct calculation and obtain the shape of the world-sheet ending in the boundary of AdS. One extra consideration is that here we need a Wilson loop in the adjoint representation. This corresponds to a quark and anti-quark propagating along the loop. We will consider simply a double cover of the surface, i.e. we include an extra factor of 2 at the end. Another point is that the Maldacena correspondence allows us only to compute Wilson lines of the type

$$W=\mathrm{exp}\left(iA_\mu \dot{x}^\mu +\mathrm{\Phi }^I\theta _I|\dot{x}|\right).$$
(31)
For the section parallel to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mu `$ there is no problem since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=0`$. For the lines representing the incoming particles, instead of the operator (1) we will be computing the anomalous dimension of an operator which is a linear combination of that one and the one obtained by replacing $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by the gauge field. All previous considerations still apply since (1) was taken only as an example. It will be interesting to further analyze this issue and see if supergravity can distinguish between the different twist two operators, or if it predicts that all of them have the same anomalous dimension for large $`S`$ and large $`g_sN`$.

After these preliminary considerations, lets go back to the computation of the Wilson loop, starting by the Euclidean case of . Consider Euclidean AdS space in Poincare coordinates where the metric is

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{z^2}\left(dz^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2+dx_4^2\right).$$
(32)
Taking polar coordinates ($`\rho `$,$`\theta `$) in the plane ($`x_1`$,$`x_2`$) we will compute the area of a world-sheet which ends in the boundary $`z=0`$ on two half-lines given by $`\theta =\pm \mathrm{\Theta }/2`$ and $`x_1>0`$. By scale invariance the equation of the surface can be written as

$$z=\frac{\rho }{f(\theta )},$$
(33)
with $`f(\pm \mathrm{\Theta }/2)=\mathrm{}`$. Also, by symmetry, we should have that $`\frac{df}{d\theta }(\theta =0)=0`$. Extremizing the Nambu-Goto action for the string with respect to the function $`f(\theta )`$ we obtain the desired result (more details can be found in  or in the next section):

$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_0\sqrt{1+f_0^2}}{(u^2+f_0^2)\sqrt{(1+u^2+f_0^2)(1+z^2+2f_0^2)}}}𝑑u,`$ (34)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left\{\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+u^2+f_0^2}{1+u^2+2f_0^2}}}1\right\}.`$ (35)
Here $`A`$, is the desired area of the world sheet, given as a function of the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ implicitly through the parameter $`f_0`$. The term $`1`$ inside the integral is an infinite subtraction constant which makes the area finite. Also, $`L`$ and $`ϵ`$ are an infrared and ultraviolet cut-offs such that $`ϵ<\rho <L`$. According to , $`\mathrm{ln}W_M`$ is equal to the area $`A`$ and so, we identify the cusp anomaly as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left\{\sqrt{\frac{1+u^2+f_0^2}{1+u^2+2f_0^2}}1\right\}.$$
(36)
For example, as a check, we can see that the limit $`f_0\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ and the cusp anomaly behaves as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })\frac{c^2}{\mathrm{\Theta }},(\mathrm{\Theta }0).$$
(37)
We see the expected behavior $`1/\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of eqns.(28),(30). The constant $`c`$ is given by

$$c=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{(1+u^2)^{3/2}(2+u^2)^{1/2}}.$$
(38)
Now we want to do an analytic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ to $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi +i\gamma `$ with $`\gamma `$ real. It appears, from eq.(34), that if we analytically continue $`f_0`$ to imaginary values, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ becomes purely imaginary. However, a singularity develops in the integral at $`u=f_0`$ which gives the extra $`\pi `$. Indeed, to handle the singularities we can perform the analytic continuation more carefully as in fig.2. Thus, we obtain a recipe to avoid the poles at $`u=\pm f_0`$. The result is:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=i_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{f_0\sqrt{1f_0^2}}{(u^2f_0^2+iϵ)\sqrt{(1+u^2f_0^2)(1+u^22f_0^2)}}𝑑u.$$
(39)
We can separate the real and imaginary part by doing explicitly the integrals in the small half circles around the poles obtaining

