text:
# Electron induced light emission in photonic crystals

## I Introduction

Photonic crystals have received considerable attention as many technological applications are being proposed including control of atomic and molecular spontaneous emission byk  or light guiding and confinement yab ; joh ; joa1 ; joa2 . The main physical aspect that is used for these purposes is the existence of photonic bandgaps in such systems, that can lie in the near infrared ho ; ebb ; thi  or in the visible mor , which allow light to follow a determined path depending on the structure of the crystal. Despite recent advances in the production of photonic crystals that operate in both regions of the light spectrum bla , fabrication defects can still limit their applicability. However, a quantitative determination of the number and type of the defects in a crystal is difficult to perform. Electrons seem to be a valid probe to that end. Here, we study the interaction of a fast electron with a crystal as a first approach to this problem.

In particular, a fast electron moving near a photonic crystal can polarize its constituents inducing charges and currents that cannot follow the electron motion and suffer acceleration as they evolve in the inhomogeneous crystal, giving rise to light emission. This is similar to the so-called Smith-Purcell effect fra ; smi ; bac ; hae ; pen ; jgasmi ; oht .

The present work is intended to provide a new way to characterize photonic crystals by observing the spectrum of the light emitted when electrons are travelling parallel to the surface of the crystal. The electric field of the moving electron is decomposed into evanescent plane waves tor , and the outgoing light is produced by the diffraction of these waves in the crystal. This procedure is sketched in Section II. Numerical results for a complete-band-gap photonic crystal formed by air spheres in silicon (inverted opal) are shown in Section III. We use electrons travelling within air and silicon, in order to reflect different electrodynamic effects, although a possible experimental observation could be more difficult in the latter case. Gaussian atomic units will be used from now on, unless otherwise specified.

## II Theoretical framework

A theoretical description of the interaction between an electron and a crystal is given next. The crystal will be composed of several layers perpendicular to the $`z`$ direction, beginning in $`z=0`$ and extending towards the negative-$`z`$ region. Outside the crystal a medium with a dielectric function $`ϵ`$ will also be considered. All media will be assumed to be non-magnetic ($`\mu =1`$).

The electron will be considered to follow a trajectory described by $`𝐫_t=(vt,y_0,z_0)`$, with $`z_0>0`$, and its electric field is found to be, in frequency space $`\omega `$ and in the absence of the crystal,

$`𝐄_0(𝐫,\omega )={\displaystyle 𝑑Q_y\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐊_𝐐^\pm [𝐫(0,y_0,z_0)])}𝐄_𝐐^\pm },`$ (1)
where $`𝐊_𝐐^\pm =(𝐐,\pm \mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐)`$, $`𝐐=(\omega /v,Q_y)`$ is the two-dimensional momentum parallel to the surface, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐^2=Q^2\omega ^2ϵ/c^2`$, with $`\mathrm{Re}\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐\}>0`$. In this expression, $`𝐄_𝐐^\pm \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}𝐊_𝐐^\pm 𝐫)`$ is a plane wave, which can be expressed as a sum of $`s`$ and $`p`$ components, $`𝐄_𝐐^\pm =E_{𝐐,s}^\pm \widehat{𝐞}_{𝐐,s}^\pm +E_{𝐐,p}^\pm \widehat{𝐞}_{𝐐,p}^\pm `$. The $`+`$ ($``$) sign in these expressions stands for a wave moving towards the positive- (negative-)$`z`$ region. When the electron moves in vacuum, all of these waves are evanescent ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐`$ is real and positive). However, when it moves in a medium described by $`ϵ>0`$ and $`v\sqrt{ϵ}>c`$, some of those waves represent propagating Cherenkov radiation.

Due to the crystal symmetry, an incident wave with momentum $`𝐊_𝐐^{}`$ will only produce a discrete set of reflected (transmitted) waves of momentum $`𝐊_{𝐐+𝐆}^+`$ ($`𝐊_{𝐐+𝐆}^{}`$), $`𝐆`$ being a reciprocal surface lattice vector. Therefore, the reflected and transmitted wave amplitudes can be expressed as

$`[E_{𝐐+𝐆,\sigma }^+]^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}R_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}[E_{𝐐,\sigma ^{}}^{}]^i,`$
$`[E_{𝐐+𝐆,\sigma }^{}]^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ^{}}{}}T_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}[E_{𝐐,\sigma ^{}}^{}]^i,`$ (2)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ run over polarizations $`s`$ and $`p`$, the super-indices $`r`$, $`t`$ and $`i`$ stand for reflected, transmitted and incident components, respectively, and $`R_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ are the reflection and transmission coefficients of the crystal. These coefficients are calculated using the layer KKR method ste , in which the self-consistent electric field is constructed in terms of multipole expansions around the crystal objects by multiple scattering within each layer and later among layers.

Each of the incident plane waves in Eq. (1) gives rise to a set of reflected and transmitted waves whose amplitudes are obtained according to Eq. (2). The electric field in the positive-$`z`$ region can be constructed as the sum of $`𝐄_0`$ and the reflected field,

$`𝐄(𝐫,\omega )=𝐄_0(𝐫,\omega )+𝐄_r(𝐫,\omega ),`$
where

$`𝐄_r(𝐫,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{𝐆,\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q_y\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐊_{𝐐+𝐆}^+𝐫}R_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}[E_{𝐐,\sigma ^{}}^{}]^i\widehat{𝐞}_{𝐐+𝐆,\sigma }^+}.`$
A similar expression is found for the transmitted electric field at the other side of the crystal (negative $`z`$’s):

$`𝐄_t(𝐫,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{𝐆,\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q_y\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐊_{𝐐+𝐆}^{}𝐫}T_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}[E_{𝐐,\sigma ^{}}^{}]^i\widehat{𝐞}_{𝐐+𝐆,\sigma }^{}}.`$
The light emission probability per unit length is calculated by means of the projection of the Poynting vector $`𝒫`$ over the $`z`$ and $`z`$ directions (for reflected and transmitted components, respectively), which is integrated over the time and over a plane parallel to the crystal surface. The resulting expression can be written

$$𝑑t𝑑x𝑑y𝒫(\pm \widehat{z})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\omega 𝑑\omega P(\omega ),$$
(3)
where $`P(\omega )`$ can be interpreted as the emission probability per unit length and per energy range $`\omega `$. The average over parallel impact parameters $`y_0`$ has also been performed. When the Cherenkov condition $`v^2ϵ>c^2`$ is not fulfilled, the direct waves of Eq. (1) are all evanescent, and the light emission by reflection and transmission at the crystal (i.e. emission towards the $`z>0`$ and $`z<0`$ regions, respectively denoted reflected emission and transmitted emission hereafter) reduces to

$`P_r(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆\sigma }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q_y|r_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}},`$
$`P_t(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆\sigma }{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Q_y|t_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}},`$
where

$`r_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}Q_y\omega }{Q\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐c^2}}R_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma s}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{vQ\sqrt{ϵ}}}R_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma p},`$
$`t_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}Q_y\omega }{Q\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐c^2}}T_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma s}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{vQ\sqrt{ϵ}}}T_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}}^{\sigma p},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐|`$
and the prime in the summation over $`𝐆`$ indicates that only non-evanescent outgoing waves ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐐+𝐆}^2<0`$) must be included.

On the other hand, if $`v^2ϵ>c^2`$, there exists an interference between the direct Cherenkov radiation and the reflected field. The emission probability expressions take a more involved form in this case:

$`P_r(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{Q_0}}dQ_y{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆}{\overset{}{}}}|r_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Q_0}^{Q_0}}𝑑Q_y\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐|f_\sigma |^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐f_\sigma r_{𝐐0\sigma }e^{2\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐z_0}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆}{\overset{}{}}}|r_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}\right]+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Q_0}^{\mathrm{}}}dQ_y{\displaystyle \underset{𝐆}{\overset{}{}}}|r_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}\},`$
$`P_t(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi k^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝐆}{\overset{}{}}}\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{Q_0}}dQ_y|t_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Q_0}^{Q_0}}𝑑Q_y|t_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Q_0}^{\mathrm{}}}dQ_y|t_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐆}\sigma }|^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐+𝐆}e^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐐z_0}\},`$
where $`Q_0^2=k^2ϵ\omega ^2/v^2`$, $`f_p=k/(vQ\sqrt{ϵ})`$ and $`f_s=\mathrm{i}Q_y\omega /(Q\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐐c^2)`$. The integrands in these expressions describe the reflected and transmitted wave components for external evanescent ($`|Q_y|>Q_0`$) and propagating ($`|Q_y|<Q_0`$) waves. In particular, the first term inside the square bracket of $`P_r`$ reduces to the Cherenkov emission probability in a bulk homogeneous medium, while the remaining terms describe reflected and interference components.

## III Results and discussion

We have applied the previous formalism to the case of a 100-keV electron moving parallel to a slab consisting on several fcc(100) and fcc(111) planes of air spheres in silicon. The gap characteristics of this system have been theoretically described in bu : a complete photonic bandgap is opened when the ratio between the sphere radius $`r`$ and the cubic lattice constant $`a`$ lies in between 0.335 and 0.374. We have chosen an intermediate value of $`r/a=0.342`$, and the frequency range is taken close to the communications wavelength, $`\lambda =1.55\mu `$m, in which case $`ϵ_{\mathrm{Si}}=11.9`$.

Results for crystals composed of 8 fcc(111) planes are shown in what follows, although we have also carried out calculations for 8 fcc(100) planes and the results are qualitatively similar. Two different types of calculations are presented. a) In Fig. 1, the crystal is embedded in Si, so that the electron moves within silicon outside the crystal. In this case, the electron produces Cherenkov radiation even without the presence of the crystal whenever the electron velocity is larger than the speed of light in the medium, which is the case at 100 keV. b) In Fig. 2, the crystal is embedded in air and the electron moves also outside the crystal, that is in air. Therefore, no direct Cherenkov radiation is produced.

As the total energy must be conserved in the present case in which the material is transparent (that is, $`ϵ`$ is real) the sum of the reflected and transmitted probabilities must be the same as the electron energy loss probability, which has been calculated from the retarding force exerted on the electron by the induced electric field, as discussed elsewhere gar ; eels .

The main difference between the two cases considered in Figs. 1 (a) and 2 is that when Cherenkov radiation is emitted the energy loss and the reflected emission are very much enhanced \[Fig. 1 (a)\]. This is due to the fact that the Cherenkov emission is dominant as compared to the diffraction of evanescent waves. For the transmitted light, as expected, the emission probability within the gap frequencies is strongly suppressed in both cases.

When the electron travels in air (Fig. 2), the energy loss and the reflected light probabilities are much smaller than in the previous case. However, the order of magnitude of the transmitted field is the same as in the Cherenkov case. Notice that huge peaks are produced in the reflection curve near the bandgap region, probably connected with band edge effects. This type of energy losses are well below the current energy resolution of STEM machines (around 0.5 eV), but since the sample is transparent, any energy loss must be converted into photon emission, for which the resolution is much better, as shown in yam , and sufficient to resolve the features discussed in this work. The integrated area of the sharp peaks in Fig. 2 amounts to approximately $`5\times 10^6`$ photons per electron per nm, which for path lengths of the order of a several microns, would result in a measurable photon intensity of a percentage of the number of electrons.

In both cases the gap regions agree reasonably well with those found for the transmission of external electromagnetic waves under normal and Cherenkov-angle incidence conditions as well as with the band structure of the system, which are shown for the first case (electron moving in Si) in Figs. 1 (b)-(c). Note that the transmitted emission gap \[Fig. 1 (a)\] is wider than the complete gap (vertical dashed lines throughout all the Fig. 1), since the latter corresponds to a particular selection of incident directions (the Cherenkov cone). The same is true for the transmittance \[Fig. 1(b)\]; actually, the case of normal incidence corresponds to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point. The depletion of light transmission within the gap could be used to detect defaults (stacking faults, missing atoms, etc.), whose relatively small contribution to the emission would be amplified because that would be the primary origin of light transmitted within the gap.

