text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The concept of jamming is emerging as a fundamental feature of many systems with slow relaxation dynamics such as granular matter, complex fluids and structural glasses . Whereas one can think of liquids or suspensions as consisting of particles which move very slowly compared to gases, there comes a point where all particles are in close contact with one another and therefore experience structural arrest. In granular systems and compressed emulsions there is no kinetic energy of consequence; the typical energy required to change the positions of the jammed particles is very large compared to the thermal energy at room temperature. As a result, the material remains arrested in a metastable state and is able to withstand an applied stress .

There is a growing literature studying the ”jammed” state in particulate assemblies, aiming to characterise its micromechanics . It has been shown experimentally that the stresses are distributed inhomogeneously through granular materials and the features of the distribution are useful in inferring the structural elements associated with mechanisms of supporting the applied stress. In order to develop a theory to describe such closely packed particles one needs to know the geometry of the packing in the bulk, and the distribution and propagation of stress in these systems.

Several approaches have so far been employed, including 2D and 3D experimentation , numerical simulations  and statistical modelling . Previous experiments in 3D assemblies have been confined to measurements of the probability distribution of forces exerted at the boundaries with the container, thus reducing the dimensionality of the problem . These measurements provide a quantitative understanding of the inhomogeneity of stress transmission within the bulk. However, the method does not have access to the spatial arrangement of the contact force network and other structural features, such as force chains and arching, which have been postulated as the signature of jamming .

The salient feature of the probability distribution $`P(f)`$ of interparticle contact force $`f`$ in jammed systems, obtained from the above methods, is an exponential decay above the mean value of the force. This feature of $`P(f)`$ seems very robust, with growing evidence that it is independent of particle rigidity , crystallinity , tangential forces, construction history and friction . Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus on the general functional form of $`P(f)`$ as there are significant discrepancies in the literature particularly regarding the behaviour at small forces, both between experimental data and the theoretical model predictions. Moreover, the possibility of a crossover to a Gaussian-like distribution has been observed at large confining pressures .

In this paper we present a novel method to measure the force distribution within a concentrated emulsion system in its jammed state, which provides the complete three-dimensional information of the contact force network and the spatial arrangement of droplets. We address this problem using confocal microscopy, which provides direct measurement of the dispersed phase morphology within the bulk of the sample. The emulsion droplets are compressed by an external pressure through centrifugation because of the density difference between the phases, and a force network develops within the system in response to the applied stress. At high volume fractions, above the random close packing regime, emulsions exhibit an elasticity which is rationalised by the storage of energy through the deformation of droplets, given in terms of their Laplace pressure . The degree of deformation is used to derive an interdroplet force. The 3D imaging of a whole ensemble allows the calculation of the forces between the droplets, thus enabling the determination of $`P(f)`$. We find that the distribution is characterised by a small peak at low forces and an exponential decay at forces above the mean value, a result that can be described by the functional form of $`P(f)`$ derived from the simple theoretical model we propose in this paper.

The form of the probability distribution is independent of the material of the particle provided it has well defined elastic properties. Therefore we can expect the micromechanics of an emulsion, comprised of very “soft” particles, to bear many similarities with a packing of granular materials, such as ball bearings or glass beads. Even though there have been no studies of $`P(f)`$ specifically devised for compressed emulsion systems, we compare our results with the existing data for other jammed systems such as grains and foams, thus testing the hypothesis of a common behaviour for all such matter.

We use numerical simulations to examine the effect of polydispersity, osmotic pressure, and other microstructural features, such as the coordination number, on the distribution of forces. They are designed to mimic the experimental procedure on monodisperse and polydisperse distributions of soft particles. The numerical simulation result at the appropriate confining pressure is in good agreement with that obtained from the experiment, showing that the form of the force distribution is indeed independent of particle polydispersity.

Moreover, we offer in this paper what we believe is the simplest realistic theory of the force distribution, a theory which does not attempt the ambitious study of the percolation of forces , but has the advantage of a simple analytic solution. The theory is sufficiently crude that the reader will be able to see all sorts of ways in which it can be improved, however the simple prediction of the theory can easily be compared to experimental results and is found to describe the data well.

## 2 Experiment

We use a Zeiss LSM510 confocal laser scanning microscope equipped with a high numerical aperture oil-immersion objective lens with a 40$`\times `$ magnification. The fluorescent dye is excited with a 488nm Argon laser and the emitted light is detected using a photomultiplier behind a long-pass 505nm filter. These settings are appropriate for the excitation of Nile Red dye, used to label the emulsion described below \[see Ref.  for more details\]. The sample volume (76.3$`\times `$76.3$`\times `$23.6$`\mu `$m) is typically acquired from regions 30$`\mu `$m below the upper surface of the sample. In this work a 3D image is acquired in approximately 2 minutes.

The emulsion system constitutes of silicone oil droplets in a refractive index matching solution of water ($`w_t=50\%`$) and glycerol ($`w_t=50\%`$), stabilised by 0.01$`mM`$ sodium dodecylsulphate (SDS). This system is a modification of the emulsion reported by Mason et al.  to produce a transparent sample suitable for confocal microscopy.

The droplet size distribution, measured by image analysis, gives a mean radius of 3.4$`\mu m`$ with a radius range between 1$`\mu m`$ and 10$`\mu m`$. This relatively narrow droplet size distribution is achieved by applying high shear rates ($`7000s^1`$) to a coarsely mixed parent emulsion using a Linkam shear stage . To provide contrast between the phases in the microscope, the dispersed oil phase is fluorescently labelled by adding 0.1mM solution of Nile Red dye, predissolved in acetone. The emulsion system prepared in this way remains stable to coalescence for at least a year.

The threshold volume fraction for the onset of elasticity depends on the polydispersity of the emulsion, or in other words, the efficiency of the packing. The sequence of images in Fig. 1 shows 2D slices from the middle of the sample volume after: (a) creaming under gravity, (b) centrifugation at 6000g for 20 minutes and (c) centrifugation at 8000g for 20 minutes. The samples were left to equilibrate for several hours prior to measurements being taken. The volume fraction at the onset of droplet deformation for our polydisperse system is $`\varphi =0.90`$, determined by image analysis. This high volume fraction obtained at a relatively small osmotic pressure of 125 Pa is achieved due to the polydispersity of the sample.

Confocal imaging of the static sample revealed an effect which occurs upon emulsion compression. The areas of contact between the droplets fluoresce with a higher intensity than the undeformed perimeters on the bodies of the droplets, thus highlighting the regions of interest. Images presented in Fig. 1 illustrate this trend as the osmotic pressure is increased. This effect can be attributed to the increase in dye concentration at the regions of deformation as two droplet surfaces are pushed together to distances smaller than the resolution of the microscope. The fluorescent dye has an affinity for the surfactant so that an enhanced surfactant concentration leads to an enhanced dye concentration and thus higher fluorescence. Future work will involve a more thorough investigation of this effect.

### 2.1 The Force Model

The forces between the droplets are calculated from the 3D images (of size 256$`\times `$256$`\times `$64 voxels) by means of existing interdroplet force models. We extract the positions and radii of all the droplets with subvoxel accuracy using a Fourier Filtering Method (FFM) . The areas of contact patches shown in Fig. 1(b) are extracted based on an intensity threshold, since they are brighter than either the droplets or the aqueous background.

The determination of an accurate force model for the compression of two droplets is not trivial, but can be simplified within certain limits. For small deformations with respect to the droplet surface area, the Laplace pressure remains unchanged and all the energy of the applied stress is presumed to be stored in the deformation of the surface. Hence, at the microscopic level, two spherical droplets in contact with radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ interact with a normal force

$$f=\frac{\sigma }{\stackrel{~}{R}}A$$
(1)
This is the Princen model , where $`A`$ is the area of deformation, $`\sigma `$ is the interfacial tension of the droplets and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the geometric mean of the radii of the undeformed droplets, $`\stackrel{~}{R}=2R_1R_2/(R_1+R_2)`$. The normal force acts only in compression, i.e. $`f=0`$ when there is no overlap.

The above force corresponds to an energy of deformation which is quadratic in the area of deformation, analogous to a harmonic oscillator potential that describes a spring satisfying Hooke’s law. There have been several more detailed calculations  and numerical simulations  to improve on this model and allow for anharmonicity in the droplet response by also taking into consideration the number of contacts by which the droplet is confined. Typically these improved models lead to a force law for small deformations of the form $`fA^\alpha `$ , where $`\alpha `$ is a coordination number dependent exponent in the range 1-1.5. Nevertheless, this work assumes the Princen model, the validity of which was tested by the summation of all the forces on a single droplet. Since the sum on each droplet could be approximated to zero we consider the method adequate.

### 2.2 Experimental results

Figure 2 shows the probability distribution of interdroplet forces, $`P(f)`$, for the sample shown in Fig. 1(b). We use the Princen model (Eq. (1), $`\sigma =9.8\times 10^3`$N/m ) to obtain the interdroplet forces from the contact area data extracted from the image analysis described above.

The forces are calculated from the bright, fluorescent patches that highlight the contact areas between droplets. The radii of the droplets needed to obtain the forces according to Eq. (1) are obtained with the FFM. The distribution data shown are extracted from 1234 forces arising from 450 droplets. The data shows an exponential distribution at large forces, consistent with results of many previous experimental and simulation data on granular matter, foams, and glasses. The behaviour in the low force regime indicates a small peak, although the power law decay tending towards zero is not well pronounced. The best fit to the data gives a functional form of the distribution $`P(f)f^{0.9}e^{1.9f/\overline{f}}`$, consistent with the theoretical model proposed in Section 3 and the existing literature . It is inappropriate to draw conclusions on the physical significance of these coefficients, since the geometry of the packing in the experiment is very different to our simple theoretical model.

Our experimental data allows us to examine the spatial distribution of the forces in the compressed emulsion, shown in Fig. 3. In this admittedly small sample volume, the forces appear to be uniformly distributed in space and do not show evidence of localisation of forces within the structure. Moreover, we find that the average stress is independent of direction, indicating isotropy. Other experiments are underway to probe the existence of force chains in compressed emulsion systems.