$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\pi +i\gamma ,`$ (40)
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{P}.\mathrm{P}.{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_0\sqrt{1f_0^2}}{(u^2f_0^2)\sqrt{(1+u^2f_0^2)(1+u^22f_0^2)}}}𝑑u,`$ (41)
where $`\gamma `$ is real (as long as $`|f_0|<1/\sqrt{2}`$) and given by the principal part of the integral. Finally, from (36), the cusp anomaly is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )=\sqrt{g_sN}\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left\{\sqrt{\frac{1+u^2f_0^2}{1+u^22f_0^2}}1\right\}.$$
(42)
We can consider first the limit $`\gamma 0`$ which corresponds to $`f_00`$ (note that now $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi `$ so this limit is different from the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }0`$ considered before). The result is that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \gamma \pi f_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )\sqrt{g_sN}\frac{1}{4}f_0^2,\hfill & (f_00)\hfill \\ \hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )\sqrt{g_sN}\frac{\gamma ^2}{4\pi ^2},\hfill & (\gamma \mathrm{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
which has a similar behavior as the one loop result albeit with a different coefficient.

For us it is more interesting the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )`$ when $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. As we noticed before we need $`f_0<1/\sqrt{2}`$. We can see easily from the integral in eq.(41) that the limit $`f_01/\sqrt{2}`$ corresponds precisely to $`|\gamma |\mathrm{}`$. In this limit we have

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& \gamma \hfill & & \sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}\delta ,\hfill & & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )\hfill & & \frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{ln}\delta ,\hfill & & (f_01/\sqrt{2}),\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )\hfill & & \sqrt{g_sN}\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{2}|\gamma |\hfill & & \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}\hfill & =& \sqrt{g_sN}\frac{1}{4\pi }\hfill & & (\gamma \mathrm{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
where $`12f_0^2=2\delta `$ and the limiting behaviors are obtained by considering the contribution to the integrals from the region $`u0`$. For example for $`\gamma `$ we have

$$\gamma \frac{du}{(2u^21)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+u^2}\sqrt{u^2+2\delta }}\sqrt{2}_ϵ^ϵ\frac{du}{\sqrt{u^2+2\delta }}=2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{arcsinh}(\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{2\delta }})\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}\delta ,$$
(45)
Where $`\delta ϵ1`$ and we kept only the leading dependence in $`\delta `$ (for $`\delta 0`$). The calculation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cusp}}(\gamma )`$ is similar.

Again, the behavior is similar to that of the one loop result but with a different coefficient. We can plug the result (44) into eq.(22) obtaining

$$\gamma _S=2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(\mathrm{adj}.)}\mathrm{ln}S=\frac{\sqrt{g_sN}}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}S,$$
(46)
where, as explained at the beginning of this section, an extra factor of 2 is included, i.e. we took $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}^{(\mathrm{adj}.)}=2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}=\sqrt{g_sN}/2\pi `$, to account for the fact that the Wilson loop should be in the adjoint representation. We see that the result agrees with that obtained from the rotating string calculation (2). First, the linear dependence with $`\mathrm{ln}S`$ agrees. This follows from the non-trivial fact that the Wilson loop in supergravity diverges linearly in $`\gamma `$ for large $`\gamma `$. The dependence on the coupling constant also agrees but that was expected since the area of a Wilson loop scales as $`R^2`$. On the other hand also the numerical coefficient is the same giving support to the identification between twist two operators and rotating strings in $`AdS`$ space. In the next section we will see, that in our case, the coefficient follows from the area of the limiting surface (at $`f_0=1/\sqrt{2}`$) which can be determined by symmetry considerations alone. This gives hope that the result can be understood directly in the field theory using symmetry arguments.