Finally, in Fig. 3 we show the dependence of the light emission probability on the distance between the electron and the crystal, for a given frequency within the bandgap. As expected, both the transmitted and reflected probabilities decrease when increasing the electron-crystal separation, but it is interesting how the magnitude of the interference between the direct (Cherenkov) and the reflected fields produces an oscillatory pattern at the front side of the crystal. For the transmitted field, the probability reaches an asymptotic value which comes from the transmission of only Cherenkov incident waves.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors gratefully acknowledge help and support from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología and the Basque Government.

FIG. 1: (a) Frequency variation of the energy loss probability (thick solid curve), the reflected plus direct light emission probability (dashed curve) and the transmitted light emission probability (thin solid curve) for a 100-keV electron moving in front of 8 fcc(111) planes of air spherical voids of radius $`r`$=418 nm in silicon ($`ϵ=11.9)`$, where the lattice constant $`a`$ is 1222 nm (the filling fraction is 67% and the separation between sphere centers is $`d`$=873 nm). The electron is moving inside Si at a distance of 876 nm from the void spheres. (b) Transmittance for light inciding normally (thick curve) and with the Cherenkov angle $`\theta _c=68.1^{}`$ (thin curve) for the same system. (c) Bulk band structure projected on the (111) plane for the same system, where the shaded zones indicate regions where no propagating electromagnetic waves are allowed. A full gap is observed in the range $`\omega d/c3.233.35`$.

FIG. 2: Frequency variation of the energy loss probability (thick solid curve), the reflected plus direct light emission probability (dashed curve) and the transmitted light emission probability (thin solid curve) for a 100-keV electron moving in front of 8 fcc(111) planes of air spherical voids of radius $`r`$=418 nm in silicon ($`ϵ=11.9)`$, where the lattice constant $`a`$ is 1222 nm (the filling fraction is 67% and the separation between sphere centers is $`d`$=873 nm). The surface of the crystal is 131 nm from the last sphere. The electron is moving in air at a distance of 800 nm from this surface.

FIG. 3: Variation of the reflected plus direct emission probability (dashed curve) and the transmitted emission probability (solid curve) with the distance between a 100-keV electron and the first of the 8 fcc(111) planes of air spherical voids of radius $`r`$=418 nm in silicon, where the lattice constant $`a`$ is 1222 nm. The emitted light wavelength is $`\lambda =1.68\mu `$m (i.e, $`\omega d/c=3.25`$). The asterisk ($``$) corresponds to the electron-spheres distance of Fig. 1 (a).


format: text

text:
# References

YITP-SB-02-58

INLO-PUB-8/02 hep-ph/0210369
October 2002

NLO corrections to differential cross sections

for pseudo-scalar Higgs boson production

B. Field , J. Smith, M.E. Tejeda-Yeomans 111partially supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY-0098527
C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics
State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York 11794-3840, USA

W.L. van Neerven
Instituut-Lorentz
University of Leiden, P.O. Box 9506, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

## Abstract

We have computed the full next-to-leading (NLO) QCD corrections to the differential distributions $`d^2\sigma /(dp_Tdy)`$ for pseudo-scalar Higgs (A) production at large hadron colliders. This calculation has been carried out using the effective Lagrangian approach which is valid as long as the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ and its transverse momentum $`p_T`$ do not exceed the top-quark mass $`m_t`$. The shape of the distributions hardly differ from those obtained for scalar Higgs (H) production because, apart from the overall coupling constant and mass, there are only small differences between the partonic differential distributions for scalar and pseudo-scalar production. Therefore there are only differences in the magnitudes of the hadronic differential distributions which can be mainly attributed to the unknown mixing angle $`\beta `$ describing the pseudo-scalar Higgs coupling to the top quarks.

The scalar Higgs boson $`\mathrm{H}`$, which is the corner stone of the standard model, is the only particle which has not yet been observed. Its discovery or its absence will shed light on the mechanism how particles acquire mass as well as answer questions about super-symmetric extensions of the standard model or about the compositeness of the existing particles and the Higgs boson. Among these two alternatives super-symmetry is the most appealing one, in particular the minimal super-symmetric extension of the standard model. The latter version contains two complex Higgs doublets instead of one and it is therefore called the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM). Here the scalar particle spectrum contains both the Higgs boson H and another neutral scalar boson $`\mathrm{h}`$. Furthermore it contains two charged scalar bosons $`\mathrm{H}^\pm `$ and a neutral pseudo-scalar Higgs boson $`\mathrm{A}`$. The tree-level masses are expressed in two independent parameters, namely the mass $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ and the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets defined by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ (see e.g. ). According to the experiments at LEP their parameter ranges are restricted so that $`m_\mathrm{A}<91.9\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and $`0.5<\mathrm{tan}\beta <2.4`$  are excluded. In this paper we study A-production which in lowest order proceeds via gluon-gluon fusion where the gluons are coupled to the A via a heavy flavour triangular loop. This is similar to H-production except that now the coupling constant describing the interaction of the A with the quarks depends on both the masses of the quarks and on the angle $`\beta `$. This follows from the 2HDM where the coupling constants of the up and down quarks behave like $`g_{up}m_u\mathrm{cot}\beta `$ and $`g_{down}m_d\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ respectively . Since the effective Lagrangian approach below is only valid in the case the mass of the quark appearing in the triangular loop satisfies the condition $`m_qm_\mathrm{A}`$, the bottom quark is excluded. However then we have to require that in the 2HDM the coupling of the A to the top-quark is stronger than to the bottom-quark which implies the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_b}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta .`$ (1)
If we choose $`m_b=4.5\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and $`m_t=173.4\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ one obtains the inequality $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 6.21`$. In view of the experimental boundaries above one can conclude that the results of the calculation below can be only applied for the regions $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.5`$ and $`2.4<\mathrm{tan}\beta <6.21`$.

In the effective Lagrangian approach scalar H-production is described by the Lagrangian density ,

$`_{eff}^\mathrm{H}=G_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{H}(x)O(x),\text{with}O(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^a(x)G^{a,\mu \nu }(x),`$ (2)
whereas pseudo-scalar A-production is obtained from , ,

$`_{eff}^\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{A}(x)\left[G_\mathrm{A}O_1(x)+\stackrel{~}{G}_\mathrm{A}O_2(x)\right],\text{with}`$
$`O_1(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }G_a^{\mu \nu }(x)G_a^{\lambda \sigma }(x),O_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\overline{q}_i(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q_i(x),`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{H}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{A}(x)`$ are the scalar and pseudo-scalar fields respectively and $`n_f`$ denotes the number of light flavours. Up to NLO the operator $`O_2(x)`$ only contributes when it interferes with the operator $`O_1(x)`$ provided the quarks are massless. The effective couplings $`G_\mathrm{B}`$ ($`\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{H},\mathrm{A}`$) are determined by the top-quark triangular graph describing the decay process $`Bg+g`$ in the limit $`m_t\mathrm{}`$

$`G_\mathrm{B}^2=4\sqrt{2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu _r^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2G_F\tau _\mathrm{B}^2F_\mathrm{B}^2(\tau _\mathrm{B})𝒞_\mathrm{B}^2(\alpha _s(\mu _r^2),{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _r^2}{m_t^2}}),\tau _\mathrm{B}={\displaystyle \frac{4m_t^2}{m_\mathrm{B}^2}},\mathrm{B}=\mathrm{H},\mathrm{A}.`$ (4)
and the functions $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ are defined by

$`F_\mathrm{H}(\tau )=1+(1\tau )f(\tau ),F_\mathrm{A}(\tau )=f(\tau )\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$
$`f(\tau )=\mathrm{arcsin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tau }}},\text{for}\tau 1,`$
$`f(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1\tau }}{1+\sqrt{1\tau }}}+\pi i\right)^2,\text{for}\tau <1.`$ (5)
In the large $`m_t`$-limit $`F(\tau )`$ behaves as

$`\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{\text{lim}}F_\mathrm{H}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\tau }},\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{\text{lim}}F_\mathrm{A}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\mathrm{cot}\beta .`$ (6)
Here $`m`$ and $`m_t`$ denote the masses of the (pseudo-) scalar Higgs boson and the top quark respectively. The running coupling constant is given by $`\alpha _s(\mu _r^2)`$ where $`\mu _r`$ denotes the renormalization scale and $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant. The coefficient functions $`𝒞_\mathrm{B}`$ originate from the corrections to the top-quark triangular graph provided one takes the limit $`m_t\mathrm{}`$. We have presented the couplings $`G_\mathrm{B}`$ in Eq. (4) for general $`m_t`$ on the Born level only in order to keep some part of the top-quark mass dependence. This is an approximation because the gluons which couple to the (pseudo-) scalar Higgs boson via the top-quark loop in the partonic subprocesses are very often virtual. The virtual-gluon momentum dependence is neither described by $`F_\mathrm{B}(\tau )`$ nor by $`𝒞_\mathrm{B}`$. For on-mass-shell gluons the latter quantity has been computed in the large $`m_t`$ limit up to order $`\alpha _s`$ in , ,  and up to order $`\alpha _s^2`$ in , . For our NLO calculations we only need these coefficient functions corrected up to order $`\alpha _s`$ and they read

$`𝒞_\mathrm{H}(\alpha _s(\mu _r^2),{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _r^2}{m_t^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^{(5)}(\mu _r^2)}{4\pi }}\left(11\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
$`𝒞_\mathrm{A}(\alpha _s(\mu _r^2),{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _r^2}{m_t^2}})`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (8)
where $`\alpha _s^{(5)}`$ is presented in a five-flavour number scheme. Notice that Eq. (8) holds in all orders because of the Adler-Bardeen theorem . The effective Lagrangian approach has been successfully applied to compute the total cross section of scalar Higgs production in hadron-hadron collisions in NLO  and NNLO , , , , . In the case of pseudo-scalar Higgs production this cross section was computed in NLO in ,  and in NNLO in , .

In this paper we study the semi-inclusive reaction with one pseudo-scalar Higgs boson $`\mathrm{A}`$ in the final state which is given by

$`\mathrm{H}_1(p_1)+\mathrm{H}_2(p_2)\mathrm{A}(p_5)+^{}X^{},`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{H}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ denote the incoming hadrons and $`X`$ represents an inclusive hadronic final state. Further we define the following kinematical invariants

$`S=(p_1+p_2)^2,T=(p_1+p_5)^2,U=(p_2+p_5)^2.`$ (10)
The latter two invariants can be expressed in terms of the transverse momentum $`p_T`$ and rapidity $`y`$ variables as

$`T=m^2\sqrt{S}\sqrt{p_T^2+m^2}\mathrm{cosh}y+\sqrt{S}\sqrt{p_T^2+m^2}\mathrm{sinh}y,`$
$`U=m^2\sqrt{S}\sqrt{p_T^2+m^2}\mathrm{cosh}y\sqrt{S}\sqrt{p_T^2+m^2}\mathrm{sinh}y,`$ (11)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson. The hadronic cross section is given by

$`S^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma ^{\mathrm{H}_1\mathrm{H}_2}}{dTdU}}(S,T,U,m^2)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=q,g}{}}{\displaystyle _{x_{1,\mathrm{min}}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{x_1}}{\displaystyle _{x_{2,\mathrm{min}}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{x_2}}f_a^{\mathrm{H}_1}(x_1,\mu ^2)f_b^{\mathrm{H}_2}(x_2,\mu ^2)s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ab}}{dtdu}}(s,t,u,m^2,\mu ^2),`$
$`\text{with}x_{1,\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \frac{U}{S+Tm^2}},x_{2,\mathrm{min}}={\displaystyle \frac{x_1(Tm^2)m^2}{x_1S+Um^2}},`$ (12)
where $`s`$, $`t`$ and $`u`$ are the partonic analogues of $`S`$, $`T`$ and $`U`$ in Eq. (10) where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ now represent the incoming parton momenta. Further $`f_a^{\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{i}}`$ denotes the parton density corresponding to hadron $`\mathrm{H}_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\mu `$ stands for the factorization scale which for convenience is set equal to the renormalization scale $`\mu _r`$ appearing in Eq. (4). The NLO corrections to the partonic cross section $`d^2\sigma /(dtdu)`$ in the case of H-production based on the effective Lagrangian in Eq. (2) are presented in  and . Here we will give the corresponding results for the $`\mathrm{A}`$ described by the Lagrangian in Eq. (3). The calculation proceeds in the same way as presented in . We use $`n`$-dimensional regularization in order to compute the loop and phase space integrals which contain ultraviolet, infrared and collinear singularities. However there is one extra complication in the pseudo-scalar case. This concerns the Levi-Civita tensor in Eq. (3) which is essentially a four dimensional object. Here we follow the same prescription as in Eq. (4) in ,  where the product of two Levi-Civita tensors is contracted in $`n`$ dimensions if one sums over dummy Lorentz indices. This prescription leads to an interference between diagrams carrying the vertex coming from the operator $`O_1(x)`$ and those carrying the vertex corresponding to the operator $`O_2(x)`$ in Eq. (3) (see ). The LO subprocesses contributing to the partonic cross section are given by