## 3 Theory

Although the experimental system consists of polydisperse particles which are deformable, in order to get a tractable theory, we simply consider spheres in multiple contact greater than or equal to four in 3-D. Even though this is a gross simplification we believe that a theory that can be carried through to an analytic solution is worthwhile. The reader is referred to more comprehensive theories such as the q-model  or force-splitting models  for more detailed analysis, which are correspondingly more difficult to solve.

By Newton’s laws, in equilibrium the sum of all the forces exerted on a particle by its nearest neighbours is zero. In three dimensions the average shape of a particle is a sphere, and the minimum co-ordination number $`N`$ is four . Consequently the force $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ exerted by a particle on one of its neighbours will equal the sum of the forces $`\stackrel{}{f}_1+\stackrel{}{f}_2+\stackrel{}{f}_3`$ of the other neighbours in contact with it. To simplify we consider the scalar $`f=|\stackrel{}{f}|`$ since it will have a very similar distribution on every grain. The distribution of the vector $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ will differ even on adjacent grains, therefore we calculate $`P(f)`$, not $`P(\stackrel{}{f})`$. It is important to note that only those forces which are pushing on each particle are taken into account in the calculation of $`P(f)`$, a fact which will appear in the range of integration.

Our model takes into account the direction cosines of each of the forces. Excluded volume is also an important factor as particles cannot overlap and the four particle force correlation function should be included. All these effects can be crudely modelled by blurring the contribution from each of the pushing forces by a factor $`\lambda _i[0,1](i=1,2,3)`$, which plays the role of the direction cosine and the other correlation factors.

A force balance equation which is capable of analytic solution is

$$f=\lambda _1^2f_1+\lambda _2^2f_2+\lambda _3^2f_3.$$
(2)
This gives rise to an equation of the Boltzmann form:

$$P(f)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑f_1𝑑f_2𝑑f_3_0^1𝑑\lambda _1𝑑\lambda _2𝑑\lambda _3\delta (f\lambda _1^2f_1\lambda _2^2f_2\lambda _3^2f_3)P(f_1)P(f_2)P(f_3)$$
(3)
It is convenient to work with the Fourier transform of the probability distribution $`𝒫(k)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{ikf}P(f)𝑑f`$ which gives

$$𝒫(k)=(_0^1𝑑\lambda 𝒫(\lambda ^2k))^3,$$
(4)
which can be solved to give the normalised distribution

$$P(f)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{f^{1/2}}{p^{3/2}}e^{f/p},$$
(5)
where $`p\overline{f}`$ and the proportionality constant depends on the exponent of the power law rise at low forces. More generally, if there are $`N`$ contacts arising from differing geometric configurations, similar calculations give

$$P(f)f^{1/(N2)}e^{f/p}.$$
(6)
Note that for a large number of contacts, $`P(f)`$ reaches zero very near $`f=0`$. In Fig. 2 we see a comparison between the theoretical form and the experimental data in good agreement. There are many improvements which are essential for belief in coefficients, but the functional form, starting at zero and ending with an exponential decay, seems well founded.

## 4 Simulations

We perform molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to gain insight into the effects of osmotic pressure, polydispersity, and other microstructural features such as the coordination number and force chains on the probability distribution, $`P(f)`$. The numerical protocol is designed to mimic the experimental procedure used to prepare compressed emulsion systems at different osmotic pressures, described in Section 2. Our model considers an assembly of deformable spherical droplets interacting via repulsive normal forces given by the Princen model in Eq. (1). The continuous liquid phase is modeled in its simplest form, as a viscous drag force acting on every droplet, proportional to its velocity. The dynamical evolution of the droplets is obtained by solving Newton’s equation for an assembly constrained by a given osmotic pressure. Our model is similar to the Discrete Element Method (DEM)  used in MD simulations of granular materials. However, we adjust the DEM for the system of compressed emulsions by exclusion of transversal forces (tangential elasticity and Coulomb friction) and by computation of interparticle forces using the principles of interfacial mechanics described by the Princen model instead of the Hertz model, often used in contact mechanics of solid particles $`(f\xi ^{3/2}`$).

The simulations begin with a set of non-overlapping 2000 spherical particles located at random positions in a periodically repeated cubic cell of side $`L`$. At the outset, a series of strain-controlled isotropic compressions and expansions are applied until a volume fraction slightly below the critical density of jamming is reached . The system is then compressed and extended slowly until a specified value of the stress and volume fraction is achieved at static equilibrium. The distribution of forces within the static structure is calculated and then directly compared to that obtained from experiments and theory.

We first consider a quasi-monodisperse system composed of 1000 droplets of radius 1.05 $`\mu `$m and 1000 droplets of radius $`0.95\mu `$m. Then the effect of polydispersity is investigated by consideration of the radii distribution obtained from our experiments characterized by a Gaussian distribution with a mean value $`<R>=3.4\mu `$m and standard deviation 1.44$`\mu `$m, and a distribution range between 1$`\mu `$m and $`6.6\mu `$m. The osmotic pressure, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, is varied between 1 Pa and 1 kPa, again mimicking the experiments.

Figure 4 shows the results of the simulations. We see that the simulated data for monodisperse and polydisperse systems at low osmotic pressure agrees with the experiments and the theory. At low pressures the system is close to jamming (near RCP at $`\varphi 0.64`$) and the average coordination number is close to its minimal value $`<N>=6`$ for particles interacting by normal forces only as given by constraint arguments . At large pressures, when the coordination number significantly departs from its minimal value, the probability distribution departs from the prediction of the theory and crosses-over to a Gaussian-like distribution in the case of the monodisperse system. In the case of the polydisperse system, the distribution at large pressures departs from the exponential decay at large forces, but its form cannot be fitted by a Gaussian-like distribution.

The numerical simulation performed under the same conditions as in the experiment yields a $`P(f)`$ of the same functional form for the appropriate osmotic pressure ($`\mathrm{\Pi }100`$ Pa) and polydispersity (Fig. 4b), although the fitting coefficients obtained numerically do not correspond to those obtained experimentally. Moreover, the monodisperse system shows similar results as long as the system is at low osmotic pressure. Our results indicate that the significant feature is not the detail of the system, but its proximity to the jamming transition.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have presented experimental data showing the force distribution in three dimensions of a lightly compressed emulsion, close to the jamming transition. These data show an exponential distribution of interdroplet forces $`P(f)`$ at large $`f`$. At low $`f`$, a peak in the distribution function is observed. We have fitted the experimental data with a function of the form $`P(f)f^{0.9}e^{1.9f/\overline{f}}`$, suggested by the simple theoretical model proposed for such a system. In addition we have carried out simulations to determine the effect of polydispersity and osmotic pressure on the force distribution function and these results are in good agreement with the experimental data. They indicate that the $`P(f)`$ is not sensitive to polydispersity, however the exponential decay only fits the data well in distributions close to ’jamming’, at low confining pressures.

The theoretical model predicts a general distribution of the form $`P(f)f^ne^{(n+1)f/\overline{f}}`$, where the power law coefficient $`n`$ is determined by the packing geometry of the system. It is too crude a model to account for the complexity of the emulsion system, and it is therefore inappropriate to draw conclusions from direct comparisons of the coefficients obtained from theory with those arising from experimental and simulation data. Nevertheless, the agreement in the functional form for all three methods is an important result. Curiously, we observe that the fitting coefficients agree for the experimental data, the 2D theoretical model and the quasi-monodisperse emulsion system at a comparable pressure to the experiment.

In the future we hope to determine the mechanism by which the contact patches between droplets exhibit enhanced fluorescence and also to use the experimental data to test the validity of various force models for compressible droplets. In the experimental section we used the Princen model to obtain the interdroplet force from the contact area between particles. However in principle, we should be able to extract the force law from the data. This study gives supporting evidence to the universality of the concept of jamming and provides a very reliable experimental way of investigating microstructural elements within the bulk of any refractive index matched, closely packed system of an appropriate size.

We thank D. Brujić, D. Grinev, J. Bibette, M. Shattuck, A. Tolley, J. Melrose, and R. Blumenfeld for inspirational discussions. We are greatfull to the EPSRC and the Petroleum Research Fund for support of this work.


format: text

text:
# On optical black holes in moving dielectrics

On leave of absence from the \]Moscow State University

## Abstract

We study the optical paths of the light rays propagating inside a nonlinear moving dielectric media. For the rapidly moving dielectrics we show the existence of a distinguished surface which resembles, as far as the light propagation is concerned, the event horizon of a black hole. Our analysis clarifies the physical conditions under which electromagnetic analogues of the gravitational black holes can eventually be obtained in laboratory.

One of the most striking and well established results of general relativity theory is the prediction of a bounded region in space from where nothing can escape, not even light. Such an object, a black hole, arises as the spherically symmetric solution of Einstein equations, and its analysis on the basis of the semi-classical quantum field theory was considered to be fundamental for the understanding of quantum gravity. In particular, in the context of the semi-classical gravity, Hawking suggested that black holes can evaporate Hawking75 . Since the temperature of the Hawking radiation is very low, astrophysical events are unlikely to give an evidence for such a phenomenon.

During the last decades efforts have been put into a development of the alternative physical models in which such a prediction could be experimentally verified under laboratory conditions. This class of models was called ‘analog gravity’ conference , and it deals with the propagation of sound waves in moving fluids Unruh ; Unruh95 ; Visser98 ; Garay  and with the electrodynamics of nonlinear media comm ; Brevik ; analog ; Souza ; Salim ; PRL , among others (see for instance Ref. Barcelo,  and references therein).

