text:
# Group Averaging and Refined Algebraic Quantization

## 1 Introduction

Refined Algebraic Quantization (RAQ) is an attempt (amongst others) to concretize Dirac’s program for the quantization of constrained systems within a generally applicable, well defined mathematical framework. It was first formulated as a general scheme in  and recently developed further in . Here I wish to report on these recent developments.

The method itself has already been used (partly implicitly) earlier in some successful applications to quantum gravity in specialized situations, like linearized gravity on symmetric backgrounds  or various minisuperspace models . These suggested the program to find a general scheme of which these cases are just special cases.

Any scheme that deals with constrained systems needs to interpret the phrase ‘solving the constraints’. Here the guiding idea of RAQ is to work from the onset within an auxiliary Hilbert space, $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$, by means of which a $``$-algebra of observables, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, is constructed before the constraints are ‘solved’. The $``$-operation on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ derives from the adjoint-operation $``$ on $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$, which allows to connect the auxiliary inner product with the inner product on the physical Hilbert space, $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$, since the latter is required to support a $``$-representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. A possibly non-trivial limitation derives from the fact that the constraint operators on $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ are required to be self-adjoint, which may not be possible in case they do not form a Lie-algebra (i.e. ‘close’ with structure-functions only). This difficulty clearly does not arise if the constraints derive from the action of a Lie-group $`G`$. In the following we shall restrict attention to such cases. More precisely, we consider situations where a finite dimensional Lie group $`G`$ acts by some unitary representation $`U`$ on $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$.

## 2 Concretizing the Dirac Procedure

From the RAQ point of view, the concretization of the Dirac procedure starts form an auxiliary Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ with inner product $`|_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ and the set of unitary operators $`\{U(g)gG\}`$. The naive reading of Dirac’s prescription is to identify the space of physical states with those elements in $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ that are fixed by $`G`$:

$$U(g)|\psi =|\psi ,gG,$$
(1)
which just says that one should pick the trivial subrepresentation of $`U`$. But clearly this statement needs not be well defined since $`U`$ might simply not contain the trivial representation as sub-representation. This will happen if the operators $`U(g)`$ do not all have the value ‘one’ in the discrete part of their spectrum. Another difficulty comes in if $`G`$ is not unimodular. Then it has been convincingly argued using methods of geometric quantization (see  and references therein) that (1) is simply not the right condition, but that (1) should formally be replaced with

$$U(g)|\psi =\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)|\psi ,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g):=\mathrm{det}[\mathrm{Ad}_\mathrm{g}]`$ is the modular function on $`G`$ (a one-dimensional, real representation of $`G`$). We said ‘formally’ since (2) cannot hold in $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$, for this would mean that the unitary operator $`U(g)`$ can change lengths by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)1`$, a plain contradiction. This is connected with the first problem since it means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)`$ cannot be a discrete spectral value of $`U(g)`$. In physical terms, $`|\psi `$ in (2) is not normalizable. Hence one must read these equations in the appropriate sense. It is useful to break up the further development into several steps.

Step 1: We denote by $``$ the adjoint map on operators on $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ with respect to $`|_{\mathrm{aux}}`$. Choose a dense linear subspace $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ which is left invariant (as set) by $`G`$’s action. This choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an important step and will generally require some physical input. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ be the algebraic dual (linear functionals) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Put on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ the topology of pointwise convergence: $`f_nf`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ iff $`f_n[\varphi ]f[\varphi ]`$ as real numbers for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$. Note that, conversely, each $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$ defines a continuous linear functional on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ by setting $`\varphi (f):=f[\varphi ]`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ embeds in the topological dual (continuous linear functionals) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$.