$`g+gg+\mathrm{A},q+\overline{q}g+\mathrm{A},q(\overline{q})+gq(\overline{q})+\mathrm{A}.`$ (13)
The matrix elements squared do not differ from those derived for the scalar $`\mathrm{H}`$ provided $`n=4`$, see , , which implies that the LO double differential partonic cross sections are the same for both bosons except for an overall constant given by $`F_\mathrm{B}(\tau )`$ in Eq. (5). In NLO one has to compute the one-loop virtual corrections to the processes in Eq. (13) above and to add the contributions from the following two-to-three-body reactions

$`g+gg+g+\mathrm{A},g+gq_i+\overline{q}_i+\mathrm{A},`$ (14)
$`q+\overline{q}g+g+\mathrm{A},q_1+\overline{q}_2q_1+\overline{q}_2+\mathrm{A}q_1q_2,`$
$`q+\overline{q}q_i+\overline{q}_i+\mathrm{A}q_iq,q+\overline{q}q+\overline{q}+\mathrm{A},`$ (15)
$`q_1+q_2q_1+q_2+\mathrm{A}q_1q_2,q+qq+q+\mathrm{A},`$ (16)
$`q(\overline{q})+gq(\overline{q})+g+\mathrm{A}.`$ (17)
After renormalization of the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and mass factorization which are carried out in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme we obtain the NLO corrected coefficient functions according to the procedure in . The coefficient functions are as long as in the case of H-production so that they cannot be explicitly presented. However the differences between the results for the H and the A are so small that we can show them below. If we put for simplicity $`G_\mathrm{H}=G_\mathrm{A}=G`$ and $`m_\mathrm{H}=m_\mathrm{A}=m`$ the differences between the soft-plus-virtual differential cross sections are given by

$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ggg\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ggg\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi \delta (s+t+um^2)G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N}{(N^21)^2}}\left[2|M_{ggg\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2\right],`$ (18)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi \delta (s+t+um^2)G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}[2C_A|M_{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$
$`+(C_FC_A)|MB_{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2],`$ (19)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qgq\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qgq\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{S}+\mathrm{V}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi \delta (s+t+um^2)G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(N^21)}}[2C_A|M_{qgq\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$
$`+(C_FC_A)|MB_{qgq\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2].`$ (20)
where we have added to the righthand side of Eqs. (19) and (20) the contributions coming from the interference of the graphs in Figs. 1b, 1d with those in Figs. 2b, 2d which are shown in . The colour factors of the group $`SU(N)`$ are given by $`C_A=N`$ and $`C_F=(N^21)/(2N)`$ and the Born matrix elements squared belonging to the processes in Eq. (13) are equal to

$`|M_{ggg\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`N(N^21){\displaystyle \frac{1}{stu}}\left[s^4+t^4+u^4+m^8\right],`$ (21)
$`|M_{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`C_AC_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\left[t^2+u^2\right],`$ (22)
$`|M_{qgq\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`C_AC_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\left[s^2t^2\right].`$ (23)
The differences above can be wholly attributed to the virtual corrections and not to the soft gluon contributions which are the same for both H and A-production. These virtual corrections also entail some extra terms denoted by

$`|MB_{ggg\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}N(N^21){\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{stu}}\left[stu+m^2\left(st+su+tu\right)\right],`$ (24)
$`|MB_{q\overline{q}g\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`C_AC_F\left(tu\right),`$ (25)
$`|MB_{qgq\mathrm{B}}^{(1)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`C_AC_F\left(s+t\right).`$ (26)
Denoting the two-to-three-body reactions by

$`a(p_1)+b(p_2)c(p_3)+d(p_4)+\mathrm{A}(p5),s_4=(p_3+p_4)^2,`$ (27)
then the differences between the partonic cross sections due to the subprocesses in Eqs. (14)-(17) are equal to

$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{gggg\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{gggg\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{N^21}}\left[4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}\right],`$ (28)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ggq\overline{q}\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{ggq\overline{q}\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_f}{N^21}}\left[C_A\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right\}+C_F\left\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}+2\right\}\right],`$ (29)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}gg\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}gg\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F}{N^2}}\left[C_A\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right\}+C_F\left\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}+2\right\}\right],`$ (30)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1\overline{q}_2q_1\overline{q}_2\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1\overline{q}_2q_1\overline{q}_2\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F}{N^2}}\left[2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}1\right],`$ (31)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1\overline{q}_1q_i\overline{q}_i\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1\overline{q}_1q_i\overline{q}_i\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n_f1)C_AC_F}{N^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right],`$ (32)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}q\overline{q}\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q\overline{q}q\overline{q}\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N^2}}[C_A\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ss_4((sm^2)^2+s_4^22tu)}{8(s_4t)^2(s_4u)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(sm^2)^2+s_4^22tu}{4(s_4t)(s_4u)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(sm^2)^2+s_4^22tu+6ss_4}{4ss_4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}],`$ (33)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1q_2q_1q_2\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{q_1q_2q_1q_2\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F}{N^2}}\left[2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}1\right],`$ (34)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qqqq\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qqqq\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{N^2}}[C_A\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}1\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2+s_4^2}{4(s_4t)(s_4u)}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{ss_4}{tum^2s_4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}],`$ (35)
$`s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qgqg\mathrm{A}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}s^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma _{qgqg\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm{HARD}}}{dtdu}}=`$
$`\pi G^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(\mu ^2)}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}[C_A\{2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}1\}`$
$`+C_F\{\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{tum^2s_4}{(s_4t)(s_4u)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\}],`$ (36)
where the meaning of the superscript $`\mathrm{HARD}`$ is explained in . From these expressions we infer that the partonic cross sections (coefficient functions) for $`\mathrm{H}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}`$ are equal in LO and almost equal in NLO. This means that apart from the overall normalisation due to the constant $`G_\mathrm{B}`$ there will not be any difference in the shapes of the double differential cross sections. We show this in Fig. 1 where we plot the ratio

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _\mathrm{A}}{d\sigma _\mathrm{H}}},`$ (37)
for $`d\sigma _\mathrm{B}=d\sigma _\mathrm{B}/dp_T`$ and proton-proton collisions at the LHC with $`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$. For these and the next plots we have adopted the parton density set MRST98 (LO,lo05a.dat)  for the LO calculations with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5^{\mathrm{NLO}}=130.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ as input for the leading log running coupling constant. For the NLO cross sections we have chosen the set MTST99 (NLO,cor01.dat)  with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5^{\mathrm{NLO}}=220\mathrm{MeV}`$ as input for the next-to-leading log running coupling constant. Furthermore the factorization/renormalization scale is chosen to be $`\mu ^2=\mu _r^2=p_T^2+M_\mathrm{B}^2`$. For the masses of the Higgs bosons we take $`m_\mathrm{H}=m_\mathrm{A}=120\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and the top quark mass is set equal to $`m_t=173.4\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$. Further we have put $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$. In the case of an infinite top quark mass, (here we choose $`m_t=173.4\times 10^3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$), we get $`R^{\mathrm{LO}}=9/4`$ irrespective of the values of $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{A}`$. This follows from Eq. (6) and the fact that the LO partonic cross sections are the same for $`\mathrm{H}`$-production and $`\mathrm{A}`$-production. A finite $`m_t`$ as given above introduces a small effect and one gets $`R^{\mathrm{LO}}=2.31`$ which amounts to a shift upwards of $`0.06`$ (see Fig. 1). In NLO the partonic cross sections differ a little bit and $`𝒞_\mathrm{H}^2=[1+22\alpha _s/(4\pi )]𝒞_\mathrm{A}^2`$ (see Eqs. (7),(8)). Therefore we expect a deviation from the $`R^{\mathrm{LO}}`$ result when $`m_t`$ is taken infinite in both the LO and NLO reactions. However it turns out that both differences compensate each other. The NLO corrected partonic cross section for A is larger than the one for H and one obtains an upward shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^{\mathrm{NLO}}=0.26`$. The shift due to the coefficient function in Eq. (7) is negative and amounts to $`\mathrm{\Delta }R^{\mathrm{NLO}}=0.24`$. Hence the actual value becomes $`R^{\mathrm{NLO}}=2.27`$ (see Fig. 1) which is very close to $`R^{\mathrm{NLO}}=9/4`$. If $`m_t`$ is finite one gets again an upward shift of $`0.06`$ like in LO and $`R^{\mathrm{NLO}}=2.33`$ (see Fig. 1). One can make similar plots for the rapidity $`y`$ distributions which yield the same ratios as shown in Fig. 1 for the $`p_T`$ distributions. The most important feature is that the ratios are independent of $`p_T`$ and $`y`$ showing the shape independence of the distributions on the parity of the Higgs boson (scalar versus pseudo-scalar). This behaviour was discovered for both the (pseudo)-scalar $`p_T`$ distributions and for the opening angle distribution between the (pseudo)-scalar bosons and the highest $`p_T`$-jet in the reaction $`p+p(\mathrm{H}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{A})+\mathrm{jet}+\mathrm{jet}+^{}X^{}`$ in . From Fig. 1 and the observations made above it is clear that the ratios between the NLO and LO corrected cross sections (K-factors) are the same for H-production and A-production. This also holds for the variation of the NLO cross sections with respect to the mass factorization/renormalization scales. They are given for H-production in ,  and we do not have to show them again for A-production. In Fig. 2 we present the $`p_T`$ distributions in NLO for $`\mathrm{A}`$-production in proton-antiproton collisions at $`\sqrt{S}=2\mathrm{TeV}`$ (Fermilab Tevatron, Run II) and in proton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$ (LHC). Further we have chosen $`m_\mathrm{A}=91.9\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$. The parton density set and the factorization scale are given above. From Fig. 2 we infer that the $`p_T`$-distributions decrease rather slowly as $`p_T`$ increases and that the differential cross section for the Tevatron is two orders of magnitude smaller than the one predicted for the LHC. The latter observation also holds for the corresponding rapidity distributions shown in Fig. 3. They are obtained by integrating $`d^2\sigma _\mathrm{A}/(dp_Tdy)`$ over the range $`p_{T,\mathrm{min}}<p_T<8p_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ with $`p_{T,\mathrm{min}}=30\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. The cross section for $`p_T>8p_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ is negligible. Notice that the range of the rapidity for A-production at the Tevatron is rather small. Finally we want to comment on the relative importance of the partonic subprocesses contributing to the hadronic differential cross section in Eq. (12). For the LHC ($`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$) the $`gg`$-channel dominates and the $`qg`$-subprocess contributes about one third of the cross section. This is because at these high energies the $`x`$-values of the gluon density $`f_g^\mathrm{P}(x)`$ is so small that it becomes much larger than the quark densities. At lower energies like $`\sqrt{S}=2\mathrm{TeV}`$ (Tevatron) the $`x`$-values are larger so that the valence quark densities also play a role. This explains why the contribution of the $`qg`$-subprocess is of the same magnitude as the one from the $`gg`$-channel for A-production at the Tevatron.
Acknowledgments. We are indebted to V. Ravindran for discussions about the relevance of the operator $`O_2(x)`$. B. Field would like to thank S. Dawson and W. Kilgore for discussions on the pseudo-scalar coupling.

Figure Captions

The ratio $`R`$ in Eq. (37) plotted as a function of $`p_T`$ for $`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`\mu ^2=p_T^2+m_\mathrm{B}^2`$ with $`m_\mathrm{H}=m_\mathrm{A}=120\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$; $`R^{\mathrm{LO}}(m_t=\mathrm{})`$ (dotted line), $`R^{\mathrm{LO}}(m_t=173.4)`$ (solid line) $`R^{\mathrm{NLO}}(m_t=\mathrm{})`$ (dot-dashed line) $`R^{\mathrm{NLO}}(m_t=173.4)`$ (dashed line).