The search for electromagnetic black holes represents an interesting topic in the broad area of analogue gravity, but the effective construction of such structures still remains an open problem. In a recent work Obukhov  a certain progress has been achieved in this direction. In particular, it was shown that the birefringence effect occurring in moving nonlinear dielectrics can be described in terms of the optical geometries (also known as the electromagnetic effective geometries). Accordingly, the propagation of the electromagnetic light rays is governed by the optical metric tensors:

$`g_{}^{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }+(ϵ\mu 1)u^\mu u^\nu \mu u^{(\mu }e^{\nu )\alpha }F_{\alpha \beta }u^\beta `$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}u_\alpha e^{\alpha (\mu }F^{\nu )\beta }u_\beta ,`$
$`g_+^{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }+(ϵ\mu 1)u^\mu u^\nu .`$ (2)
Here $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is the background (flat) spacetime metric, and the magnetic permeability $`\mu `$ is assumed to be a constant. The derivative $`e^{\mu \nu }ϵ/F_{\mu \nu }`$ of the dielectric permittivity $`ϵ`$ with respect to the electromagnetic field measures the nonlinear effects. The motion of the medium is described by the velocity vector $`u^\mu `$ measured in units of the velocity of light in vacuum (i.e., $`c=1`$ except specified otherwise). The meaning of the Eqs. (1),(2) is that the wave vectors $`K_\lambda =_\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lie on the null geodesics of the above two optical metrics, depending on their polarization state. Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the corresponding wave-front surface.

The aim of the present work is to show explicitly how the analogue event horizons can be built from the above metric structures. We analyze the propagation of the two light rays described by the optical metrics (1),(2). Despite of birefringence, the horizons for both polarization modes are shown to coincide. The spherical configuration is discussed, and we find an analogue event horizon resembling the Schwarzschild event horizon. Further, we study the cylindrically symmetric configuration as a possibly simpler structure to be built in a laboratory.

Let us now examine the light propagation inside a moving nonlinear dielectric matter. Consider at first the spherically symmetric case with the background metric $`ds_\eta ^2=dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2`$ in which the dielectric flows radially with the velocity $`u^\mu =\gamma (1,\beta ,0,0)`$, where $`\gamma (1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$. We assume a point charge fixed at the origin, and correspondingly the only non-zero component of the electromagnetic field is then $`F^{01}=E_r`$. Thus $`e^{01}F_{01}=E(dϵ/dE)ϵ^{}`$, with $`E=|E_r|`$. The optical metric (1) then reads

$`g_{}^{00}`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ+ϵ^{})\gamma ^2\left(\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{ϵ}}\right),`$ (3)
$`g_{}^{01}`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ+ϵ^{})\gamma ^2\beta \left(\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\right),`$ (4)
$`g_{}^{11}`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ+ϵ^{})\gamma ^2\left(\beta ^2\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\right),`$ (5)
$`g_{}^{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta g_{}^{33}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}.`$ (6)
Note that $`g_+^{\mu \nu }=g_{}^{\mu \nu }|_{ϵ^{}=0}`$. For spherically symmetric flows $`\beta =\beta (r)`$, the two metrics $`g_\pm ^{\mu \nu }`$ evidently admit the two Killing vector fields $`\xi =\{/t,/\phi \}`$. Written in components, $`\xi _a^\mu =\delta _a^\mu `$ with $`a=0,3`$. The light then propagates along the null geodesics with the tangent vectors $`K^\mu =\dot{x}^\mu =(\dot{t},\dot{r},\dot{\theta },\dot{\phi })`$ in such a way that $`\xi _0^\mu K_\mu =K_0`$ and $`\xi _3^\mu K_\mu =K_3`$ are constants along the corresponding optical path. Here the ‘dot’ denotes the derivative with respect to the affine parameters $`s`$ along the optically null geodesic lines. For simplicity, we choose the radial propagation with $`K_2=0=K_3`$. The path of the light ray is then determined by $`\dot{t}=\dot{r}(n\pm \beta )/(n\beta \pm 1)`$. Here $`n=\sqrt{\mu ϵ}`$ is the refraction index of the medium in the absence of external fields. The plus (minus) sign corresponds to the wave propagating from (to) the origin. The radial coordinate of the photon then changes in time as

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{n\beta \pm 1}{n\pm \beta }.$$
(7)
For the case of the matter flow directed outwards, i.e., $`\beta >0`$, then the incoming light (with $`\dot{r}<0`$) apparently “freezes” at the radius $`r_h`$ such that $`n\beta |_{r_h}=1`$. The same happens for an outgoing light in the inwardly directed flow: the “freezing” occurs then at $`n\beta |_{r_h}=1`$. Both cases are compactly summarized in

$$n^2\beta ^2r_h=1.$$
(8)
It is worthwhile to note that “freezing” is absent for the light propagating in the same direction as the moving dielectric medium.

There is a clear physical interpretation of the above result. Recall that $`\beta =v/c`$ for the 3-velocity $`v`$ of the matter flow, and $`v_c=c/n`$ is the velocity of light in a medium with refraction index $`n`$ in the absence of external fields. Then we can straightforwardly recast the equation (7) into the form of the relativistic transformation of the velocity:

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{v\pm v_c}{1\pm vv_c/c^2}.$$
(9)
The ‘freezing’ of light takes place at a surface on which the velocity of matter $`v`$ becomes equal to the velocity of light $`v_c`$ in the medium. The geometrical interpretation is also clear: we find that the metric coefficient $`g_{}^{11}(r_h)=0`$ vanishes at the radius $`r_h`$, see Eq. (5). The same conclusion is true also for the second optical metric, $`g_+^{11}(r_h)=0`$, i.e., both polarization modes (1) and (2) behave similarly. For the radial motion considered above, the stationary metrics given in the Eqs. (1), (2) can be rewritten into the static “black hole” form

$$ds_\pm ^2=g_{00}^\pm d\stackrel{~}{t}^2\frac{d\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{g_{00}^\pm }r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,$$
(10)
with $`g_{00}^{}=\gamma ^2(1n^2\beta ^2)/\mu (ϵ+ϵ^{})`$, by means of the coordinate transformations

$`d\stackrel{~}{t}`$ $`=`$ $`dt+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\pm ^{01}}{g_\pm ^{11}}}dr,`$ (11)
$`d\stackrel{~}{r}`$ $`=`$ $`dr\sqrt{(g_\pm ^{01})^2g_\pm ^{00}g_\pm ^{11}}.`$ (12)
We note, for the case here described, that $`g_{00}^\pm `$ is proportional to $`g_\pm ^{11}`$.

From the above analysis, which generalizes the previous calculations PRL , we find that either an ultra-relativistic motion of the matter or a highly refringent medium Kocharovskaya ; Phillips , as it is found in Bose-Einstein condensates (see, however, a relevant discussion in Ref. Brevik, ), is needed in order to display such a horizon structure. Highly refringent media are usually quite dispersive, and thus the effective horizon would occur in this case only for a narrow range of frequencies. A similar feature occurs also for sonic analog models, where the horizon is defined only in a narrow range of low frequencies. A practical realization of the analogue black hole configuration requires that either $`n=n(r)`$ or $`\beta =\beta (r)`$, or even both.

Recently, it has been proposed that Hawking temperature is a purely kinematic effect that is generic to Lorentzian geometries containing event horizons Visser98b , and thus being dependent only on the effective metric structure. For the spherically symmetric solution the Hawking temperature $`T`$ of the analogue black hole is straightforwardly calculated for the metric (3)-(6) as

$$T=\left|\frac{\mathrm{}\gamma ^2\beta n}{2\pi k_B}\left(\frac{\beta }{r}+\frac{\beta ϵ^{}}{2ϵE}\frac{E}{r}\right)\right|_{r_h}.$$
(13)
Equation (13) shows that the nonlinearity may significantly contribute to this temperature. It should be noted, however, that the complete understanding of the physical meaning of the Hawking temperature associated with an analogue black hole is still an open question Brevik , and it can be settled only after a detailed analysis of the radiation processes at the horizon. It should be stressed that the approximation of geometrical optics becomes unreliable for the discussion of modes whose wavelengths are comparable with the size of the horizon, as occurs in Hawking radiation processes.

Experimentally though, it appears to be a rather difficult task to maintain a stationary spherically symmetric and inhomogeneous flow. In order to exhibit a more realistic configuration, we will now focus on the cylindrical symmetry. A particular case of such a configuration is the vortex matter flow which was discussed recently leo ; marklund . Let us consider a more general situation of a rotating dielectric body subjected to an electric field $`E_z`$ directed along the axis $`z`$ of rotation 111Such electromagnetic field configuration corresponds to the experimental situation of a rotating condenser.. The background metric is then of the form $`ds_\eta ^2=dt^2d\rho ^2\rho ^2d\phi ^2dz^2`$. The electromagnetic field has the only non-zero component $`F^{03}=E_z`$ and we denote $`e^{03}F_{03}=E(dϵ/dE)ϵ^{}`$, where $`E=|E_z|`$. For the matter 4-velocity we have $`u^\mu =\gamma (1,\beta ,\omega ,0)`$, with $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2\rho ^2\omega ^2}`$, while $`\omega `$ and $`\beta `$ being arbitrary functions of the radial coordinate $`r`$. The optical geometry (1) now reads