## 4 Wilson loop in Minkowski signature

In this section we use the AdS/CFT correspondence to compute the cusp anomaly directly in Minkowski signature666See  for another example of a calculation of Wilson loops in Minkowski space.. This will give an interpretation to eqns. (41),(42) in terms of an Euclidean world-sheet in $`AdS_5`$. We also analyze the surface corresponding to the limiting case $`f_0=1/\sqrt{2}`$ and show that it can be found using only symmetry arguments.

Consider a Wilson loop with a cusp as the one depicted in fig. 3. In region II, we can use coordinates $`(\rho ,\xi )`$777These are coordinates in the boundary of AdS space. $`\rho `$ should not be confused with the radial direction in AdS space as used before. defined by

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{cosh}\xi ,`$ (47)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{sinh}\xi ,`$ (48)
which simplify the equations of motion. These coordinates can be extended to region I if we consider $`\rho `$ to be purely imaginary and $`\xi =i\frac{\pi }{2}+\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ real. As before we can use an ansatz

$$z=\frac{\rho }{f(\xi )}.$$
(49)
Given the above properties of the coordinates ($`\rho `$,$`\xi `$) and the fact that $`z`$ is real, we need $`f(\xi )`$ to be purely imaginary when $`\xi `$ is in region I and also to vanish on the light cone ($`\xi \mathrm{}`$), since there $`\rho `$ vanishes. These are complications introduced by the choice of coordinates, perhaps at this point it is useful to point out that the resulting surface has a simple shape as shown in fig. (4). One may think that these complications could have been avoided by considering a Wilson line contained within region I. However in that case and for large angles, there is no surface in AdS space ending on such a Wilson line.

Since the world-sheet ends perpendicularly to the boundary, it has to be Euclidean.

The action for such a world-sheet is given (in region II) by

$`S_E^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{\rho }𝑑\xi \sqrt{f^2f^2f^4}}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi \sqrt{f^2f^2f^4}}.`$ (51)
The fact that the integrand does not depend explicitly on $`\xi `$ implies a conservation law:

$$\frac{f^2}{\sqrt{f^2f^2f^4}}\sqrt{f^2f^2f^4}=C,$$
(52)
with $`C`$ a constant. The solution is given then by

$$\xi =\frac{1}{2}\gamma +f_0\sqrt{1f_0^2}_f^{\mathrm{}}\frac{df}{f\sqrt{(1+f^2)(f^2+f_0^2)(1+f^2f_0^2)}},$$
(53)
where for later convenience we introduce $`f_0`$ through the relation

$$C^2=f_0^2f_0^4,f_0^2<1.$$
(54)
Furthermore, for $`f\mathrm{}`$, namely $`z0`$, we have $`\xi \gamma /2`$, i.e. the world-sheet ends on the line $`(x,t)=\lambda (\mathrm{cosh}\gamma /2,\mathrm{sinh}\gamma /2)`$. Normally, we would continue the surface until $`f^{}=0`$ where we would match with the other half ending on $`(x,t)=\lambda (\mathrm{cosh}\gamma /2,\mathrm{sinh}\gamma /2)`$. Here, $`f^{}`$ can be $`0`$ only in region I, so we need to continue the boundary coordinates into that region. First, we observe that, at $`f=0`$, the integral diverges implying that $`x/t=\mathrm{tanh}\xi 1`$, namely, in the boundary, we approach the light-cone. On the other hand $`\rho =\sqrt{x^2t^2}`$ also vanishes. We can compute the value of $`z`$ by taking the limit $`(\xi \mathrm{})`$ with $`x`$ fixed:

$$z=\underset{\xi \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\rho }{f(\xi )}=x\underset{\xi \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\sqrt{1\mathrm{tanh}^2\xi }}{2e^Be^\xi }=xe^B=te^B,$$
(55)
where $`B`$ is a constant given by

$$B=\frac{\gamma }{2}+_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{df}{f\sqrt{1+f^2}}\left\{\frac{f_0\sqrt{1f_0^2}}{\sqrt{(f^2+f_0^2)(1+f^2f_0^2)}}1\right\}.$$
(56)
To continue beyond the light cone (in the boundary) we have to take $`f`$ imaginary, then, in region I, $`f`$ should extend up to $`if_0`$ where $`f^{}=0`$ to match the other half of the surface. Although this may seem strange we want to emphasize again that the surface is perfectly smooth, the analytic continuation is necessary only because of the coordinates we are using. This is most easily done by defining a variable $`u^2=f^2+f_0^2`$ which extends from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, meaning that $`f`$ extends from $`if_0`$ to $`0`$ along the imaginary axis and from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ along the real axis. In this way, and considering also the corresponding formula for the area, we reproduce the formulas (41) and (42).