The transverse momentum distribution $`d\sigma _\mathrm{A}/dp_T`$ with $`\mu ^2=p_T^2+m_\mathrm{A}^2`$, $`m_\mathrm{A}=91.9\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$; $`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$ (solid line), $`\sqrt{S}=2\mathrm{TeV}`$ (dashed line).

The rapidity distribution $`d\sigma _\mathrm{A}/dy`$ calculated from the integral of $`d^2\sigma _\mathrm{A}/(dp_Tdy)`$ between $`8p_{T,\mathrm{min}}>p_T>p_{T,\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`p_{T,\mathrm{min}}=30\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. Input parameters are $`\mu ^2=p_{T,\mathrm{min}}^2+m_\mathrm{A}^2`$, $`m_\mathrm{A}=91.9\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.5`$; $`\sqrt{S}=14\mathrm{TeV}`$ (solid line), $`\sqrt{S}=2\mathrm{TeV}`$ (dashed line).


text:
# Singularity formation in the Yang-Mills Flow

SINGULARITY FORMATION IN THE YANG-MILLS FLOW

Ben Weinkove

Department of Mathematics, Columbia University

New York, NY 10027

Email: weinkove@math.columbia.edu

Mathematics Subject Classification: 53C44

1. Introduction

The Yang-Mills heat flow was shown to exist for all time over compact Kähler surfaces by Donaldson  (see also ). Over a compact Riemannian manifold, Råde  proved that for dimensions two and three, the flow exists for all time and converges to a Yang-Mills connection. However, his methods fail for higher dimensions. In dimensions $`n>4`$ it has been shown by Naito  that singularities can occur in finite time (see also ). The case of $`n=4`$ is still unknown (see  and ). The Yang-Mills heat flow and the harmonic map heat flow appear to share similar properties. In , Grayson and Hamilton show using a monotonicity formula from  that rapidly forming singularities in the harmonic map heat flow converge, after a blow-up process, to homothetically shrinking solitons.

The same technique works in the case of the Yang-Mills flow. There is, however, a complication arising from the presence of the gauge group. For this reason, we must allow the freedom to make gauge transformations. We use Hamilton’s monotonicity formula for the Yang-Mills flow  to prove that a sequence of blow-ups of a rapidly forming singularity will converge, modulo the gauge group, to a non-trivial homothetically shrinking soliton. In the last section, explicit examples of such solitons are given in the case of trivial bundles over $`R^n`$ for $`5n9`$.

We will first introduce some notation. Let $`M`$ be a compact $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold. Let $`E`$ be a real vector bundle of rank $`r`$ over $`M`$ with compact structure group $`G`$ and assume the fibres carry an inner product and that $`GSO(r)`$ respects this inner product.

We will often work in local coordinates, using Greek letters for the bundle indices and Latin letters for the manifold indices. A connection $`A`$ is locally an endomorphism valued 1-form given by $`A_{i\beta }^\alpha `$. The curvature of the connection is given by

$$F_{ij\beta }^\alpha =_iA_{j\beta }^\alpha _jA_{i\beta }^\alpha +A_{i\gamma }^\alpha A_{j\beta }^\gamma A_{j\gamma }^\alpha A_{i\beta }^\gamma .$$

The Yang-Mills heat flow is a flow of connections $`A=A(t)`$ given by

$$\frac{}{t}A_{j\beta }^\alpha =D_pF_{pj\beta }^\alpha ,$$

where $`D`$ denotes covariant differentiation with respect to the connection. In normal coordinates, this right hand side is given by

$$D_pF_{pj\beta }^\alpha =_pF_{pj\beta }^\alpha +A_{p\gamma }^\alpha F_{pj\beta }^\gamma F_{pj\gamma }^\alpha A_{p\beta }^\gamma .$$

The Yang-Mills flow is a gradient flow for the Yang-Mills functional

$$E=\frac{1}{2}_M|F|^2.$$

Let $`s=s_\beta ^\alpha `$ be a gauge transformation. Then $`s`$ acts on a connection matrix $`A`$ by

$$sA=sAs^1(ds)s^1.$$

Define a flow of connections $`A=A(x,t)`$ on the trivial bundle over $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$ to be a homothetically shrinking soliton if it is a solution to the Yang-Mills heat equation and satisfies the dilation condition

$$A_{i\beta }^\alpha (x,t)=\lambda A_{i\beta }^\alpha (\lambda x,\lambda ^2t).$$

The main theorem is as follows.

Main Theorem. Let $`A`$ be a smooth solution of the Yang-Mills flow on $`M`$ for $`0t<T`$ with a singularity at some point $`X`$ as $`tT`$. Suppose that it is a rapidly forming singularity, so that

$$(Tt)|F|C,$$

for some constant $`C`$. Then a sequence of blow-ups around $`(X,T)`$,

$$A_p(i)(x,t)=\lambda _iA_p(\lambda _ix,T+\lambda _i^2t),$$

with factor $`\lambda _i0`$, has a subsequence which converges in $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on compact sets modulo the gauge group to a homothetically shrinking soliton $`\overline{A}`$ defined on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$ which has non-zero curvature.

In the course of the proof of the theorem, the meaning of the phrase ’modulo the gauge group’ will be made more precise.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we show that given a bound on the curvature, we can derive bounds on all of the derivatives of the curvature. In section 3, we use these estimates, together with a theorem of Uhlenbeck’s , to get bounds on the connections and then convergence of a sequence of blow-ups near the singular point. We use Hamilton’s monotonicity formula  to show that, allowing gauge transformations, the sequence converges to a homothetically shrinking soliton. We then use an ‘$`ϵ`$-regularity’ result to show that this soliton must have non-zero curvature. Finally, in section 4, we give examples of homothetically shrinking solitons on a trival $`SO(n)`$ bundle over $`𝐑^n`$ for $`5n9.`$

The results of this paper will form part of my forthcoming PhD thesis at Columbia University. I would like to thank my thesis advisor D.H. Phong, for his constant support and advice, and Richard Hamilton for suggesting an improvement to an initial draft of the result. I am also grateful to the referee for pointing out a couple of errors in an earlier version of this paper.

2. Estimates on derivatives of the curvature

We begin by proving local estimates on the derivatives of the curvature. First define the parabolic cylinder

$$P_r(X,T)=\{(x,t)M\times 𝐑|d(X,x)r,Tr^2tT\}.$$

The following lemma is proved in  (the conclusion is slightly different, but it follows easily.)

###### Lemma 2.1

There exists a constant $`s>0`$ and for every $`\gamma <1`$, a constant $`C_\gamma `$, such that if $`h`$ is a smooth function on $`M`$ with

$$\frac{h}{t}\mathrm{}hh^2$$

when $`h0`$ in some parabolic cylinder $`P_r(X,T)`$ with $`rs`$ then

$$h\frac{C_\gamma }{r^2}$$

on $`P_{\gamma r}(X,T)`$.

Then we have

###### Theorem 2.2

There exists a constant $`s>0`$ and constants $`C_k`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ depending only on $`M`$ such that if $`A(t)`$ is a solution to the Yang-Mills flow with $`|F|K`$ in some $`P_r(X,T)`$ for $`rs`$ for some constant $`K1/r^2`$, then with $`r_k=r/2^k`$ we have

$$|D^kF|C_kK^{k/2+1}\text{on}P_{r_k}(X,T).$$

* We will use induction to prove the theorem. The notation $`ST`$ will mean some algebraic bilinear expression involving the tensors $`S`$ and $`T`$. $`R`$ will denote the Riemannian curvature tensor on the base manifold. $`C`$ will denote a constant which depends only on $`M`$. Assume that the constant $`K`$ is at least 1. We begin with the case $`k=1`$. Using commutation formulae and the Bianchi identity, calculate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|F|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}|F|^22|DF|^2+FFF+RFF`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}|F|^22|DF|^2+CK^3,`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|DF|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}|DF|^22|D^2F|^2+DFDFF`$
$`+DFDFR+DFFDR`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}|DF|^22|D^2F|^2+CK|DF|^2+CK|DF|`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}|DF|^22|D^2F|^2+CK|DF|^2+CK^4.`$
Define

$$h=(8K^2+|F|^2)|DF|^2.$$

Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{}|F|^22|DF|^2+CK^3)|DF|^2+(8K^2+|F|^2)(\mathrm{}|DF|^22|D^2F|^2`$
$`+CK|DF|^2+CK^4).`$
But

$`\mathrm{}h(\mathrm{}|F|^2)|DF|^2+(8K^2+|F|^2)\mathrm{}|DF|^28K|DF|^2|D^2F|.`$
Hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}h2|DF|^4+CK^3|DF|^2+(8K^2+|F|^2)(2|D^2F|^2`$
$`+CK|DF|^2+CK^4)+8K|DF|^2|D^2F|`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h2|DF|^4+CK^3|DF|^2+CK^62(8K^2+|F|^2)|D^2F|^2`$
$`+|DF|^4+16K^2|D^2F|^2`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|DF|^4+CK^6`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{CK^4}}+CK^6`$
for some constant $`C`$. For that same $`C`$, define

$$\widehat{h}=\frac{h}{CK^4}K.$$

Then for $`\widehat{h}0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}}{t}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{CK^4}}(\mathrm{}h{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{CK^4}}+CK^6)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\widehat{h}(\widehat{h}+K)^2+K^2`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}\widehat{h}\widehat{h}^2.`$
Then by Lemma 2.1 we have

$$\widehat{h}\frac{C}{r^2}CK$$

on $`P_{r/2}(X,T)`$. Hence

$$hCK^5$$

and

$$|DF|CK^{3/2}.$$

Assume inductively that we have the estimates for $`D^lF`$ on $`P_{r_{k1}}(X,T)`$ for $`1lk1`$. Calculating on $`P_{r_{k1}}(X,T)`$, first notice

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|D^2F|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}|D^2F|^22|D^3F|^2+D^2FD^2FF+D^2FDFDF`$
$`+D^2FD^2FR+D^2FDFDR+D^2FFD^2R`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}|D^2F|^22|D^3F|^2+CK^5.`$
It is not difficult to see by an induction argument that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|D^{k1}F|^2\mathrm{}|D^{k1}F|^22|D^kF|^2+CK^{k+2}.`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|D^kF|^2\mathrm{}|D^kF|^22|D^{k+1}F|^2+CK|D^kF|^2+CK^{k+3}.`$
Choose $`B`$ to be a constant with $`K^{(k+1)/2}BCK^{(k+1)/2}`$ and $`|D^{k1}F|B`$. Define $`h=(8B^2+|D^{k1}F|^2)|D^kF|^2`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}`$ $``$ $`(8B^2+|D^{k1}F|^2)(\mathrm{}|D^kF|^22|D^{k+1}F|^2+CK|D^kF|^2+CK^{k+3})`$
$`+|D^kF|^2(\mathrm{}|D^{k1}F|^22|D^kF|^2+CK^{k+2})`$
$``$ $`(8B^2+|D^{k1}F|^2)\mathrm{}|D^kF|^2+|D^kF|^2\mathrm{}|D^{k1}F|^216B^2|D^{k+1}F|^2`$
$`2|D^kF|^4+CK^{k+2}|D^kF|^2+CK^{2k+4}.`$
But

$$\mathrm{}h(8B^2+|D^{k1}F|^2)\mathrm{}|D^kF|^2+|D^kF|^2\mathrm{}|D^{k1}F|^28B|D^kF|^2|D^{k+1}F|.$$

Hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}h16B^2|D^{k+1}F|^22|D^kF|^4+CK^{k+2}|D^kF|^2+CK^{2k+4}`$
$`+16B^2|D^{k+1}F|^2+|D^kF|^4`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h|D^kF|^4+CK^{k+2}|D^kF|^2+CK^{2k+4}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|D^kF|^4+CK^{2k+4}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{}h{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{CK^{2k+2}}}+CK^{2k+4}.`$
Now define

$$\widehat{h}=\frac{h}{CK^{2k+2}}K.$$

Then for $`\widehat{h}0`$ we have

$$\frac{\widehat{h}}{t}\mathrm{}\widehat{h}\widehat{h}^2.$$

Hence $`\widehat{h}CK`$ on $`P_{r_k}(X,T)`$ from which it follows that $`hCK^{2k+3}`$ and

$$|D^kF|CK^{k/2+1}.$$

3. Formation of singularities

In this section, we will prove the main theorem. Suppose that the flow has a singularity at $`XM`$ at time $`T`$. We suppose that the singularity is rapidly forming, that is, we have the dilation invariant estimate

$$|F|\frac{C}{Tt},$$

for some constant $`C`$. Then Theorem 2.2 gives the dilation invariant estimates

$$|D^kF|\frac{C_k}{(Tt)^{k/2+1}}.$$

We will perform a blow-up procedure around the point $`X`$ at time $`T`$. Choose a small geodesic ball $`B(r)`$ of radius $`r`$ around $`X`$ over which $`E`$ is trivial. We identify $`B(r)`$ with the ball of radius $`r`$ in $`𝐑^n`$. In these coordinates, the connections $`A=A(x,t)`$ are given by matrix-valued one-forms $`A=A_pdx^p`$. Now choose a sequence of real numbers $`\lambda _i`$ tending to zero, and define a sequence of flows of connection one forms $`A(i)=A_p(i)dx^p`$ on balls of increasing size in $`𝐑^n`$ by setting

$$A_p(i)(x,t)=\lambda _iA_p(\lambda _ix,T+\lambda _i^2t)$$

for $`xB_{1/\lambda _i}(0)`$ and $`t[T/\lambda _i^2,0)`$.