$`g_{}^{00}=`$ $`\gamma ^2\left[\mu (ϵ+ϵ^{})\beta ^2\rho ^2\omega ^2\right],`$ (14)
$`g_{}^{02}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\beta }}g_{}^{01}=\gamma ^2\omega \left[\mu \left(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}}{2}}\right)1\right],`$ (15)
$`g_{}^{11}=`$ $`\gamma ^2[\mu ϵ\beta ^2+\rho ^2\omega ^21],`$ (16)
$`g_{}^{12}=`$ $`\gamma ^2\beta \omega (\mu ϵ1),`$ (17)
$`g_{}^{22}=`$ $`\gamma ^2\left[\mu ϵ\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\rho ^2}}\right],`$ (18)
$`g_{}^{33}=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}}{ϵ}}\gamma ^2.`$ (19)
For the motion under consideration, the above metric components, Eqs. (14)–(19), depend only on the radial coordinate $`\rho `$. Then, for this geometry we have the three Killing vectors $`/t,/\phi ,/z`$. In components, $`\xi _a^\mu =\delta _a^\mu `$, with $`a=0,2,3`$. The null geodesic equations $`K^\mu _\mu K_\lambda =0`$ for the wave vector $`K_\lambda `$ in the optical metric $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ are then more easily solved by using the fact that $`\xi ^\mu K_\mu =\mathrm{const}`$ for each Killing vector $`\xi ^\mu `$. That is, the covariant components $`K_0`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$ of the wave vectors $`K^\mu =\dot{x}^\mu =(\dot{t},\dot{\rho },\dot{\phi },\dot{z})`$ are constant along the corresponding geodesic lines. The remaining component $`K_1`$ is obtained from the null condition $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }K_\mu K_\nu =0`$, and the geodesic equation for the radial coordinate reads

$$\dot{\rho }=\pm \sqrt{(g_{}^{10}K_0+g_{}^{12}K_2)^2g_{}^{11}[2g_{}^{02}K_0K_2+g_{}^{00}(K_0)^2+g_{}^{22}(K_2)^2+g_{}^{33}(K_3)^2]},$$
(20)
where the plus (minus) sign corresponds to a light ray propagating from (to) the symmetry axis $`z`$. Also, $`\dot{z}=g_{}^{33}K_3`$ and

$`\dot{t}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[g_{}^{00}g_{}^{11}(g_{}^{01})^2]K_0+[g_{}^{02}g_{}^{11}g_{}^{01}g_{}^{12}]K_2+g_{}^{01}\dot{\rho }}{g_{}^{11}}},`$ (21)
$`\dot{\phi }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[g_{}^{02}g_{}^{11}g_{}^{01}g_{}^{12}]K_0+[g_{}^{11}g_{}^{22}(g_{}^{12})^2]K_2+g_{}^{12}\dot{\rho }}{g_{}^{11}}}.`$ (22)
By specifying the dynamics of the matter, i.e. the functions $`\beta `$ and $`\omega `$, all the metric components $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ will be given functions of $`\rho `$. Provided $`\rho =\rho (s)`$ is obtained from Eq. (20), the three other coordinates are then found by quadrature.

Let us now analyze the ordinary ray described by $`g_+^{\mu \nu }`$, which is obtained from the above computations when we set $`ϵ^{}=0`$. For simplicity, we also consider the planar initial conditions for the light propagation such that $`K_2=0=K_3`$. Equations (20) and (21) then yield

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\frac{\gamma \left(n\beta +\sqrt{1\rho ^2\omega ^2}\right)\left(n\beta \sqrt{1\rho ^2\omega ^2}\right)}{(n^21)\gamma \beta \sqrt{n^2(1\beta ^2)\rho ^2\omega ^2}}.$$
(23)
As compared to the spherical case, Eq. (7), the solution of Eq. (23) displays the same qualitative behavior for the cylindrical configuration. The cylindrical horizon is located at $`\rho =\rho _h`$ defined from

$$\left(n\beta \pm \sqrt{1\rho ^2\omega ^2}\right)\rho _h=0.$$
(24)
Purely vortical motion of the fluid (with $`\beta =0`$) does not produce an analogue event horizon comm , since $`\rho _h`$ from Eq. (24) would lie beyond the limit of applicability of a rigid body in special relativity.

We note that $`d\phi /d\rho `$ diverges at the surface defined by Eq. (24). As a result, the incoming/outgoing geodesic light rays spiral towards a horizon radius $`\rho _h`$, which can be explicitly demonstrated by the numerical integration of $`d\phi /d\rho `$, see Fig. 1. Moreover, the condition of a horizon for the optical metric $`g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ is precisely given by the Eq. (24). In terms of the optical metrics, Eqs. (14)–(19), the position of the horizon is defined by the equation $`g_\pm ^{11}(\rho _h)=0`$. In Fig. 1, we also depict the extraordinary ray which presents a qualitative behavior quite similar to its ordinary counterpart. Although the calculations look somewhat more involved when the above initial conditions are not fulfilled, it can be shown that the horizon condition (24) remains unchanged. Therefore, we conclude that, for a given stationary flow configuration, the analogue horizon structure is of geometrical nature, as soon as it depends neither on the initial conditions nor on the polarization of the propagating light rays.

Summarizing, Eq. (24) demonstrates how an experimental realization of a dielectric analogue horizon might be understood in terms of the parameters $`n,\beta ,\omega `$ which describe the dielectric and kinematic properties of the medium. We expect that such horizons can be observed for stationary inhomogeneous kinematic configurations of the dielectric matter flow. The cylindrical configuration is favored due to the combined effect of both the refraction index $`n`$ and also of the vorticity $`\omega `$ of the medium which yields a smaller threshold for the radial velocity $`\beta `$. The horizon structures in both cases are shown to be independent of the presence of nonlinearities in the permittivity tensor.

As a final remark, it is worthwhile to mention that the present scheme may provide room also for the formation of sonic horizons (dumb holes Unruh ) for the cases in which ultra-sonic velocities are achieved.

In the present paper, the study of light propagation in a nonlinear moving dielectric medium has revealed the existence of a surface which displays some of the properties of the event horizon of a black hole. We thus confirm the possibility of creating electromagnetic analogues of gravitational black holes in laboratory conditions.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the Brazilian research agencies CNPq, FAPEMIG, and FAPESP.


text:
# Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model

## Abstract

A BCS–type wave function describes the ground state of the massless Thirring model in the chirally broken phase. The massless Thirring model with fermion fields quantized in the chirally broken phase bosonizes to the quantum field theory of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field (Eur. Phys. J. C 20, 723 (2001)). The wave functions of the ground state of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field are obtained from the BCS–type wave function by averaging over quantum fluctuations of the Thirring fermion fields. We show that these wave functions are orthogonal, normalized and non–invariant under shifts of the massless (pseudo)scalar field. This testifies the spontaneous breaking of the field–shift symmetry in the quantum field theory of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field. We show that the vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude calculated for the bosonized BCS–type wave functions coincides with the generating functional of Green functions defined only by the contribution of vibrational modes (Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 653 (2002)) . This confirms the assumption that the bosonized BCS–type wave function is defined by the collective zero–mode (hep–th/0212226). We argue that the obtained result is not a counterexample to the Mermin–Wagner–Hohenberg and Coleman theorems.

Atominstitut der Österreichischen Universitäten, Arbeitsbereich Kernphysik und Nukleare Astrophysik, Technische Universität Wien,
Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10, A-1040 Wien, Österreich

A recent analysis of the massless Thirring model  has shown that the wave function $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the ground state of the massless Thirring model is of BCS form

$`|\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle \underset{k^1}{}}[u_{k^1}+v_{k^1}a^{}(k^1)b^{}(k^1)]|0,`$ (1)
where $`|0`$ is the perturbative, chiral symmetric vacuum, $`a^{}(k^1)`$ and $`b^{}(k^1)`$ are creation operators of fermions and anti–fermions with momentum $`k^1`$ and $`k^1`$, respectively, $`u_{k^1}`$ and $`v_{k^1}`$ are coefficient functions

$`u_{k^1}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|k^1|}{\sqrt{(k^1)^2+M^2}}}\right)},v_{k^1}=\epsilon (k^1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{|k^1|}{\sqrt{(k^1)^2+M^2}}}\right)},`$ (2)
where $`\epsilon (k^1)`$ is the sign function.

The wave function (1) describes the fermions in a finite volume $`L`$. According to Yoshida  in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ the wave function can be transcribed into the form

$`|\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k^1)[a^{}(k^1)b^{}(k^1)b(k^1)a(k^1)]\right\}|0,`$ (3)
where the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }(k^1)`$ is defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k^1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{k^1}}\right).`$ (4)
Under chiral rotations

$`\psi (x)\psi ^{}(x)=e^{i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\psi (x),`$
$`\overline{\psi }(x)\overline{\psi }^{}(x)=\overline{\psi }(x)e^{i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}},`$ (5)
where $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ are operators of the massless Thirring fermion fields, the wave function (3) transforms as follows

$`|\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k^1)[a^{}(k^1)b^{}(k^1)e^{2i\alpha _\mathrm{A}\epsilon \left(k^1\right)}b(k^1)a(k^1)e^{+2i\alpha _\mathrm{A}\epsilon \left(k^1\right)}]\right\}|0.`$ (6)
As has been shown in  the wave functions $`|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}`$ (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) are orthogonal for $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi )`$, i.e. $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{};\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=\delta _{\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}}`$.

In the following we prove that the bosonized version of the wave functions (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) are also orthogonal. We express (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) in terms of the fermion field operators $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\overline{\psi }(x)`$ using

$`a(k^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1{\displaystyle \frac{u^{}(k^1)}{\sqrt{2k^0}}}\psi (0,x^1)e^{ik^1x^1},`$
$`b(k^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y^1\psi ^{}(0,y^1){\displaystyle \frac{v(k^1)}{\sqrt{2k^0}}}e^{+ik^1y^1}.`$ (7)
The wave functions $`u(k^1)`$ and $`v(k^1)`$ are defined by

$`u(k^1)=\sqrt{2k^0}\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta (+k^1)\\ \theta (k^1)\end{array}\right),v(k^1)=\sqrt{2k^0}\left(\begin{array}{c}+\theta (+k^1)\\ \theta (k^1)\end{array}\right).`$ (12)
They are normalized to $`u^{}(k^1)u(k^1)=v^{}(k^1)v(k^1)=2k^0`$ and $`\theta (\pm k^1)`$ are Heaviside functions. Substituting (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) in (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) we get

$`|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y^1\mathrm{\Phi }(x^1y^1)\overline{\psi }(0,x^1)\gamma ^5e^{+2i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\psi (0,y^1)\right\}|0,`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^1y^1)`$ is the original of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(k^1)`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^1y^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{k^1}}\right)e^{+ik^1\left(x^1y^1\right)}=`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^1}{4\pi }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^1}{M}}\right)\right]e^{+ik^1\left(x^1y^1\right)}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\delta (x^1y^1)+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^1}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^1}{M}}\right)\mathrm{sin}(k^1(x^1y^1))=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\delta (x^1y^1)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{x^1y^1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk^1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(k^1(x^1y^1))}{(k^1)^2+M^2}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\delta (x^1y^1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{M\left|x^1y^1\right|}}{x^1y^1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{M\left|x^1y^1\right|}}{x^1y^1i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}.`$
The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^1y^1)`$ has the property $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x^1y^1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(y^1x^1)`$, which is important in order to provide a normalization of the wave function (13), $`\alpha _\mathrm{A};\mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=1`$.