It is interesting to study the limiting surface obtained when $`f_01/\sqrt{2}`$. In fact in that case $`f^{}=0`$ and the surface is simply

$$z=\sqrt{2}\rho =\sqrt{2}\sqrt{t^2x^2}.$$
(57)
This surface ends on the light cone $`t=\pm x`$, $`t>0`$ and extends only for $`t>x`$. However since $`z>\rho `$ it is always outside the AdS light cone $`z=\rho `$. In fact one can see that a surface $`z=\alpha \rho `$, $`\alpha >1`$ has zero area for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ which corresponds to a light cone and two light-like planes respectively. That implies that the area will have an extreme for an intermediate value which is precisely $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}`$. Note also that the surface cannot be continued to Euclidean space. That will give $`z^2=2(t^2+x^2)`$ which has no solutions888However, one can also continue $`ziz`$ and obtain a surface in de Sitter space..

It is interesting to study this surface in global coordinates. If we take coordinates $`U,V,W,X,Y,Z`$ such that

$$U^2+V^2X^2Y^2Z^2W^2=R^2,$$
(58)
and use the relation between these and Poincare coordinates that we give in the Appendix, we can see that the surface is given by

$$V^2X^2=\frac{R^2}{2},U^2W^2=\frac{R^2}{2},Y=Z=0.$$
(59)
This surface is in fact completely determined by the symmetries if one assumes that it is unique. Indeed, the light cone where the surface ends is invariant under scale transformations and boosts in $`(x,t)`$. This corresponds in global coordinates to boosts in $`(U,W)`$ and $`(V,X)`$, respectively (see Appendix) and implies that the equation determining the surface should be of the form

$$f(U^2W^2,V^2X^2)=0,$$
(60)
since reflection symmetry in $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ implies $`Y=0`$, $`Z=0`$. On the other hand, $`U^2W^2+V^2X^2=R^2`$ and so (60) can only be of the form

$`V^2X^2`$ $`=`$ $`a{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2}},`$ (61)
$`U^2W^2`$ $`=`$ $`(1a){\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2}}.`$ (62)
Since there is an extra symmetry that interchanges $`(V,X)`$ with $`(U,W)`$, unless $`a=1/2`$ there would be two different surfaces. Assuming that the surface is unique determines $`a=1/2`$.

Returning to Poincare coordinates, we can see that the induced metric on the surface is

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{2}\left(\frac{d\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}+d\xi ^2\right),$$
(63)
and the area is given by

$$A=\frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\rho }{\rho }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\xi ,$$
(64)
which diverges. However, performing the $`\rho `$ integral between $`ϵ`$ and $`L`$ as before and the $`\xi `$ integral between $`\gamma /2`$ and $`\gamma /2`$ we get

$$A=\frac{R^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\frac{1}{2}\gamma \mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{ϵ},$$
(65)
which implies that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{cusp}}=\sqrt{g_sN}/4\pi `$ as in (44). We see that the value $`a=1/2`$ is the one that ultimately determines the anomalous dimension and, as we discussed, is fixed by the requirement that the solution be unique.

## 5 Conclusions

We have computed the anomalous dimension of twist two operators, in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, in the limit of large angular momentum and large ’t Hooft coupling by using Wilson loops in Minkowski space. The results are in agreement with the ones of  which where obtained by computing the energy-angular momentum relation of a semiclassical string rotating in AdS space. The agreement is not surprising since both calculations are done using the AdS/CFT correspondence but tests the identification between those operators and the rotating strings.