We need the following monotonicity formula of Hamilton’s  for the Yang-Mills flow. Similar results have been obtained by Naito  and Chen and Shen .

###### Theorem 3.1

If $`A(t)`$ solves the Yang-Mills heat flow on $`0t<T`$ and if $`k`$ is any positive backward solution to the scalar heat equation on $`M`$ with $`_Mk=1`$, then the quantity

$$Z(t)=(Tt)^2_M|F|^2k$$

is monotone decreasing in $`t`$ when $`M`$ is Ricci parallel (that is, $`D_iR_{jk}=0`$) with weakly positive sectional curvatures; while on a general $`M`$ we have

$$Z(t)CZ(\tau )+C(t\tau )^2E_0$$

whenever $`T1\tau tT`$, where $`E_0`$ is the initial energy and $`C`$ is a constant depending only on $`M`$. Moreover, if

$$W(t)=(Tt)_M|D_iF_{ij\beta }^\alpha +\frac{D_ik}{k}.F_{ij\beta }^\alpha |^2k$$

then

$$_\tau ^TW(t)𝑑tCZ(\tau )+CE_0.$$

The last statement of Theorem 3.1 gives

$$_{T1}^T(Tt)^2_M|\text{div}F_A+\frac{Dk}{k}.F_A|^2kdVdtC<\mathrm{}.$$

Hence for $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that

$$_{T\delta }^T(Tt)^2_M|\text{div}F_A+\frac{Dk}{k}.F_A|^2kdVdtϵ.$$

Now let $`k`$ be the solution to the backwards heat equation which becomes a delta function at the point $`X`$ at time $`T`$. In the geodesic ball, we get

$$_{T\delta }^T(Tt)^2_{B(r)}|\text{div}F_A+\frac{Dk}{k}.F_A|^2kdVdtϵ.$$

Let $`A(i)`$ be the dilated connections and let $`k(i)`$ be the dilations of $`k`$. Making a change of variables,

$$_{\delta /\lambda _i^2}^0|t|^2_{B_{r/\lambda _i}(0)}|\text{div}_{A(i)}F_{A(i)}+\frac{Dk(i)}{k(i)}.F_{A(i)}|^2k(i)dVdtϵ.$$

Fix a compact time interval $`[t^{},t^{\prime \prime }]`$ in $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ and a compact set $`D`$ in $`𝐑^n`$. Suppose $`i`$ is large enough so that $`t^{}`$ is contained in the interval $`(\delta /\lambda _i^2,0)`$ and that $`D`$ is contained in the ball $`B_{r/\lambda _i}(0)`$. Fix a point $`x_0`$ in $`D`$. We will now use a theorem of Uhlenbeck’s , which states that if the $`L^n`$ norm of the curvature is small enough, then there exists a local Coulomb gauge, in which the $`L_1^p`$ norm of the connection matrix is bounded by the $`L^p`$ norm of the curvature, for any $`p2n`$. Since by assumption the curvature is uniformly bounded by $`C/(Tt)`$, we can apply Uhlenbeck’s theorem in a small enough ball $`B`$ containing $`x_0`$. Thus there exists, for each $`i`$, a gauge transformation $`s(i)`$ over $`B`$ such that $`s(i)A(i)`$ at time $`t^{}`$ is bounded in $`L_1^p`$ over $`B`$ for any $`p`$. The bounds do not depend on $`i`$. We can also get uniform bounds on the $`C^k`$ norms of $`s(i)A(i)`$, for large enough $`i`$, at $`t^{}`$ on a slightly smaller ball $`B^{}`$ from the bounds on the derivatives of the curvature given in Theorem 2.2, using the argument of Lemma 2.3.11 in . Since $`s(i)A(i)`$ is a solution of the Yang-Mills flow, we can bound the connection matrices and their derivatives uniformly in time on the interval $`[t^{},t^{\prime \prime }]`$ over the ball $`B^{}`$. By passing to a subsequence, we can get uniform convergence in $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. Since this works for a small ball around any point, we can apply the patching argument of , Corollary 4.4.8, so that after passing to another subsequence, $`s(i)A(i)`$ converges in $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`D\times [t^{},t^{\prime \prime }]`$ to a solution $`\overline{A}`$ of the Yang-Mills flow. Now consider a sequence of increasing compact sets $`D_j`$ and time intervals $`[t_j^{},t_j^{\prime \prime }]`$ which exhaust $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$. By the usual diagonal argument, after passing to a subsequence, we get a sequence of gauge transformations $`s(i)`$ such that $`s(i)A(i)`$ converges in $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on compact sets to a solution $`\overline{A}`$ of the Yang-Mills flow on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$. Also, a subsequence of the $`k(i)`$ will converge to $`\overline{k}`$ on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$ given by

$$\overline{k}(x,t)=\frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{n/2}}e^{|x|^2/4t}.$$

Letting $`ϵ0`$, we get

$$\text{div}_{\overline{A}}F_{\overline{A}}+\frac{x}{2t}.F_{\overline{A}}=0.$$

Hence

$$\frac{}{t}\overline{A}_{i\beta }^\alpha +\frac{x^p}{2t}(_p\overline{A}_{i\beta }^\alpha _i\overline{A}_{p\beta }^\alpha +\overline{A}_{p\gamma }^\alpha \overline{A}_{i\beta }^\gamma \overline{A}_{i\gamma }^\alpha \overline{A}_{p\beta }^\gamma )=0.$$

Now choose an exponential gauge for $`\overline{A}`$, in which $`x^p\overline{A}_{p\beta }^\alpha =0`$, at time $`t=1`$. Then notice that, from the equation above, the condition $`x^p\overline{A}_{p\beta }^\alpha =0`$ holds for all $`t`$. Then $`\overline{A}`$ satisfies

$$\frac{}{t}\overline{A}_{i\beta }^\alpha +\frac{x^p}{2t}_p\overline{A}_{i\beta }^\alpha +\frac{1}{2t}\overline{A}_{i\beta }^\alpha =0,$$

and by the following lemma $`\overline{A}`$ is a homothetically shrinking soliton.

###### Lemma 3.2

If a flow of one-forms $`A_i=A_i(x,t)`$ satisfies

$$\frac{}{t}A_i+\frac{x^p}{2t}_pA_i+\frac{1}{2t}A_i=0,$$

on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$ then

$$A_i(x,t)=\lambda A_i(\lambda x,\lambda ^2t).$$

* First notice that if $`A`$ satisfies the dilation invariant condition then by differentiating with respect to $`\lambda `$ and setting $`\lambda `$ equal to 1, it is immediate that it satisfies the differential equation

$$\frac{}{t}A_i+\frac{x^p}{2t}_pA_i+\frac{1}{2t}A_i=0,$$

on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$. The lemma then follows from Holmgren’s uniqueness theorem for linear partial differential equations (see for example , p.125), since the hyperplanes $`\{t=\text{constant}\}`$ are non-characteristic.

We will now show that the soliton has non-zero curvature. First we have the following ‘$`ϵ`$-regularity’ result which is almost the same as one given in  for the harmonic map heat flow (a similar result for the Yang-Mills flow is proved in ). Write $`k_{(X,T)}`$ for the backwards solution of the heat equation on $`M`$ which becomes a delta function at $`X`$ at time $`T`$.

###### Theorem 3.3

There exist constants $`ϵ>0`$ and $`\beta >0`$ depending only on M and $`E_0`$ such that for any $`XM`$, any $`T>0`$ and any $`\alpha 0`$ with $`T\beta \alpha <T`$ we can find $`\rho >0`$ and $`B<\mathrm{}`$ such that if $`A`$ is any solution to the Yang-Mills heat flow on $`0tT`$ with energy bounded by $`E_0`$ and

$$(T\alpha )^2_M|F_A(x,\alpha )|^2k_{(X,T)}(x,\alpha )𝑑Vϵ,$$

then $`|F_A(x,t)|B`$ for all $`(x,t)P_\rho (X,T)`$.

* We omit the proof, since it is almost identical to that of Theorem 3.2 in .

We also have the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.4

There exist $`ϵ>0`$ and $`\beta >0`$ depending only on the bundle and $`E_0`$ such that if $`A`$ is any solution to the Yang-Mills flow on $`0t<T`$ and if

$$(Tt)^2_M|F_A(x,t)|^2k_{(X,T)}(x,t)𝑑Vϵ$$

for some $`t`$ in $`T\beta t<T`$ then $`A(x,t)`$ extends smoothly on $`0tT`$ in some neighbourhood of $`X`$.

* Apply the above theorem to $`\stackrel{~}{A}(x,t)=A(x,t\zeta )`$ for $`\zeta >0`$ and let $`\zeta 0`$. We then get uniform estimates on $`|F|`$ in some small neighbourhood of $`X`$ for $`t<T`$. From Theorem 2.2 we get bounds on the higher derivatives, and the result follows.

We can now show that the limiting flow $`\overline{A}`$ does not have zero curvature. Since we have assumed that $`X`$ is a singular point, we know that for all $`t`$ in $`T\beta t<T`$ we have

$$(Tt)^2_M|F_A(x,t)|^2k_{(X,T)}(x,t)𝑑Vϵ$$

for a fixed $`ϵ>0`$. This estimate is dilation invariant. Now we have the bound

$$(Tt)^2|F|^2C^2.$$

Note that there exists $`\rho >0`$ such that, with $`\overline{k}`$ as above,

$$_{|x|>\rho \sqrt{|t|}}\overline{k}(x,t)𝑑V\frac{ϵ}{2C^2}.$$

Then after making the change of coordinates as before, and taking the limit, we see that

$$|t|^2_{|x|\rho \sqrt{|t|}}|F_{\overline{A}}(x,t)|^2\overline{k}(x,t)𝑑Vϵ/2,$$

and hence the soliton has non-zero curvature.