Integrating over $`y^1`$  we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\overline{\psi }(0,x^1)\gamma ^5e^{+2i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\psi (0,x^1)\right\}|0,`$ (15)
According to the Nambu–Jona–Lasinio condition  the operators of the massless fermion fields $`\psi (0,x^1)`$ at time zero should be equal to the operators of the massive fermion fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)`$ with dynamical mass $`M`$, i.e. $`\psi (0,x^1)=\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)`$. This yields

$`|\{\mathrm{\Psi }\};\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0,x^1)\gamma ^5e^{+2i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)\right\}|0=`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}|0,`$
where the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0,x^1)\gamma ^5e^{+2i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)\right\}.`$ (17)
For convenience we have replaced $`|\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ by $`|\{\mathrm{\Psi }\};\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ in order to underscore that the wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model in the chirally broken phase is a functional of the dynamical fermion fields.

As has been shown in  the massless Thirring model bosonizes to the quantum field theory of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$. In order to find the wave function of the ground state of the massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$ we have to average the operator (17) over the dynamical fermion degrees of freedom. This can be carried out within the path–integral approach. We would like to accentuate that the integration over fermion degrees of freedom of the operator (17) should be understood as the bosonization of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}`$ that means the replacement of fermion degrees of freedom by boson ones, $`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}`$. The integration over fermion degrees of freedom does not touch the wave function $`|0`$, which can be taken away in the functional integral.

In the massless Thirring model the generating functional of Green functions we define by

$`Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[J,\overline{J}]={\displaystyle 𝒟\vartheta Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[\vartheta ;J,\overline{J}]}=`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝒟\vartheta 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{id^2x[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)(i\widehat{}Me^{+i\gamma ^5\vartheta \left(x\right)})\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\overline{J}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)J(x)]\right\}},`$
where $`J(x)`$ and $`\overline{J}(x)`$ are external sources of dynamical fermions.

The bosonized version of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[\vartheta ;0,0]}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}\{iF[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }};\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle }d^2x[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)(i\widehat{}Me^{+i\gamma ^5\vartheta \left(x\right)})\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\overline{J}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)J(x)]\right\}|_{J=\overline{J}=0}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[\vartheta ;0,0]}}{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle }d^2x[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)(i\widehat{}Me^{+i\gamma ^5\vartheta \left(x\right)})\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta (x^0)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\gamma ^5e^{+2i\gamma ^5\alpha _\mathrm{A}}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)]\},`$ (19)
By a chiral rotation $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)e^{i\gamma ^5\vartheta \left(x\right)/2}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ we obtain

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[\vartheta ;0,0]}}{\displaystyle }𝒟\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle }d^2x[\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)(i\widehat{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^\mu \epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \vartheta (x)M)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta (x^0)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\gamma ^5e^{+i\gamma ^5\left(2\alpha _\mathrm{A}\vartheta \left(x\right)\right)}\mathrm{\Psi }(x)]\}.`$ (20)
A possible chiral Jacobian, induced by this chiral rotation , is canceled by the contribution of $`Z_{\mathrm{Th}}[\vartheta ;0,0]`$ in the denominator.

Below we are going to show that integrating over fermion fields and keeping leading terms in the large $`M`$ expansion  we get the following expression for the operator $`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}`$

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)2\alpha _\mathrm{A}\right)\right\},`$ (21)
where we have also used the gap–equation for the dynamical mass $`M`$ (see Eq.(1.14) of Ref.). The coupling constant $`\beta `$ is related to the coupling constant $`g`$ of the massless Thirring model

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\beta ^2}}=1e^{2\pi /g}.`$ (22)
Expression (21) has been obtained as follows. Integration over the fermion fields gives the expression

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle }d^2x{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n1}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{\mathrm{}}d^2k_{\mathrm{}}}{(2\pi )^2}}e^{ik_{\mathrm{}}\left(x_{\mathrm{}}x\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{\pi i}}\mathrm{tr}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_1}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{n1}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_{n1}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right\},`$
where we have denoted

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_k)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta (x_k^0)i\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\left(2\alpha _\mathrm{A}\vartheta \left(x_k\right)\right)}`$ (24)
with $`x_0=x`$ and $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$. For the subsequent calculation of the momentum and space–time integrals we suggest to use some kind of Pauli–Villars regularization. We smear the $`\delta `$–functions $`\delta (x_k^0)`$ with the scales $`M_j`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_k;M_j)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}f(M_jx_k^0)i\gamma ^5e^{i\gamma ^5\left(2\alpha _\mathrm{A}\vartheta \left(x_k\right)\right)}.`$ (25)
We require that in the limit $`M_j\mathrm{}`$ the function $`f(M_jx_k^0)`$ converges to the $`\delta `$–function $`\delta (x_k^0)`$. Introducing then the coefficients $`C_j`$, which satisfy the constraints

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}C_j=1,{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}C_jM_j^n=0,n=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (26)
we rewrite (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) as follows

$`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}=\mathrm{exp}\{i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}C_j{\displaystyle }d^2x{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{n1}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2x_{\mathrm{}}d^2k_{\mathrm{}}}{(2\pi )^2}}e^{ik_{\mathrm{}}\left(x_{\mathrm{}}x\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{\pi i}}\mathrm{tr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1;M_j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_1}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2;M_j)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_{n1};M_j)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{M\widehat{k}\widehat{k}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{k}_{n1}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(x;M_j)\}.`$ (27)
Taking, first, the large $`M`$ expansion for the calculation of momentum integrals  and using the constraints (26) we get (21).

Expression (21) can be obtained directly from (17) by using our bosonization rules (see Eq.(3.24) of Ref.)

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0,x^1)\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)`$ $`=`$ $`+i{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}\mathrm{sin}(\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0,x^1)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}\mathrm{cos}(\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)).`$ (28)
Substituting (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) in (17) we arrive at (21).

Using the operator (21) we define the bosonic wave function

$`|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{iB[\vartheta ;\alpha _\mathrm{A}]\}|0=`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}\left(\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)2\alpha _\mathrm{A}\right)\right\}|0,`$
which is normalized to unity. Now we have to show that such wave functions are orthogonal for $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi )`$

$`\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{};\mathrm{\Omega };\{\vartheta \}|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega };\alpha _\mathrm{A}=0|\mathrm{exp}\{+i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A})`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dx^1\mathrm{cos}(\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A})\}|0=lim_L\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\{+i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{LM}{g}}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A})\}`$
$`\times 0\left|\mathrm{exp}\{2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dx^1\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\vartheta (0,x^1){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}+\alpha _\mathrm{A}}{2}})\}\right|0=`$
$`=\delta _{\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}}0\left|\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\pi i{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\vartheta (0,x^1){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}+\alpha _\mathrm{A}}{2}}\right)\right\}\right|0=`$
$`=\delta _{\alpha _\mathrm{A}^{}\alpha _\mathrm{A}}.`$ (30)
As has been shown in  the massless Thirring model with fermion fields quantized in the chirally broken phase bosonizes to the free massless (pseudo)scalar field theory with the Lagrangian $`(x)=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \vartheta (x)^\mu \vartheta (x)`$, which is invariant under shifts of the field $`\vartheta (x)\vartheta ^{}(x)=\vartheta (x)+\alpha `$ with $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ .

The wave function (29) describes the ground state of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$. Since this wave function is not invariant under the field–shifts, the symmetry is spontaneously broken. The quantitative characteristic of the spontaneously broken phase in the quantum field theory of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$ is a non–vanishing spontaneous magnetization $`=1`$ . This confirms fully the existence of the chirally broken phase in the massless Thirring model obtained in .

Let us consider the vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude for the free massless (pseudo)scalar field theory with the ground state described by the wave function (29) at $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}=0`$

$`|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)\right\}|0,`$ (31)
The vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude we denote as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J`$ , where $`J(x)`$ is an external source of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|`$ are the vacuum states at infinitely past $`T=\mathrm{}`$ and at infinitely future $`T=+\mathrm{}`$.

The time–dependent wave function (31) can be found in a usual way using the translation formula

$`|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega }_T=e^{+iHT}|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega }=`$
$`=e^{+iHT}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}\beta \vartheta (0,x^1)\right\}e^{iHT}|0=`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}\beta \vartheta (T,x^1)\right\}|0,`$ (32)
where $`H`$ is the Hamilton function of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta (x)}{x^0}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta (x)}{x^1}}\right)^2\right].`$ (33)
Then, we have taken into account that $`H|0=0`$ .

Denoting $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=|\{\vartheta \};\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|=\mathrm{\Omega }_+\mathrm{};\{\vartheta \}|`$ the vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J`$ for the wave function of the ground state (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J={\displaystyle 𝒟\vartheta \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{M}{g}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}(\beta \vartheta (+\mathrm{},x^1))\right\}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \vartheta (x)^\mu \vartheta (x)+\vartheta (x)J(x)\right]}\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{+i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{g}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{sin}(\beta \vartheta (\mathrm{},x^1))\right\}.`$ (34)
Recall, that the external source obeys the constraint

$`{\displaystyle d^2xJ(x)}=0.`$ (35)
It allows to escape the excitation of the collective zero–mode. This mode is responsible for the “center of mass” motion and originates the infrared divergences in the quantum field theory of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field .

The vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude (Bosonic vacuum wave functions from the BCS–type wave function of the ground state of the massless Thirring model) can be transcribed into a more convenient form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J={\displaystyle 𝒟\vartheta \mathrm{exp}\left\{id^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \vartheta (x)^\mu \vartheta (x)+\vartheta (x)J(x)\lambda \frac{}{x^0}\mathrm{sin}(\beta \vartheta (x))\right]\right\}},`$ (36)
where $`\lambda =\pi M/2g`$.

It is well–known that the total derivative with respect to time does not contribute to the evolution of the system. Hence, the last term can be dropped. This yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xd^2yJ(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(xy;\overline{M})J(y)}\right\}.`$ (37)
The same result can be obtained by a direct calculation of the path integral following .

The calculation of the path integral is very similar to that we have carried our for the analysis of the renormalization of the sine–Gordon model  (see Appendix F of ). We get

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle d^2x_k\frac{}{x_k^0}𝒟\vartheta \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{sin}\beta \vartheta (x_k)}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle }d^2x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \vartheta (x)^\mu \vartheta (x)+\vartheta (x)J(x)]\right\}=`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xd^2yJ(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(xy;\overline{M})J(y)}\right\}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^{2n}}{(2n)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{(2i)^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^2x_kd^2y_j{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_k^0}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_j^0}}\mathrm{exp}\{i\beta ^2n\mathrm{\Delta }(0;\overline{M})+i\beta ^2{\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(x_jx_k;\overline{M})+i\beta ^2`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j<k}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_jy_k;\overline{M})i\beta ^2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(x_ky_j;\overline{M})]\left\}\mathrm{exp}\right\{i\beta {\displaystyle }d^2z{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\mathrm{\Delta }(x_kz;\overline{M})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y_kz;\overline{M}))J(z)+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle }d^2z_1d^2z_2J(z_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(z_1z_2;\overline{M})J(z_2)\},`$ (38)
where $`\overline{M}`$ is a finite scale. One can easily show that the every term of the infinite series vanishes due to the integration over $`x_k^0`$ and $`y_j^0`$. There survives only the term, which does not contain time derivatives.

The vacuum–to–vacuum transition amplitude (37) coincides with generating functional of Green functions $`Z[J]`$ of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field obtained in .

$`Z[J]=\mathrm{\Omega }_+|\mathrm{\Omega }_{}_J=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2xd^2yJ(x)\mathrm{\Delta }(xy;\overline{M})J(y)}\right\}.`$ (39)
Due to the constraint (35) only the vibrational modes give the contribution to the generating functional of Green functions (39). This agrees with our recent assertion  that the ground state of the free massless (pseudo)scalar field is defined by the collective zero–mode responsible for infrared divergences. The collective zero–mode cannot be excited by the external source $`J(x)`$ satisfying the constraint (35). This make the quantum field theory of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field infrared convergent.

As has been shown in  the spontaneous magnetization, calculated in the quantum field theory of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field defined by the generating functional of Green functions (39), does not vanish. It is equal to unity $`=1`$ after renormalization of the ultra–violet divergences .

We would like to emphasize that the obtained wave function of the ground state of the bosonized version of the massless Thirring model contradicts neither the Mermin–Wagner–Hohenberg theorem  nor Coleman’s theorem . As has been pointed out by Mermin, Wagner and Hohenberg , the vanishing of the long–range order, i.e. the absence of the spontaneous breaking of continuous symmetry, can be inferred only for non–zero temperature $`T0`$  and none conclusion about its value can be derived for $`T=0`$ . Since spontaneous magnetization and fermion condensation, caused by the BCS–type wave function (1), have been found at $`T=0`$, these results cannot be considered as counterexamples to the MWH theorem. The same concerns Coleman’s theorem. Coleman’s theorem asserts the absence of spontaneous breaking of continuous symmetry in 1+1–dimensional quantum field theories with Wightman’s observables defined on the test functions $`h(x)`$ from the Schwartz class $`𝒮(^2)`$. As has been shown in  in the quantum field theory of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field $`\vartheta (x)`$, describing the bosonized version of the massless Thirring model, Wightman’s observables are defined on the test functions $`h(x)`$ from the Schwartz class $`𝒮_0(^2)=\{h(x)𝒮(^2);\stackrel{~}{h}(0)=0\}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{h}(0)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`h(x)`$ at momentum zero. This agrees well with Wightman’s assertion that quantum field theory of a free massless (pseudo)scalar field acquires a mathematical meaning only if Wightman’s observables are defined on the test functions from $`𝒮_0(^2)`$ . Thus, the obtained results go beyond the scope of the applicability of Coleman’s theorem  and cannot be considered as counterexamples to this theorem .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the conjecture of the equivalence between of $`d=4`$ $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills and weakly IIB string theory on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 with the radius of the sphere given by $`(g_{YM}^2N)^{1/4}`$ in string units  and the precise recipe on how to compute correlation functions on the gauge theory using the string theory description , there has been a large amount of research in order to test and to explore the consequences of this duality, (cf. )

One of the interesting computations made in this context is that of Wilson loop operators in the gauge theory . The proposal is

$$<W(𝒞)>=e^S,$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the string action evaluated on-shell which, in the large $`gN`$ limit, becomes the area of the worldsheet, which corresponds to the interpretation of the expectation value of the Wilson loop as an statistical average over random surfaces . The potential between heavy sources in the field theory is determined by the rectangular loop defined by two infinitely heavy sources located at a distance $`L`$, and interacting for a very long interval of time, $`T`$, owing to the fact that in the $`T\mathrm{}`$ limit, the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator takes the form

$$<W(𝒞)>=A(L)e^{TE(L)},$$
(2)
We then will parametrize the interaction of the sources in terms of the distance between them via the relation

$$E(L)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{S}{T}.$$
(3)
In general, one should take the whole string partition function of type IIB on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 but the semiclassical level of approximation is believed to make sense in this particular example unless the integration over AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 has infrared divergences, in which case one should include stringy corrections to (1) .

The apearance of these divergences can be associated to anomalies of the conformal field theory. In this context, it can be seen that the IR regularization of the theory in the bulk corresponds to an UV regularization on the gauge theory , (the so called IR-UV connection). To be specific, we can consider the case of the dilaton, whose expectation value is set by its boundary conditions at infinity so that changing the gauge theory coupling constant corresponds to changing the boundary value of the dilaton. In this sense, different regions of the AdS located at different points of the radial coordinate correspond to different energy scales in the field theory.

Is precisely this connection the main question of this paper, which we will examine in the simplest context of type IIB and its relation with $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, a nonrealistic theory. This analysis can presumably be pushed forward to encompass the non conformal case . However, the analysis done here completes the one of  and allows the study with, some more detail, of the decoupling limit of the gauge theory, that is, the limit in which there is no interaction with the gravity of the bulk ().

In order to study the dependence of the gauge theory with the regulator of the theory in the bulk, we will compute the potential between two heavy sources. The static limit of this configuration is obtained by taking the masses of the particles to infinity.

We will begin with a stack of $`N`$ D3-branes and Higgs down the system to $`N1`$ D3-branes located at the origin and one D3-brane located at an arbitrary point in the radial direction. Is in this separated brane where the sources are placed, which are nothing but the end points of an open string attached to the brane. From this point of view, the infinite mass of the particles corresponds to the limit in which the brane is infinitely far away.

This configuration obviously leads to a divergence in the potential which can be understood as coming from the fact that the string goes from the system of branes to the brane at infinity and must be renormalized in such a way that we are left with a single string with its two ends attached to the brane at infinity and the embedding resembles topologically half a cylinder, a $`U`$-like configuration.

In section 2 we will compute the potential and its dependence with the distance between the heavy sources and the regulator. In section 3 we will explore the meaning of this dependence and we will end up with some comments concerning the decoupling limit.

## 2 Cutoff dependence of the static potential

In order to compute the static gauge potential we will use the form of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 which makes clear its conformal relation to flat space, namely

$$ds^2=a(y)\left(dx_4^2+dy^2\right),$$
(4)
where $`a(y)=\frac{\alpha ^{}R^2}{y^2}`$ and $`y`$ has units of length. The metric induced on the worldsheet of the string is now

$$ds_{ind}^2=\left[a(y)\left((x^{})^2+(y^{})^2\right)\right]d\sigma ^2+a(y)(\dot{t})^2d\tau ^2,$$
(5)
where $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ parametrize the 2d string worldsheet and where the prime stands for a derivative with respect to sigma and the dot with respect to tau. Now we can write the Polyakov action as

$$S_p=\frac{R^2}{4\pi }_M\frac{(x^{})^2+(y^{})^2+T^2}{y^2}d^2\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(6)
where we have parametrized $`t=\tau T`$. The conserved quantities asociated with this action principle are the canonical momentum conjugate to $`x`$ and the energy-momentum tensor,

$$p=\frac{R^2}{2\pi }\frac{x^{}}{y^2},$$
(7)
$$j=\frac{R^2}{4\pi }\frac{(x^{})^2+(y^{})^2T^2}{y^2}.$$
(8)
In this context we still need to choose the conformal gauge in order to turn (6) into the Dirichlet functional whose on-shell solutions will give us the minimal area surfaces. The Virasoro constraints read

$$j=0,p^2=\frac{T^2}{y_0^4},$$
(9)
where $`y_0`$ is the the tip of the $`U`$-like configuration of the string, defined through the condition $`y^{}=0`$.

Once we have chosen this gauge, we are left with no more freedom which in turn implies that the range of the parameter $`\sigma `$ remains to be determined. It is worth to mention that when working with the Nambu-Goto action, one can choose the static gauge, which fixes $`\sigma =x`$ and $`\tau =t`$.