Step 2: Consider the set $`:=\{A_{\mathrm{aux}}D(A)_{\mathrm{aux}}\}`$ of linear operators, where $`D(A)`$ denotes the domain of $`A`$. It is not an algebra due to mismatches of ranges and domains. We define a subset of $``$ by

$`𝒜:=\{A\mathrm{\Phi }D(A)D(A^{})`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }A(\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{\Phi }A^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\},`$ (3)
and make it into an algebra by restricting the action of each $`A𝒜`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since $``$ also restricts to $`𝒜`$, we have a $``$-algebra which – without indicating the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ – we continue to call $`𝒜`$. Note that, by definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`𝒜`$ contains the operators $`U(g)`$. From now on, the $``$-operation of this algebra is the only trace left by $`|_{\mathrm{aux}}`$. Finally, we define a sub-$``$-algebra $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}𝒜`$ as the ‘commutant’ in $`𝒜`$ of the set $`\{U(g)gG\}`$:

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}:=\{A𝒜U(g)A=AU(g),gG\}.$$
(4)
Step 3: Each $`A𝒜`$ acts as continuous linear map on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ via the ‘adjoint’ action:

$$Af:=fA^{}.$$
(5)
Hence the constraint operators also act on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and we can define the solution set, $`𝒱`$, by

$$𝒱:=\{f\mathrm{\Phi }^{}U(g)f=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)f\},$$
(6)
which, by construction, carries an anti-$``$-representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ by continuous maps. (The ‘anti’ is a consequence of the $``$ in (5) and does no harm)

Step 4: The Hilbert space of physical states is now to be found within $`𝒱`$. Hence we seek a subspace $`_{\mathrm{phys}}𝒱`$ with inner product $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ that makes $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ into a Hilbert space. Generally one cannot turn all of $`𝒱`$ into a Hilbert space, since this would imply that all $`A𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ were defined everywhere on $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ and hence bounded, which is too restrictive. (Note: Merely having the whole Hilbert space as domain does not yet imply boundedness of a linear operator $`A`$. But if $`A`$ and its adjoint are defined everywhere boundedness follows.) Hence $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ will in general be a proper subset of $`𝒱`$ and the topology of $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ induced by $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ must be finer than that it inherits from $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, since the former must be closed. This also means that operators in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ will not necessarily be bounded on $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ and hence we do not have an anti-$``$-representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ on $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ since domains and ranges might not match. Hence we proceed as usual by assuming that there is a dense subspace $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ on which we have such a representation. But besides these technicalities the relevant condition on $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is this: the physical inner product is to be chosen such that for all $`A𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ we have $`A^{}=A^{}`$ on $`A^{}`$’s domain in $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$, where $``$ now denotes the adjoint operation with respect to $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$. This is how $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is influenced (but generally not determined) by $`|_{\mathrm{aux}}`$. It is with respect to this adjoint operation that we speak of an anti-$``$-representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$.

## 3 RAQ and the $`\eta `$-Map

RAQ concretizes step 4 of the Dirac procedure just outlined. It aims to construct $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ by finding a so-called $`\eta `$-map (or ‘rigging map’), which is an antilinear map $`\eta :\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ such that the image of $`\eta `$ consists entirely of solutions, i.e., $`\eta (\mathrm{\Phi })𝒱`$. Further conditions on this map are

1. $`\eta `$ is real: $`\eta (\varphi _1)[\varphi _2]=\overline{\eta (\varphi _2)[\varphi _1]}`$

2. $`\eta `$ is positive: $`\eta (\varphi )[\varphi ]0`$

3. $`\eta `$’s image is an invariant domain for $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and $`\eta `$ intertwines the representations of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$:

$$A\eta (\varphi )=\eta (A\varphi )$$
(7)
Given such an $`\eta `$, one defines $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ on its image by

$$\eta (\varphi _1)|\eta (\varphi _2)_{\mathrm{phys}}:=\eta (\varphi _2)[\varphi _1]$$
(8)
and then defines $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ as the completion of $`\eta `$’s image with respect to the uniform structure (Cauchy sequences) defined by this inner product. By construction, $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ satisfies the condition that the $``$-operation on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the adjoint with respect to $`|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$.