4. Examples of homothetically shrinking solitons

We give examples of homothetically shrinking solitons on $`𝐑^n\times SO(n)`$ for $`5n9`$. It was shown by Gastel  that such solitons exist in these dimensions. We follow  and consider $`SO(n)`$-equivariant connections given by

$$A_i(x)=\frac{h(r)}{r^2}\sigma _i(x),$$

where $`r=|x|`$, $`h`$ is a real-valued function on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\{\sigma _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ in $`so(n)`$ are given by

$$(\sigma _i)_\beta ^\alpha =\delta _i^\alpha x^\beta \delta _i^\beta x^\alpha ,\text{for }1\alpha ,\beta n.$$

A long but straightforward calculation shows that the Yang-Mills heat equation becomes

$$h_t=h_{rr}+(n3)\frac{h_r}{r}(n2)\frac{h(h1)(h2)}{r^2}.$$

Define a function

$$\varphi _(\rho )=\frac{\rho ^2}{a_n\rho ^2+b_n},$$

where $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are positive constants given by

$$a_n=\frac{\sqrt{n2}}{2\sqrt{2}}\text{and}b_n=\frac{1}{2}(6n12(n+2)\sqrt{2n4}).$$

Notice that $`b_n`$ is positive if and only if $`5n9`$. Now for $`t`$ in $`(\mathrm{},0)`$, let

$$h(r,t)=\varphi (\rho ),\text{where}\rho =\frac{r}{\sqrt{t}}.$$

Then it is easy to check that this $`h(r,t)`$ gives a smooth solution $`A=A(x,t)`$ of the Yang-Mills heat equation on $`𝐑^n\times (\mathrm{},0)`$ and that

$$A_i(x,t)=\lambda A_i(\lambda x,\lambda ^2t).$$


text:
# The quantum mechanical geometric phase of a particle in a resonant vibrating cavity

## I Introduction

The dynamics of confined cavity fields interacting with the cavity wall is of great interest for the understanding of a variety of problems such as hadron bag models , sonoluminescence , cavity QED  and black hole radiations . Most previous studies on dynamical cavity concentrated on scalar or photon fields , which despite the apparent simplicity, exhibit rich and complex dynamics. In contrast, the system of a Schrödinger particle in an oscillating spherical cavity has not gained as much attention. In this article, we study the generalized quantum geometric phase of a particle in resonance with the vibrating cavity. We will show that the geometric phase acquires sudden $`\pi `$-jumps when the particle makes transitions.

The geometric phase of a quantum system has drawn much attention since it was first proposed by Berry in 1984 . It reveals the geometric structure of the Hilbert space of the system , and its existence in physical systems has been verified in many experiments , including electron diffraction from a screw dislocation  and neutron interferometry . The phase effects in molecular physics can lead to energy splittings and shift quantum numbers. The geometric phase has also been shown to be intimately connected to the physics of fractional statistics, the quantized Hall effect, and anomalies in gauge theory . As far as we know, our study represents the first calculation of the geometric phase of a resonating system, which evolves non-adiabatically and non-cyclically.

## II Formalism

We consider an infinite cylindrical or spherical potential well with oscillating boundary :

$$V(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& \text{if }r<R(t),\\ \mathrm{},& \text{if }rR(t),\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`R(t)=R_0/\alpha (t)`$, with $`\alpha (t)\left[1+ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)\right]^1`$. The coordinates can be transformed to a fixed domain via $`\stackrel{}{y}\alpha (t)\stackrel{}{r}`$, and, to preserve unitarity, the wavefunction is renormalized through $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y},t)\alpha ^\xi \psi (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, where $`\xi =1`$ (3/2), for a cylindrical (spherical) well.

Since the full Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$ commutes with $`L^2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{L}`$, the wavefunction can be factorized: $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y},t)=Y(y,t)\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ depends only on the angular variables. Inside the cavity, the radial wavefunction satisfies

$$\frac{Y}{t}=\left[\frac{i\mathrm{}\alpha ^2}{2\mu }\left(\frac{^2}{y^2}+\frac{n_d}{y}\frac{}{y}\frac{m_d}{y^2}\right)+\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\left(y\frac{}{y}+\xi \right)\right]Y,$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the particle mass, and $`n_d=1`$, 2 and $`m_d=m^2,l(l+1)`$ for cylindrical and spherical wells respectively. In this paper, we only consider the $`m_d=0`$ sector.

The wavefunction described by Eq. 2 evolves in time and acquires a time-dependent phase, which in general consists of a dynamical phase and a geometric one . When the dynamics is adiabatic and/or the evolution is cyclic, the geometric phase, or Berry’s phase, has been studied for many systems. Since we are interested in the geometric phase of a non-adiabatic, non-cyclic system, we have to resort to a generalized method. Following Ref. , we first remove the dynamical phase from the wavefunction of the system: $`|\varphi (t)|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t)e^{i\theta (t)}|\varphi (t)`$, the dynamical phase is

$$\theta (t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_0^tE(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(3)
where $`E(t^{})=\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}\varphi (t^{})|H(t^{})|\varphi (t^{})`$.

The general setting geometric phase, or the Pancharatnam phase $`\beta `$ is defined as the relative phase between the state at time $`t_1`$ and that at time $`t`$, both with the dynamical phase removed. It can be obtained from the inner product of these two states

$$\beta (t_1,t)i\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t_1)|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t)}{|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t_1)|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t)|}\right].$$
(4)
Our main goal in this paper is to study this geometric phase for a simple but nontrivial dynamical system.

## III Results

We have solved Eq. 2 numerically and checked that the solution is stable and converges very well. In Fig. 1, we show the maximum energy of the particle as a function of the driving frequency $`\omega `$, both having been scaled to be dimensionless: $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{max}}\mu R_0^2E_{\mathrm{max}}/\mathrm{}^2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mu R_0^2\omega /\mathrm{}`$. The particle is initially in the ground state, and it is in resonance at specific values of $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$. In each period of cavity vibration $`\tau 2\pi /\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$, the geometric phase acquires some changes, $`\beta _1(t_1)\beta (t_1,t_1+\tau )`$, and it exhibits oscillations at these resonances. We show three examples in Fig. 2 for $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=66.632,17.278`$ and 22.21227, where the geometric phase acquires periodic changes of $`2\pi ,4\pi ,6\pi `$ respectively. All the resonances shown in Fig. 1 are associated with oscillations of $`\beta _1`$ with amplitudes of $`2N\pi `$, $`N=1,2,3`$.

To understand the resonances and the associated geometric phases, we limit ourselves to the parameter regime where the Hamiltonian can be truncated to a two-level system. Specifically, if $`ϵ<<1`$, and the initial state is the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ unperturbed eigenstate $`|\varphi _k(y)`$, with eigenenergy $`E_k`$, then when the driving frequency corresponds to the energy difference between the initial state and another unperturbed eigenstate $`|\varphi _n(y)`$, with eigenenergy $`E_n`$, i.e., $`\omega =\omega _{nk}(E_nE_k)/\mathrm{}`$, the particle is expected to behave as in a two-level system. Then the problem simplifies considerably, and we have obtained its solution with two analytic approaches: the SU(2) method and the Rotating-wave Approximation (RWA).

Following Cheng et al. we first expand the time-dependent Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$ of a two-level system in the identity operator $`I`$, the raising and lowering operators $`\sigma _\pm `$, and Pauli spin matrix $`\sigma _3`$

$$H(t)=i\left[f_0(t)I+f_1(t)\sigma _++f_2(t)\sigma _3+f_3(t)\sigma _{}\right],$$
(5)
where $`f_j,j=0,1,2,3`$, are in general complex functions of time. The evolution operator can then be written as

$`U(t,0)=b(t)e^{_0^tf_0(t^{})𝑑t^{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b^2(t)+g_1(t)g_3(t)& g_1(t)\\ g_3(t)& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
where $`b(t)\mathrm{exp}(g_2(t))`$, and $`g_i`$ satisfies

$`\dot{g_1}`$ $`=`$ $`f_1+2f_2g_1f_3g_1^2,`$ (9)
$`\dot{g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`f_2f_3g_1,`$ (10)
$`\dot{g_3}`$ $`=`$ $`f_3b^2,`$ (11)
with the initial conditions $`g_j(0)=0`$ for $`j=`$1, 2, or 3.

Suppose that the two levels in which the system oscillates are $`|\varphi _k(y)`$ and $`|\varphi _n(y)`$, so that the wavefunction is $`|\varphi (y,t)=a_k(t)|\varphi _k(y)+a_n(t)|\varphi _n(y)`$. Furthermore, if the initial conditions are $`a_k(0)=1`$ and $`a_n(0)=0`$, then

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}a_k(t)\\ a_n(t)\end{array}\right)=b(t)e^{_0^tf_0(t^{})𝑑t^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}b^2+g_1g_3\\ g_3\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The SU(2) method is exact and reduces the problem to solving the ODE’s for $`g_j`$.

The spirit of the RWA is to retain only those terms in the Hamiltonian that correspond to the resonance frequency. We first separate out the fast phase factors from the wavefunction:

$$|\varphi (y,t)=c_k(t)e^{i\rho _k(t)}|\varphi _k(y)+c_n(t)e^{i\rho _n(t)}|\varphi _n(y),$$
(13)
with $`\rho _i(t)E_i_0^t\alpha ^2(t^{})𝑑t^{}/\mathrm{}`$. Substituting Eq. 13 in the Schrödinger equation, we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{c_k}\\ \dot{c_n}\end{array}\right)=\eta _{nk}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& W^{}(t)\\ W(t)& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_k\\ c_n\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
where

$$W(t)\frac{\dot{R}(t)}{R(t)}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\omega _{nk}_0^t\alpha ^2(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right],$$
(21)
and

$$\eta _{nk}\varphi _n\left(y\frac{}{y}+\xi \right)\varphi _k$$
(22)
is a constant that depends only on the states involved.

As $`ϵ`$ is small, we can expand $`W(t)`$ as a series of $`ϵ`$. Retaining all terms up to third-order, we have:

$`W(t)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵe^{i\omega _{nk}t}\{\omega \mathrm{cos}\omega t+ϵ[i\omega _{nk}(\mathrm{cos}2\omega t+1){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\omega t]`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{4\omega }}[(\omega ^26\omega _{nk}^2)\mathrm{cos}\omega t(\omega ^2+2\omega _{nk}^2)\mathrm{cos}3\omega t`$ (24)
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\omega _{nk}\omega (\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\mathrm{sin}3\omega t)]\}.`$ (25)
Note that $`W(t)`$ consists of oscillatory terms with various frequencies depending on $`\omega `$. In the spirit of RWA, we keep only terms with the lowest frequency for each $`\omega `$, the rationale being that $`c_k`$ and $`c_n`$ vary slowly in time and the contributions to $`W`$ from high frequency terms cancel on average over such a long time scale. It is clear then from Eq. 25 that $`W`$ is largest if $`\omega =\omega _{nk}/N`$, with $`N`$ an integer, because of the emergence of zero frequency terms. For these driving frequencies, $`W`$ is large and effective in inducing transitions, and we have resonances. At or close to a resonance, Eq. 25 simplifies tremendously, and closed-form solutions for Eq. 20 can be obtained easily.

For example, when $`\delta \omega \omega \omega _{nk}0`$, $`W(t)ϵ\omega \mathrm{exp}\left(i\delta \omega t/2\right)/2`$, and we have Rabi oscillations :

$`c_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\delta \omega t/2}\left[\mathrm{cos}\chi ti\delta \omega \mathrm{sin}\chi t/(2\chi )\right],`$ (26)
$`c_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{i\delta \omega t/2}\mathrm{sin}\chi t/\chi ,`$ (27)
where we took $`c_k(0)=1,c_n(0)=0`$, $`\chi \sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\delta \omega ^2/4}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\eta _{nk}ϵ\omega /2`$. The maximum value of $`|c_n|^2`$, $`|c_n|_{\mathrm{max}}^2(\omega )=1/[1+(\delta \omega /2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2]`$, is a Lorentzian with a FWHM of $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The solutions for higher $`N`$ resonances differ only in the widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Nϵ^N\eta _{nk}\gamma _N/2N`$, where

$$\gamma _N=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\omega _{nk}+\delta \omega )& N=1,\\ \left(3\omega _{nk}\delta \omega \right)/4& N=2,\\ \frac{17\omega _{nk}^217\omega _{nk}\delta \omega +2\delta \omega ^2}{24(\omega _{nk}+\delta \omega )}& N=3,\end{array}$$
(28)
with $`\delta \omega N\omega \omega _{nk}`$. The FWHM of the resonances $`4\mathrm{\Gamma }/Nϵ^N`$ are narrower for larger $`N`$, and the oscillation periods $`Tϵ^N`$ are longer.

The energy of the system is given in RWA by

$`E(t)\alpha ^2(t)\left[E_k\mathrm{cos}^2\chi t+(A+E_n)\mathrm{sin}^2\chi t\right],`$ (29)
where $`A\left[E_k\delta \omega ^2+4E_n\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\chi ^2\right)\right]/4\chi ^2`$ . The energy of the particle therefore exhibits fast but small oscillations due to the $`\alpha ^2`$ factor, modulated by a large but slow oscillation of period $`\pi /\chi `$. It follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(1ϵ)^2E_{\mathrm{max}}E_k}{E_nE_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\delta \omega /2\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)^2}}=|c_n|_{\mathrm{max}}^2(\omega ),`$ (30)
which is again a universal Lorentzian for all resonances.