With conditions (9) we have, then, three integrals to solve, which determine the range of $`\sigma `$, the length and the energy of the interaction between the heavy sources. These read

$$(\sigma )=𝑑\sigma =\frac{d\sigma }{dy}𝑑y=\frac{y_0}{T}_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0}\frac{d\xi }{\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1+\xi ^2)}},$$
(10)
$$L=𝑑y=\frac{dx}{d\sigma }\frac{d\sigma }{dy}𝑑y=y_0^2_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0}\frac{\xi ^2d\xi }{\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1+\xi ^2)}},$$
(11)
$$S_p=\frac{R^2T}{2\pi y_0}_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0}\frac{d\xi }{\xi ^2\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1+\xi ^2)}},$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the point in the $`y`$ direction where we locate the D3-brane to compute the potential and is believed to act as a cutoff for the conformal theory as we will explore later.

These integrals can be easily written as a combination of elliptic functions

$$(\sigma )=\frac{y_0}{\sqrt{2}T}F(\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0\right),1/\sqrt{2}),$$
(13)
$$L=\sqrt{2}y_0^2\left[F(\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0\right),1/\sqrt{2})2E(\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0\right),1/\sqrt{2})\right],$$
(14)
$$S_p=\frac{R^2T}{2\pi y_0}\left\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[F(\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0\right),1/\sqrt{2})2E(\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0\right),1/\sqrt{2})\right]+\frac{y_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{y_0^4}}\right\}.$$
(15)
The final goal of this section is to find the explicit dependence of the potential with the distance between the heavy sources and the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will use the aproximation of , which allows us to write

$$(\sigma )=\frac{y_0}{T\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}5\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_0}+4},$$
(16)
and

$$V=\frac{R^2}{2\pi y_0}\left(\sqrt{\frac{y_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}}\right).$$
(17)
This last expresion needs to be renormalized because it diverges linearly in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit, as seen also from (15), that is, as we move towards the boundary of AdS5. This divergence can be undestood as an infinite self-energy of the string attached to the branes and the corresponding renormalization as a mass renormalization.

The renormalized potential will be obtained from

$$V=\frac{R^2}{2\pi y_0}_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0}\left(\frac{1}{\xi ^2\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1+\xi ^2)}}+\frac{1}{\xi ^2}\right)𝑑\xi ,$$
(18)
which we will write, in our approximation, as

$$V=\frac{R^2}{2\pi y_0}\left(\sqrt{\frac{y_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_0}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}}+1\frac{y_0}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right).$$
(19)
In the case of (14), we cannot use the same approximation due to the absence of the divergent term, which causes the approximation to fail in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_00`$ limit. In this case we can make a polynomial interpolation with fixed end points at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/y_0=1`$ which, to second order this reads

$$L=\sqrt{2}y_0\left(1.44\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{y_0^2}+0.59\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{y_0}+0.85\right),$$
(20)
which will introduce a slight deviation from the exact curve small enough to allow us to make accurate predictions, see fig. (2). This lets us to solve $`y_0`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`L`$ as

$$y_0=0.35\mathrm{\Lambda }+1.35\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+0.46L}.$$
(21)
Substitution of (21) into (16) and (19) will then produce the desired expresions for the potential and the range of $`\sigma `$ in terms of the physical parameters $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 3 Concluding remarks on the meaning of the cutoff

In the previous section we have used the usual construction to compute the potential between heavy sources . Starting with a stack of $`N+1`$ D3-branes, which enjoy a low energy description in terms of the $`U(N+1)`$ theory living on them, we Higgs it down to a system of $`N`$ D3-branes and a D3-brane located at a position $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on the radial direction $`y`$ of (4). This breaks the gauge group down to $`U(N)\times U(1)`$ and can be understood as giving an expectation value to a scalar field, $`\varphi `$ of the theory, in such a way that at very short distances $`<<1/\varphi `$ the gauge group remains unbroken. All this implies that the infinite mass limit, $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$, is necessary to compute the Wilson loop of the $`U(N)`$ gauge theory.

In fig. (3) we have represented the renormalized potential (19) in terms of $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and we can see that is precisely in the boundary where the conformal theory lives, that is, only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ we find a $`1/L`$ dependence in the potential.

At this point there is one important question that is, what information is encoding this potential about the field theory on the brane?. The standard belief is that this setup is equivalent to a CFT with a cutoff, coupled to gravity.We do not find any divergence, which is only natural in a CFT with vanishing beta function. But it is not easy to disentangle the effects of the cutoff from the effects of gravity itself (which should change the coefficient of the $`1/L`$ term and, in addition, add a new term in $`1/L^3`$). Another interesting feature of this potential is that far enough from the boundary describes a plateau where, for every value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`L`$, it is always zero.

It is difficult though to gauge the exact physical meaning of this result, owing to the fact that finite cutoff corrections can disguise themselves in unsuspected ways, specially when some approximation is made. Consider, for the sake of the argument, the (finite) integral

$$V(L)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ke^{kL}=\frac{1}{L}.$$
(22)
If now a cutoff is introduced,

$$V(\mathrm{\Lambda },L)=_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑ke^{kL}=\frac{1}{L}(1e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }L}).$$
(23)
When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L\mathrm{}`$ the limit of $`V(\mathrm{\Lambda },L)`$ towards $`V(L)`$ is smooth. But if, for example, an expansion is made for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L<<1`$, it would result in

$$V(\mathrm{\Lambda },L)\mathrm{\Lambda }(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }L}{2}),$$
(24)
which has a zero at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L=2`$, outside the region of validity of the Taylor expansion.

The range of $`\sigma `$, that now is dinamically determined, has been also plotted for completeness.

Work is in progress to extend this computations to different backgrounds purpoted to represent non-conformal situations.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. García-Pérez for useful conversations. This work has been partially supported by the European Commission (HPRN-CT-200-00148) and CICYT (Spain).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has been well established that nuclear dynamics at low energies can be described in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom. Within the context of Quantum Chromodynamics(QCD), this hadronic picture is expected to break down at sufficiently high energies where the basic degrees of freedom must be quarks and gluons. It is therefore interesting and important to know in which energy region the transition from hadronic picture to quark-gluon picture takes place. This has been the motivation of the experiments on deuteron photo-disintegration($`\gamma dnp`$) conducted at SLAC?,? around 1990 and at Jefferson Laboratory?,? in the past few years. More measurements are expected in the near future.

The limitation of the hadronic picture of deuteron photo-disintegration at energies above about 1.5 GeV was first suggested in Ref.5. The data at 1-6 GeV accumulated at SLAC and JLab appear? to follow the quark counting rule? in the kinematic region where the momentum transfer of the reaction becomes larger than a critical value. On the other hand, one expects that the non-perturbative dynamics, such as those due to meson-exchange, still play an important role in the transition region. It is obviously a highly non-trivial problem to interpret these data. Attempts in this direction have been made in Refs.7-9.

In this contribution we would like to report on our recent investigation of the deuteron photo-disintegration at 2-6 GeV. We are motivated by the quark-exchange model of Frankfurt et al.? Based on the quark-exchange mechanism illustrated in Fig.1, the authors of Ref.9 succeeded in describing the data at 90 degrees both in magnitude and energy-dependence. On the other hand, their predictions at other angles failed to describe the data unless a phenomenological factor is included.

Because of the complexities of the quark-exchange amplitude, several simplifications were made in the calculation of Ref.9. First the on-shell approximation was used to simplify the loop-integration over the quark propagator. Then the $`\gamma dnp`$ cross section is cast, with some arguments, into a product of a factor depending on a convolution over the deuteron wavefunction and a factor depending on an appropriately evaluated elastic $`np`$ cross sections. No explicit calculation in terms of quark-gluon degrees of freedom is needed. While the simplicity of their final expression of the differential cross section is very appealing, it is possible that the difficulties they encountered as well as the successes they achieved could be due to the use of these simplifications. The purpose of this work is to address this question within a model in which calculations of the quark-exchange amplitude can be performed exactly.

## 2 Quark-Exchange Amplitude

We first observe that apart from the photon-quark interaction vertex, the exchange mechanism illustrated in Fig.1 is the same as that studied?,? in the constituent quark model of nucleon-nucleon interaction. We therefore will perform the calculation within the same theoretical framework. Thus our approach is not fully relativistic, like all of the previous studies of multi-quark systems. But this is the only framework within which an exact calculation of the quark-exchange amplitude can be performed. It is obvious that our intention here is not a realistic confrontation with the data. Rather it is aimed at addressing the theoretical questions mentioned above.

In the center of mass frame, the $`\gamma dnp`$ amplitude can be written as (suppressing the spin-isospin indices)

$`t(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k})=<\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}X(\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{\Phi }_d>,`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the incident photon momentum, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ the final proton momentum, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ the deuteron wavefunction, and $`\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}`$ the final neutron-proton scattering wavefunction. The operator $`X(\stackrel{}{k})`$ represents the quark-exchange mechanism. The matrix element Eq.(1) can be written as

$`t(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{k})={\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{P}_f\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}(\stackrel{}{P}_F)T(\stackrel{}{P_F},\stackrel{}{k})},`$ (2)
with

$`T(\stackrel{}{P}_F,\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{P}_1𝑑\stackrel{}{P}_2\delta (\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_F)𝑑\stackrel{}{P}_1^{}𝑑\stackrel{}{P}_2^{}\delta (\stackrel{}{P}_1^{}+\stackrel{}{P}_2^{}+\stackrel{}{k})}`$ (3)
$`X(\stackrel{}{P_1},\stackrel{}{P_2},\stackrel{}{P_1^{}},\stackrel{}{P_2^{}},\stackrel{}{k})\mathrm{\Phi }_d({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P}_1^{}\stackrel{}{P}_2^{}}{2}}).`$
where $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2`$($`\stackrel{}{P}_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2^{}`$) denote the momenta of the initial(final) two three-quark clusters. By assuming that the wavefunctions of all three-quark clusters in Fig.1 are of Gaussian form ($`\varphi (r)exp(\frac{r^2}{2b^2})`$ in coordinate-space), we can integrate out most of the quark momenta analytically and obtain