We need only check two points in order to see that the $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ so defined satisfies the conditions of step 4: First, we wanted $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ to be a subset of $`𝒱`$, so we need to check that the completion just mentioned does not add points outside $`𝒱`$, i.e., that $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is indeed a subset of $`𝒱`$ with finer intrinsic topology. To see this, we consider the map $`\sigma :_{\mathrm{phys}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, defined by

$$\sigma (f)[\varphi ]:=\eta (\varphi )|f_{\mathrm{phys}},$$
(9)
and note immediately that $`\sigma (f)`$ vanishes iff $`f`$ is orthogonal to all elements in the images of $`\eta `$. But since the image is dense in $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ by construction $`f`$ must itself vanish, hence $`\sigma `$ is injective. Next we prove that $`\sigma `$ is continuous: if $`f_nf`$ in $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ then $`\eta (\varphi )|f_n_{\mathrm{phys}}\eta (\varphi )|f_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ for all $`\varphi `$, since $`|\eta (\varphi )|_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is a continuous linear form on $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$. Hence $`\sigma (f_n)[\varphi ]\sigma (f)[\varphi ]`$ for all $`\varphi `$ which, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ carries the topology of pointwise convergence, implies $`\sigma (f_n)\sigma (f)`$ and therefore continuity of $`\sigma `$.

The second point to check is that we indeed have an anti-$``$-representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ on a dense subspace $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ in $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$. To show this, we simply identify $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ with the image of $`\eta `$ and note that by (5) and (7) we have for all $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$`\sigma (Af)[\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`\eta (\varphi )|Af_{\mathrm{phys}}=\eta (A^{}\varphi )|f_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\sigma (f)[A^{}\varphi ]=A\sigma (f)[\varphi ].`$
Hence $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}\text{Image}(\sigma )\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is an isomorphism of anti-$``$-representations of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$.

An interesting question is how general this method of constructing $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ via an $`\eta `$-map actually is; that is, given $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ as in step 4 above, is there always an $`\eta `$ map whose image is $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$? Well, remember that each $`\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }`$ defines a continuous linear functional on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Restriction to the linear subspace $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ yields a continuous linear functional on $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ with respect to its intrinsic topology, since the latter is finer than that induced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Hence, by Riesz’ theorem, there is a a unique vector $`\eta ^{}(\varphi )_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ which satisfies

$$\varphi (f):=f[\varphi ]=\eta ^{}(\varphi )|f_{\mathrm{phys}}$$
(11)
for each $`f_{\mathrm{phys}}`$. The map $`\eta ^{}:\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is obviously antilinear and has a non-trivial image, since $`\text{kernel}(\eta ^{})=_{f𝒱}\text{kernel}(f)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`𝒱\{0\}`$. We can now define $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ to be the image of this $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ its completion. This almost proves that we can at least reproduce the subspace $`_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ by an $`\eta `$-map if $`\eta ^{}`$ were indeed an $`\eta `$-map in the technical sense. But it might fail condition 3 above that it intertwines with $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$; the reason being that so far nothing ensures $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ to be contained in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$. Hence operators in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ might not act on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ at al! However, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ then $`\eta ^{}`$ is indeed an $`\eta `$-map and we can at least claim to be able to reconstruct some sector $`_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}_{\mathrm{phys}}`$.

Given that, we may finally wonder what additional assumptions would guarantee that we can construct all of $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ by RAQ. One such condition is the following : If $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ constructed by the Dirac procedure decomposes into a direct sum of superselection sectors, then each sector can be separately constructed by the Dirac procedure. If this is satisfied we argue as follows: suppose $`_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ is a maximal subsector of $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ which can be constructed by RAQ. Then its orthogonal complement is also a sector which, by hypothesis, is separately constructible by the Dirac procedure. But then, again by hypothesis, we can reconstruct a subsector of this orthogonal complement, which contradicts the assumption that $`_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{phys}}{}^{}`$ was maximal.