The RWA results are virtually identical with those of the SU(2) method. Fig. 1 can be understood completely in terms of overlapping series of the $`\omega _{nk}/N`$ resonances, and the positions of the peaks are in almost exact agreement with the RWA or SU(2) predictions. The resonance line shapes are well fitted by the Lorentzian Eq. 30, though the widths are underpredicted for the $`N=2,3`$ resonances, as shown in Table 1. For example, the $`(N=2,n=4)`$ resonance has a much larger width than predicted by RWA and SU(2), which is mainly due to the involvement of other states during transition, such as a $`(132)`$ process, which is second order in perturbation theory and so affects the $`N>1`$ transitions more severely. Occasionally, resonances at similar frequencies may overlap and lead to broadened widths.

At a resonance, the Rabi oscillations of the particle as predicted in RWA (Eq. 29) can be seen explicitly in Fig. 2, where the energy of the particle vs. time is shown for $`n=4,3,4`$ and $`N=1,2,3`$. The RWA also predicts that at exact resonances, $`\chi =\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and therefore the oscillation periods should be inversely proportional to the widths of the resonances, $`T=\pi /\chi =\pi /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As shown in the last column of Table 1, this is clearly borne out in the numerical data, where $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }/\pi `$ is listed and is found to be closed to 1 for all resonances, deviating by less than 10% for even those with strong mixing.

Using the RWA and two-level approximation, we can calculate the dynamical phase easily. Removing the dynamical phase with the help of Eq. 29, we have

$$|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t)e^{i\omega _{nk}^{}_0^t\mathrm{sin}^2(\chi t^{})𝑑t^{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}c_k(t)\\ c_n(t)e^{i\omega _{nk}t}\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`\omega _{nk}^{}A/\mathrm{}+\omega _{nk}`$. For $`\omega =\omega _{nk}/N`$ resonances, if we choose $`tt_1`$ to be an integral multiple, $`q`$, of the cavity oscillation period $`\tau `$, we get

$$\beta (t_1,t_1+q\tau )=\frac{\omega _{nk}^{}}{2\chi }\left[\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{cos}(2\chi t_1+\stackrel{~}{\chi })\right],$$
(32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\chi q\tau `$. In particular, if $`t_1=0`$,

$$\beta _0(q\tau )\beta (0,q\tau )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q\tau )}{2},& \mathrm{for}(2m\frac{1}{2})<t/T(2m+\frac{1}{2}),\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q\tau )}{2}\pm \pi ,& \mathrm{for}(2m+\frac{1}{2})<t/T(2m+\frac{3}{2}),\end{array}$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\omega _{nk}t\frac{\omega _{nk}}{2\chi }\mathrm{sin}2\chi t`$ , with $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. There are sudden approximate $`\pi `$ jumps in $`\beta _0`$ at $`t/T=(2m+1)/2`$, as shown for example in Fig. 3 for $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=12.344`$. Since $`\chi \tau <<1`$, the phase change in each cycle ($`q=1`$) is

$$\beta _1(t_1)\beta (t_1,t_1+\tau )\omega _{nk}^{}\tau \mathrm{sin}^2\chi (t_1+\tau /2).$$
(34)
At an exact $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ resonance, $`\delta \omega =0`$ and $`A=0`$, and so

$$\beta _1(t_1)2N\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\left[\chi (t_1+N\pi /\omega _{nk})\right].$$
(35)
Therefore, the geometric phase oscillates with an amplitude of $`2N\pi `$ and period of $`T`$. Both of these RWA predictions are in excellent agreement with the numerical data, as shown in Fig. 2. Note that the $`\pi `$-jumps and the functional forms of the geometric phases are independent of $`ϵ`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, as long as they are nonzero.

## IV An Electron in a Magnetic Field

To gain more insight into the geometric phase for a two-level system, we have studied a simple model of a magnetic field rotating around a spin-1/2 particle. Suppose an electron of charge $`e`$ and mass $`m`$ is placed at the origin, in the presence of a magnetic field

$$𝐁(t)=B_0[\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}(\omega t)\widehat{i}+\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\omega t)\widehat{j}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{k}],$$
(36)
which has a constant magnitude $`B_0`$ but its direction sweeps out a cone with an opening angle $`\alpha `$, $`0<\alpha <\pi `$, at a constant angular speed $`\omega `$. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by

$$H(t)=\frac{e}{m}𝐁𝐒=\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(37)
where $`\omega _1eB_0/m`$ and S is the spin matrix.

The system can be solved analytically . The instantaneous eigenspinors of $`H(t)`$ with eigenenergies $`E_+=E_{}=\mathrm{}\omega _1/2`$ respectively are

$$|\psi _+(t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)\\ e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)\end{array}\right)$$
(38)
and

$$|\psi _{}(t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha /2)\\ e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha /2)\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
Suppose the electron spin is initially parallel to $`𝐁(0)`$, and we consider the case when the particle makes a transition to spin down along the instantaneous direction of $`𝐁`$. This happens with unit probability if $`\omega =\omega _1/\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$, provided that $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha 0`$. The state vector at any time is then

$`|\psi (t)=e^{i\omega t/2}\left\{\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda t}{2}}\right)|\psi _+(t)+i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda t}{2}}\right)|\psi _{}(t)\right\},`$ (40)
where $`\lambda =\omega \mathrm{sin}\alpha .`$

The Pancharatnam phases comparing the initial state with the state at time $`t`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$ are shown in Fig. (4-6). The sudden $`\pi `$-jump and a two-period oscillation can be seen in the case when $`\alpha =1/p`$, $`p`$ being an even integer, such as the case in Fig. (4). When $`p`$ is an odd integer, the Pancharatnam phase performs a single-period oscillation with no $`\pi `$-jump, as shown in Fig. (5). It has neither single-period nor two-period oscillation when other values of $`\alpha `$ are used, Fig. (6). If $`t=q\tau `$, with $`q`$ an integer and $`\tau =2\pi /\omega `$,

$$\beta _0(q\tau )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q\tau )}{2},& \mathrm{for}(2m\frac{1}{2})<q\tau /T(2m+\frac{1}{2}),\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(q\tau )}{2}\pm \pi ,& \mathrm{for}(2m+\frac{1}{2})<q\tau /T(2m+\frac{3}{2}),\end{array}$$
(41)
which has the same form as Eq. 33, where $`m`$ is an integer, $`T=2\pi /\lambda `$, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\left(\frac{\omega _1}{\lambda }\mathrm{sin}\lambda t+\omega t\right).$$
(42)
For the case $`t_1=(q1)\tau `$ and $`t=q\tau `$,

$$\beta _1(t_1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1+\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)\right],& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}<\mathrm{sin}\alpha <1/2,\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1+\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }(t_1)\right]\pm \pi ,& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2<\mathrm{sin}\alpha <1.\end{array}$$
(43)
In the limit $`\alpha 1`$,

$`\beta _1(t_1)`$ $``$ $`2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(t_1+\tau /2)\right),`$ (44)
which has the same form as Eq. 35.

In the cyclic limit, i.e., $`t=q\tau =T2\pi /\lambda `$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\omega T=\omega q\tau =2q\pi ,$$
(45)
and thus the geometric phases are $`\beta _0(T)=(q1)\pi `$ and $`\beta _1(T)=\pi `$.

Since the geometric phases in the two models - an electron in a rotating magnetic field and a particle in a vibrating cavity - are remarkably similar, we conjecture that the main features of the generalized geometric phase we calculated, especially the $`\pi `$-jumps, are universal for a particle in transition from one state to another. Similar features about the geometric phase have also been obtained in .

## V Geometrical model

Here we present a geometrical model that helps to visualize the evolution of the geometric phase of a two-level system. It is clear from Eq. 40 that the state vector traces out a path on the unit sphere defined by the angular coordinates $`\theta \lambda t`$ and $`\varphi \omega t`$. Note that we have used a time-dependent basis $`|\psi _+(t)`$, $`|\psi _{}(t)`$, which mark the North and South Poles respectively on the unit sphere. The excitation condition of our system therefore gives us the trajectory of the state on this unit sphere,

$$\theta =\varphi \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,$$
(46)
which is a spiral curve.

The solid angle subtended at the origin by the spiral curve and the geodesic, $`\varphi =0`$, up to any $`t=q\tau `$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2q\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}d\theta ^{}d\varphi ^{}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`2q\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(2q\pi \mathrm{sin}\alpha )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }},`$ (48)
which coincides with Eq. 42, in the limit $`\alpha 1`$. Therefore, we see from Eq. 41 and Eq. 43 that the geometric phases $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are simply the solid angles subtended by the spirial curve, $`\theta =\alpha \varphi `$, from $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =2(q1)\pi `$ up to $`\varphi =2q\pi `$ respectively, divided by $`2`$. This picture is a generalization of Berry’s  for adiabatic and cyclic evolution corresponding to trajectories with constant $`\theta =\theta _0`$, and the solid angle is simply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta _0)`$. Even the $`\pi `$-jump can be represented in this model by a jump of the particle from one sphere to another if its trajectory happens to reach the South Pole, which depends on the value of the angle $`\alpha `$. The double-sphere picture reminds one of the underlying SU(2) structure.

## VI Summary

In summary, we have reported the first calculation of the quantum geometric phase of a physical system in resonance - that of a particle in a vibrating cylindrical or spherical cavity, and we have shown that it acquires sudden $`\pi `$-jumps when the particle makes transitions from one state to another. We have derived analytic expressions in the RWA and SU(2) methods, which give excellent description of the energy, wavefunctions, and the geometric phases at these resonances. We found remarkably similar properties of the geometric phases for the simple system of an electron in a rotating magnetic field, which led us to conjecture that the main features of the generalized geometric phases and especially the $`\pi `$-jump we found are universal. We have also developed a geometrical model to help visualize these phases.

This work is partially supported by a Chinese University Direct Grant (Project ID: 2060093).


text:
# Geometric scaling in inclusive 𝐞𝐀 reactions and nonlinear perturbative QCD

## I Introduction

Perturbative QCD, in particular where based on factorization theorems for high energy processes, has been very successful in describing data from high energy experiments. However, perturbative evolution has almost always been linear in the parton densities, which was, and very often still is, quite sufficient to describe high energy scattering.

There are, however, situations where this is bound to fail. Among those are high energy scatterings at energies large enough to create a gluon medium in which multi–gluon correlations can no longer be neglected. This has first been discussed in the context of deep inelastic scattering of electrons off (large) nuclei, where both the large number of nucleons and the high energy lead to an increase in the number of gluons involved in the scattering McLerran and Venugopalan (1994a, b); Jalilian-Marian et al. (1997a); Balitsky (1996); Jalilian-Marian et al. (1999a, b); Weigert (2002); Iancu et al. (2001); Ferreiro et al. (2001). In this regime nonlinear effects, leading to a taming or saturation/unitarization of $`F_2^A`$, should be included.

In the guise of a very successful phenomenological fit, this idea has even been applied to the $`ep`$ experiment at HERA with its strong and, if untamed, unitarity violating rise of the proton structure function $`F_2^p(x_{\text{bj}},Q^2)`$ with decreasing $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ Abt et al. (1993); Derrick et al. (1993). This has led to the observation of “geometric scaling” satisfied by HERA data in the small $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ region Stasto et al. (2001). Our main focus here will be an attempt to extend this geometric scaling idea to nuclei and to check if it is already confirmed by available $`eA`$ data.

The question of the onset of this saturation/unitarization in inclusive QCD observables with increasing energy (decreasing $`x_{\mathrm{bj}}`$), in particular in the proton structure function $`F_2^p(x_{\mathrm{bj}},Q^2)`$, has been the subject of active discussions for many years (see a detailed discussion of this subject in Weigert (2002); Stasto et al. (2001) and references therein.). Phenomenologically, the key feature at small $`x_{\mathrm{bj}}`$ is the simple structure of the total $`\gamma ^{}p`$ cross section or $`F_2^{p,A}`$ that arises directly from the underlying physics picture. Viewed in the infinite momentum frame of the target, the virtual photon splits into a $`q\overline{q}`$ color-dipole (treated as eikonalized Wilson-lines) with a distribution characterized by $`Q^2`$. This dipole then punches through, and interacts with the target, which it sees as a pancake of infinitesimal longitudinal thickness. Consequently the cross section appears as a convolution of the square of a photon wave function, which gives the probability to create the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, and a dipole cross section, which contains all the information about the target and the strong interaction physics.