$`X(\stackrel{}{P_1},\stackrel{}{P_2},\stackrel{}{P_1^{}},\stackrel{}{P_2^{}},\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{P_1}+\stackrel{}{P_2}\stackrel{}{P_1^{}}\stackrel{}{P_2^{}}\stackrel{}{k}}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{12}3^3}{\pi ^6}}`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q_{12}}𝑑\stackrel{}{q_{56}}e^{b^2\frac{q_{12}^2}{2}}e^{b^2\frac{q_{56}^2}{2}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q}𝑑\stackrel{}{q_p}V(q)G(q_p)h(q_p,k)}`$
$`exp[b^2\{a_{kk}k^2+a_{kq}kq+a_{kq_p}kq_p+a_{kP_I}kP_I`$
$`+a_{kP_F}kP_F+a_{qq}q^2+a_{qq_p}qq_p+a_{qP_I}qP_I`$
$`+a_{qP_F}qP_F+a_{q_pq_p}q_p^2+a_{q_pP_I}q_pP_I`$
$`+a_{q_pP_F}q_pP_F+a_{P_IP_I}P_I^2+a_{P_IP_F}P_IP_F`$
$`+a_{P_FP_F}P_F^2\}],`$
where $`a_{kk}=19/24`$, $`a_{kq}=1/2`$, $`a_{qq}=3/2`$, $`a_{kq_p}=5/2`$, $`a_{q,q_p}=a_{q_pq_p}=3`$, $`a_{kP_I}=3/2`$, $`a_{qP_I}=1`$, $`a_{q_pP_I}=3`$, $`a_{P_IP_I}=7/6`$, $`a_{kP_F}=1`$, $`a_{qP_F}=2`$, $`a_{q_P,P_I}=3`$, $`a_{P_IP_F}=2`$, and $`a_{P_FP_F}=7/6`$. The parameter $`b`$ in Eq.(4) defines the range of Gaussian function;

In Eq.(4), $`V(q)`$ is a gluon-exchange interaction, $`G(q_p)`$ is a quark propagator, and $`h(q_p,k)=e_q\overline{u}_{\stackrel{}{q}_p}k_\mu \gamma ^\mu u_{\stackrel{}{q}_p\stackrel{}{k}}`$ describes the photon-quark coupling. For simplicity, we follow a quark-model study of $`\pi N`$ scattering? to set

$`V(q)={\displaystyle \underset{i>j}{}}[\pi \alpha _s(\lambda _i\lambda _j)(\sigma _i\sigma _j){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_g^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2}}],`$ (5)
where $`\lambda _i`$ is the color SU(3) generator, $`\alpha _s=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_g=1.087`$ GeV were determined from fitting the $`\pi N`$ scattering data. The quark propagator is taken to be

$`G(q_p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{W\sqrt{\overline{M}_5+q_p^2}\sqrt{m_q^2+q_p^2}+i\epsilon }}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P}{W\sqrt{\overline{M}_5+q_p^2}\sqrt{m_q^2+q_p^2}}}`$
$`i\pi \delta (W\sqrt{\overline{M}_5+q_p^2}\sqrt{m_q^2+q_p^2})`$
where $`P`$ denotes taking the principal-value integration, $`m_q=330`$ MeV, and $`\overline{M}_5=5m_q`$.

To carry out the multi-dimensional integration in Eq.(4), we use the method of Ref. 15 to expand the gluon-exchange interaction and deuteron wavefunction in terms of Gaussians : $`V(q)=_i^{N_V}v_ie^{\alpha _iq^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d(q)=_j^{N_G}g_je^{\beta _jq^2}`$. We find that very precise expansions can be obtained with $`N_V=35`$ and $`N_G=50`$. Substituting these expansions into Eqs.(3), and (4), we then obtain

$`T(\stackrel{}{P_F},\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{12}3^3}{\pi ^6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q_{12}}𝑑\stackrel{}{q_{56}}e^{\frac{b^2q_{12}^2}{2}}e^{\frac{b^2q_{56}^2}{2}}}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N_V}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{N_G}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q_p}G(q_p)h(q_p,k)v_ig_j}`$
$`\mathrm{exp}(B){\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q}𝑑\stackrel{}{P_I}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{A}\stackrel{}{x}}{2}+\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{x}\right)}`$
where $`\stackrel{}{x}=(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{P_I})`$ is a two-component vector and

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`b^2\left\{a_{kk}k^2+a_{kq_p}kq_p+a_{kP_F}kP_F+a_{q_pq_p}q_p^2+a_{q_pP_F}q_pP_F+a_{P_FP_F}P_F^2\right\},`$
$`\widehat{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}2b^2(a_{qq}+\frac{\alpha _i}{b^2})& a_{qP_I}\\ a_{qP_I}& 2b^2(a_{P_IP_I}+\frac{\beta _j}{b^2})\end{array}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{}{s}`$ $`=`$ $`b^2(+a_{kq}\stackrel{}{k}+a_{qq_p}\stackrel{}{q_p}+a_{qP_F}\stackrel{}{P_F},a_{kP_I}\stackrel{}{k}+a_{q_pP_I}\stackrel{}{q_p}+a_{P_IP_F}\stackrel{}{P_F}).`$
All integrations in Eq.(7) except that over the propagating quark momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_p`$ can be carried out analytically by using the following formula? for a multidimensional gaussian

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{A}\stackrel{}{x}}{2}+\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{x}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^N}{det(A)}}\right)^{d/2}e^{\frac{1}{2}s\widehat{A}^1s}`$ (8)
where $`d`$ is the dimension of the space and $`N`$ is the number of variables, $`\stackrel{}{x}=\{\stackrel{}{x_1},\stackrel{}{x_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x_N}\}`$ is a N-component vector. Schematically, Eq.(7) is then reduced into

$`T(\stackrel{}{P}_F,\stackrel{}{k})=[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{N_V}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{N_G}{}}}v_i,g_j{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{q}_pG(\stackrel{}{q}_p)h(q_p,k)I_{i,j}(\stackrel{}{P}_F,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}_p)}]`$ (9)
where $`I_{ij}(\stackrel{}{P}_F,\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{q}_p)`$ are from integrating analytically various Gaussian functions. We then carry out the remaining integration over the propagating quark momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_p`$ in Eq.(9) numerically by using the standard substraction method to handle the singularity of $`G(q_p)`$ of Eq.(6).

## 3 Results

The first step to evaluate the $`\gamma dnp`$ amplitude Eq.(2) is to construct a $`np`$ model for generating the scattering wavefunction $`\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}`$. It can be written in terms of $`np`$ scattering t-matrix

$`\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}(p^{})=\delta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})+t(\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{p}^{},E){\displaystyle \frac{1}{E2E_N(p^{})+iϵ}}`$ (10)
where $`E=2E_N(p)`$ is the total energy. We have found that the $`np`$ elastic scattering data?,? in the relevant 4-12 GeV region can be fitted by parameterizing the amplitude $`t(\stackrel{}{p}^{},\stackrel{}{p},E)`$ as a sum of the exchanges of $`\pi `$, $`\sigma `$, $`\rho `$, $`\omega `$, and Pomeron. Our fits at four energies are displayed in Fig.2. The details will be given in Ref.16.

To explore the dynamical content of the quark-exchange amplitude $`T(\stackrel{}{P}_F,\stackrel{}{k})`$, we first perform calculations with the final $`np`$ scattering neglected; i.e. setting $`\chi _\stackrel{}{p}^{()}(\stackrel{}{p}^{})=\delta (\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}^{})`$ in evaluating Eq.(2). The deuteron wavefunction is generated from the Paris potential. With the specifications given in section 2, the only free parameter of the calculations is then the range parameter $`b`$ of the quark wavefunctions. We find that the predicted cross section is very sensitive to this parameter. If we set $`b=0.52`$ fm used in the quark model of nucleon-nucleon interaction?, the predicted cross sections are an order of magnitude smaller than the data. This is the first major difficulty of the quark-exchange model considered here. To get reasonable magnitudes at $`90^0`$ degrees, we need to use a much smaller value $`b=0.25`$ fm. The calculated differential cross sections are the solid curves shown in Fig.3.

We now turn to investigating the validity of the on-shell approximation used in Ref.9. This amounts to performing our calculations by neglecting the principal-value part of the quark propagator Eq.(6). The calculated results are the dashed curves in Fig.3. The difference between the solid and dashed curves indicate very sizable contributions from the principal-value parts of the integrations. Our results strongly suggest that the on-shell approximation used in Ref.9 is not accurate.

Our complete calculations are the solid curves in Fig.4. The dashed curves are obtained when the $`np`$ final state interactions are omitted. We see that the $`np`$ final state interaction, constrained by the data shown in Fig.2, do not change our predictions significantly except at 70 degrees. Clearly our complete calculations are not able to describe the data.

To end, we emphasize that this is a very first step toward a realistic calculation of $`\gamma dnp`$ reactions in terms of quark-gluon degrees of freedom. To firmly assess the quark-exchange model, several improvements must be made in our calculations. First, we find that our predictions are sensitive to the choice of the quark mass. This suggests that the use of the quark propagator Eq.(6) with a constituent quark mass 330 MeV may not be correct. We may need to include the momentum-dependence of quark mass, as suggested by some QCD model calculations?. Second, the gluon-exchange interaction Eq.(5), taken from a $`\pi N`$ study, needs to be improved to include more realistic momentum-dependence and other components of the gluon-exchange interaction. Third, we find that the main contribution to the cross sections is from the high momentum component of the deuteron wavefunction in the region where the employed nonrelativistic Paris potential may not be valid. It is necessary to generate the deuteron wavefunction from a model which can also describe $`np`$ scattering data at high energies, such as those shown in Fig.2. It may be possible to obtain such a model by extending the $`\pi NN`$ model of Ref.? to higher energies. Finally, the size parameter $`b`$ of the three-quark clusters needs to be chosen from a more fundamental consideration.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. B.J. thanks the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia of Spain for finantial support, and the hospitality of the Theory Group of Argonne National Laboratory.