Furthermore the Euclidean world-sheet that determines the value of the Wilson loop and the anomalous dimension is uniquely determined by the symmetries of the problem. Those are isometries of AdS space and so, correspond to conformal transformations in the SYM theory. It would be interesting if this can be done directly in the field theory, particularly in view of the fact that certain Wilson loops can be computed in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM and agree with the AdS/CFT result . In our case a short calculation suggests that, near a cusp, summing ladder diagrams as in  is not enough to obtain the anomalous dimension.

## 6 Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to J. Maldacena, R. Myers, A. Peet, A. Tseytlin, and K. Zarembo for various comments and suggestions. We also thank G. Korchemsky for correcting a statement made in the first version of this paper. This research was supported in part by NSERC of Canada and Fonds FCAR du Québec.

## Appendix A

In the text various standard coordinates were used to parameterize $`AdS_5`$. For completeness we give here the corresponding definitions. Introducing Cartesian coordinates $`(X,Y,Z,W,U,V)`$ in $`R^{4,2}`$, $`AdS_5`$ is the manifold defined by the constraint:

$$X^2Y^2Z^2W^2+U^2+V^2=R^2,$$
(66)
for some arbitrary constant $`R`$. The metric is the one induced by the one in $`R^{4,2}`$:

$$ds^2=dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2+dW^2dU^2dV^2.$$
(67)
Global coordinates $`(\rho ,t,\theta _{1,2,3})`$ as used in eq.(5) are defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\hfill & Y=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,\hfill & Z=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,\hfill \\ W=R\mathrm{sinh}\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3,\hfill & U=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{cos}t,\hfill & V=R\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sin}t.\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
The metric is given by

$$ds^2=R^2(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_{[3]}^2),$$
(69)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{[3]}`$ is a 3-sphere parameterized by $`\theta _{1,2,3}`$. The radial coordinate $`\rho `$ extends from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. It is also useful to introduce another radial coordinate $`0<\xi <\pi /2`$ through the relation $`\mathrm{cosh}\rho =1/\mathrm{cos}\xi `$. The metric changes to

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\xi }\left(dt^2+d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi d\mathrm{\Omega }_{[3]}^2\right).$$
(70)
In these coordinates the surface $`V^2X^2=R^2/2`$ discussed in the text is described by the equation

$$\mathrm{sin}^2t=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\xi +\mathrm{sin}^2\xi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1.$$
(71)
Poincare coordinates $`(t,x_{1,2,3},z)`$ cover only half of $`AdS_5`$ and are defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X=Rx_1/z,\hfill & Y=Rx_2/z,\hfill & Z=Rx_3/z,\hfill \\ W=\frac{1}{2z}(R^2+z^2+x_i^2t^2),\hfill & U=\frac{1}{2z}(R^2+z^2+x_i^2t^2),\hfill & V=Rt/z,\hfill \end{array}$$
(72)
with a metric

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(dz^2+dx_i^2dt^2\right).$$
(73)
In the text we used the fact that a boost in direction $`x_1`$ corresponds to a boost in directions $`X,V`$ and a scale transformation to a boost in directions $`W,U`$. The first property is obvious since $`U`$ and $`W`$ are invariant under a boost along $`x_1`$ and the only change is in $`X,V`$, being precisely the same boost as in $`x_1,t`$. To see the second property we have simply to notice that

$$U_+=U+W=R^2/z,U_{}=UW=\frac{1}{z}(z^2+x_i^2t^2),$$
(74)
transform as $`U_+\lambda U_+`$, $`U_{}U_{}/\lambda `$ , i.e. a boost, if we rescale all coordinates by a factor $`\lambda `$. Finally the equation of the surface discussed in the text:

$$z^2=2(x^2t^2),$$
(75)
is equivalent to

$$\frac{R^4}{U_+^2}=2\left(\frac{V^2R^2}{U_+^2}\frac{X^2R^2}{U_+^2}\right)V^2X^2=\frac{R^2}{2},$$
(76)
as used in section 4.