The latter carries $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ dependence which arises from gluonic fluctuations which induce an increase in the number of gluons freakfootnote . From this point of view, the target will display a growing density of gluons per transverse area (integrated over the longitudinal extent of the target) that drives the system into a saturation regime. The corresponding formula for the total cross section in $`\gamma ^{}p`$ is then

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(x_{\mathrm{bj}},Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2𝒛\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\alpha |\psi _\gamma ^{}(\alpha ,𝒛^2,Q^2)|^2}`$ (1)
$`\times \sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(x_{\mathrm{bj}},𝒛^2)`$
where $`\alpha `$ is the longitudinal momentum fraction of the $`q`$ or $`\overline{q}`$, and $`𝒛`$ their relative transverse separation. Note that the $`Q^2`$ and $`x_{\mathrm{bj}}`$-dependence is clearly separated into wave function and dipole cross section. This reflects the natural distinction between the transverse and longitudinal directions seen at high energies. $`Q^2`$ sets the scale for transverse resolution, but longitudinal information about the target is subsumed in the $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ dependence of the dipole cross section. The idea is that the dipole cross section depends on $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ only via a scale $`Q_s(x_{\text{bj}})`$ as $`\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(x_{\mathrm{bj}},𝒛^2)=\sigma _{\mathrm{dipole}}(𝒛^2Q_s^2(x_{\text{bj}}))`$. $`Q_s`$ is the saturation scale, i. e. the scale below which the gluonic content of the target becomes “black” or $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$ reaches its large size asymptotics.

Together with Eq. (1) this implies that $`\sigma _{\text{tot}}`$ and hence $`F_2^p`$ scales according to

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(x_{\text{bj}},Q^2)=\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}(x_0,\frac{Q^2}{Q_s^2(x_{\text{bj}})}Q_0^2).$$
(2)
This phenomenon is called geometric scaling and, as already mentioned, was first observed to be present in HERA data Stasto et al. (2001). The fit used in Stasto et al. (2001) assumes an “eikonal” shape for $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$ that saturates for large dipoles. As $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ decreases this saturation affects smaller and smaller distances, inducing $`Q_s`$ to grow, a fact which was parametrized by

$$Q_s(x_{\text{bj}}):=\left(\frac{x_0}{x_{\text{bj}}}\right)^\lambda Q_0.$$
(3)
The theoretical basis for such saturation/unitarization features, with a scaling behavior as in Eq. (2), together with precisely the functional dependence of $`Q_s`$ as in Eq. (3), lies in nonlinear evolution equations that try to predict this $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ dependence from first principles.

The most promising approach to properly include saturation/unitarization is the JIMWLK equation Weigert (2002) which resums the leading $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x_{\text{bj}})`$ terms in all N-point correlation functions of the participating fields not just the leading correlators as in $`k_{}`$-factorization. This leads to a non-linear renormalization group equation (RGE) for the generating functional for these N-point correlators which slows down the rapid growth of structure functions at small $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ while at the same time preventing the system from drifting into the infrared. This is the basis for a theoretically sound, selfconsistent treatment. Linearizing the JIMWLK equation, one recovers the well-known BFKL equation (see Weigert (2002); Jalilian-Marian et al. (1997b) for details) as its low density limit. We thus learn to interpret the loss of infrared safety in BFKL as being due to the absence of any nonlinear corrections and the predicted too rapid a growth in $`F_2^p(x_{\text{bj}},Q^2)`$ as signals of BFKL having exceeded its range of validity.

The full content of the JIMWLK equation can be accessed numerically: being a functional equation of Fokker-Plank type it can be rewritten as a Langevin equation with white noise. This then can be discretized and solved using lattice methods Rummukainen and Weigert (2002). This yields the $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ dependence of $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$ and in particular the evolution “rate” $`\lambda `$ of Eq. (3).

Of particular interest to us in this context is the fact that the evolution equation is target independent. Target dependence arises only from the initial conditions for the $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ dependence of the dipole cross section (related to the initial distribution of gluons in the transverse plane), which will, in particular, be $`A`$ dependent. These facts will allow us to compare $`ep`$ and $`eA`$ scattering and investigate whether one of the basic predictions of this approach, geometric scaling, can also be found in inclusive $`eA`$ processes.

## II Geometric scaling and nuclear shadowing within nonlinear pQCD.

Before talking about geometric scaling in $`eA`$ scattering, one should address nuclear shadowing or the suppression of $`\frac{1}{A}F_2^A`$ to $`F_2^p`$ at small $`x_{\text{bj}}`$. If this is at all possible it increases our phenomenological leverage considerably by allowing us to compare experiments with different $`A`$ and $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ directly. This is of particular importance as the available $`eA`$ data do not offer any leverarm in $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ for a given $`Q^2`$ or vice versa.

In fact, the leading effect of nuclear shadowing can be easily incorporated in this approach by realizing that the change in transverse size simply changes the overall normalization of $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$ while the change in longitudinal extent can be incorporated by increasing our initial $`Q_s`$ by a factor $`A^\delta `$. In the simplest case, assuming the distribution of spectator partons in the target to be homogeneous, $`\delta =1/3`$. Eq. (2) for $`F_2\sigma Q^2`$ then turns into

$$\left(\frac{x_{\text{bj}}}{x_0}\right)^{2\lambda }\frac{F_2^A(x_{\text{bj}},Q^2)}{A^{2/3+1/3}}=F_2^p(x_0,\left(\frac{x_{\text{bj}}}{x_0}\right)^{2\lambda }\frac{Q^2}{A^{1/3}}).$$
(4)
Note that $`0x_{\text{bj}}A`$ since $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ is given per nucleon. The power $`2/3`$ in the overall $`A`$ dependence stems from a simple geometric factor, the area of the target, in the impact parameter integral in $`\sigma _{\text{dipole}}`$. Thus we have an unambiguous prediction for $`\frac{1}{A}F_2^A`$ which states that not only can the observed nuclear shadowing in the $`eA`$ data be explained by a simple rescaling of the variable $`Q^2`$ with $`A^{1/3}`$, but also that all $`\frac{1}{A}F_2^A`$ data should, plotted vs. $`\tau =\left(\frac{x_{\text{bj}}}{x_0}\right)^{2\lambda }\frac{Q^2}{A^{1/3}}`$, lie on the same curve as the data for $`F_2^p`$. Hence, this approach also predicts geometric scaling in inclusive $`eA`$ scattering analogous to the one observed in $`ep`$ scattering.

## III Geometric scaling in $`\frac{1}{A}F_2^A`$

Note that Eq. (4) is strictly true only in the asymptotic region of small $`x_{\text{bj}}`$, large $`Q^2`$ and large nuclei. Therefore, we expect that there might be nonperturbative corrections which can spoil the form of Eq. (4) and consequently we perform a fit to the combined nuclear data with the following form:

$$\left(\frac{x_{\text{bj}}}{x_0}\right)^{2\lambda }\frac{1}{A^\gamma }\frac{1}{A}F_2^A(x_{\text{bj}},Q^2)=F_2^p(x_0,\left(\frac{x_{\text{bj}}}{x_0}\right)^{2\lambda }\frac{Q^2}{A^\delta }),$$
(5)
where $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ are the fit parameters, which ideally would be $`0`$ and $`1/3`$ respectively.

The starting point of our analysis is the published NMC Arneodo et al. (1997) and E665 Adams et al. (1995a, b) data for the ratios of nuclear to deuterium structure functions $`2F_2^A/AF_2^D`$. In Fig. 1 we show the ratios as functions of $`x`$.

From these ratios we obtain the nuclear structure functions $`F_2^A`$ as follows: we first note that NMC data show the deuterium to proton structure function ratio being $`F_2^D/2F_2^p=1`$ to better than 95% accuracy in the dynamical range of interest ($`x_{\text{bj}}<0.1`$Arneodo et al. (1997), which is well within the error margins of the nuclear $`F_2`$ measurements. Thus, we convert $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ to structure functions $`F_2^A`$ by multiplying the ratios by $`F_2^p`$, using the geometric scaling ansatz to extrapolate $`F_2^p`$ to the appropriate values of $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ and $`Q^2`$.

This rescaling is necessary since the kinematic ranges of the HERA, NMC and E665 experiments are not identical as shown in Fig. 2.

Now we are ready to use Eq. (5) to compare nuclear and proton structure functions. In Fig. 1 the rescaled $`F_2^A`$ is seen to fall on top of the dashed line representing the geometric scaling fit to the HERA $`F_2^p`$. For comparison we also show the quality of the scaling fit within the HERA data, offset by a factor of 5.

The best fit to the combined nuclear data is achieved for $`\gamma =0.09`$ and $`\delta =1/4`$ which are close to but not quite the asymptotic values the nonlinear pQCD approach predicts. The remaining parameter $`\lambda 0.18`$ in Eq. (5) is already determined from the geometric scaling fit to the HERA data. With this value for $`\lambda `$, the saturation scale at the upper end of the HERA shadowing region at $`x_0=10^1`$ comes out to be marginally “perturbative”, $`Q_s^2=1\text{GeV}^2`$.

We found that the NMC calcium data allows a smaller value of $`\gamma `$ and, more importantly, a value of $`\delta =1/3`$ if the data on lighter nuclei is left out. This can be seen best in a log-linear plot of the scaled $`F_2`$ ratios shown in Fig. 4, where the plateau from $`\tau =0.1`$ to $`\tau =10`$ shows good overall scaling behavior. $`\delta =1/3`$ would lift the NMC Ca data fully up to 1. This seems to indicate that the Ca nucleus is large enough for the basic assumptions of the nonlinear pQCD approach to be valid. A very encouraging sign, indeed.

Also note that there is a consistent difference in the E665 and NMC data with the E665 data being much flatter in the ratio $`2F_2^A/AF_2^D`$, as evidenced in the comparison between the two calcium data sets and shown in Fig. 4. This apparent inconsistency between the two data sets disappears when the ratio $`12F_2^A/AF_2^C`$ is compared between the two experiments nmc . This question needs to be addressed experimentally.

Notwithstanding all of the above, nuclear data from the proposed Electron Ion Collider at BNL on heavy nuclei at small $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ and large $`Q^2`$ is necessary to be absolutely definitive about geometric scaling in inclusive $`eA`$ scattering. These experiments will by design provide data at smaller $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ but one should take care to open up the phase space region. Only if we have access to a range of $`x_{\text{bj}}`$ values at any given $`Q^2`$ (and vice versa) for each species $`A`$, can we obtain independent fits for the evolution rate $`\lambda `$. This would be a prerequisite to experimentally disentangle and confirm the $`A`$ and $`x`$ dependence extracted simultaneously above. As the errors on the nuclear data get smaller one would also require a direct measurement of $`F_2^A/AF_2^p`$ that would allow us to do away with our rather cavalier treatment of $`F_2^D/2F_2^p`$.

## IV Conclusions

To summarize, we demonstrate for the first time that the NMC and E665 data for the nuclear structure function $`\frac{1}{A}F_2^A`$ also exhibit, modulo the caveats given above, geometric scaling as already seen in the nucleon structure function $`F_2^p`$. This has been confirmed using the shadowing features of the nonlinear pQCD approach, which, as the dominant effect, consists of a simple rescaling of $`Q_s^2`$ by $`A^{1/3}`$. With the presently available nuclear data which are at rather low $`Q^2`$ we had to allow slight modifications in the powers entering the the $`A`$ dependence in order to get a perfect fit. The NMC data for calcium, the heaviest nucleus available within this dataset, would in fact be compatible with the $`A^{1/3}`$ scaling. Given the limited phase space regions covered in the data sets we find it very encouraging how well the geometric scaling in $`eA`$ follows the one in $`ep`$.

AF was supported by the Emmi-Noether Grant of the DFG, AS by BMBF and HW by the DFG Habilitanden-program.