## 4 Group Averaging

Whereas the $`\eta `$-map is a specific way to build $`_{\mathrm{phys}}`$ for step 4 in the Dirac procedure, Group Averaging is in turn a specific way to construct an $`\eta `$-map. In Dirac’s $`\text{bra}|\text{ket}`$-terminology, the idea is simply to define (and make sense of)

$$\eta |\varphi :=_G𝑑\mu (g)\varphi |U(g),$$
(12)
where $`d\mu `$ is some appropriately chosen measure on $`G`$. If $`G`$ were unimodular, the right- and left-invariant Haar measures coincide and are the correct choice for $`d\mu `$ in order for $`\eta `$’s image to formally solve (1) and make $`\eta `$ real in the sense of condition 1 above. Note that this reality condition requires the measure $`d\mu (g)`$ to be invariant under the inversion map $`I:gg^1`$. For non-unimodular groups neither the left- nor the right-invariant measure is $`I`$-invariant. Instead one has to take the ‘symmetric’ measure, defined by

$`d\mu _0(g):`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)d\mu _L(g)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}(g)d\mu _R(g),`$
where $`d\mu _L,d\mu _R`$ are the left- and right-invariant measures respectively. Moreover, this measure also implies that $`\eta `$’s image (formally) satisfies the modified equation (2). We refer to  for a more extensive discussion of the modified Dirac condition and how it can be derived by Group Averaging from an appropriate adaptation of the ‘unimodularization’ technique originally developed in geometric quantization .

The physical inner product according to Group Averaging is given by

$$\eta (\varphi _2)|\eta (\varphi _1)_{\mathrm{phys}}:=_G𝑑\mu _0(g)\varphi _1|U(g)\varphi _2_{\mathrm{aux}}$$
(14)
so that the Group Averaging procedure only makes sense for states $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ for which this integral converges absolutely. But it turns out  that a more restricted choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is appropriate: we say that $`\varphi `$ is an $`L^1`$ state, iff

$$_g𝑑\mu _n\varphi |U(g)\varphi _{\mathrm{aux}}$$
(15)
converges absolutely for all integers $`n`$, where $`d\mu _n(g):=\mathrm{\Delta }^{n/2}(g)d\mu _0`$. One can then also construct the group algebra $`𝒜_G`$ of functions on $`G`$ which are $`L^1`$ with respect to $`d\mu _n`$ for all $`n`$, and prove that its action on $`L^1`$ states results again in $`L^1`$ states . This fact allows to prove a uniqueness theorem in the following form (see  for more details):

###### Theorem 1

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an $`L^1`$ subspace of $`_{\mathrm{aux}}`$ which is invariant under $`𝒜_G`$. Then, up to overall scale, any $`\eta `$-map is of the form (12) with $`d\mu =d\mu _0`$.

## 5 Summary

We outlined two technical devices which, to a certain extent, concretize the Dirac approach to quantizing constrained systems along the sequence \[Group Averaging\] $``$ \[$`\eta `$-map\] $``$ \[Dirac approach\]. There are fairly strong uniqueness theorems regarding these devices, provided Group Averaging converges sufficiently rapidly. But there is no general characterization when this can actually be achieved. Physical as well as mathematical inputs are required, perhaps most importantly in the choice of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and results are likely to delicately depend on this choice. Recent investigations of convergence properties in contexts of specific models  confirm this general expectation.

Finally we mention the obvious, namely that the restriction to systems whose first class constraints close with structure constants (i.e. form a Lie algebra) should be lifted. After all, GR is not in this form. We plan to investigate this in the future.


format: text

text:
# Magnetotransport in an array of magnetic antidots

## Abstract

Classical transport properties of an electron, moving in plain, in an array of magnetic antidots has been calculated. Homogeneous magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}=B\stackrel{}{e}_z`$ fills the whole space except of cylinders of radius $`r_0`$, which are arranged in a square lattice with a lattice constant $`a`$. The magnetoresistance shows additional peaks and minima by varying the strength of the magnetic field, according to pinned orbits at antidots and to propagating orbits in transport direction, respectively.

The dynamics of charged particles in spatially modulated magnetic field give rise to a variety of interesting phenomena. The motion of ballistic electrons in modulated magnetic field is also believed to be closely related to the motion of composite fermions in a density modulated 2DEG in the fractional quantum Hall regime . Commensurability effects in weak periodic magnetic fields were predicted  and observed for modulation in one  and two directions  experimentally. Such periodic magnetic field can be generated by using either patterned superconducting  or ferromagnetic gates ,. Closely related to our system are antidot arrays, which consist of periodically arranged voids in an electron gas. Charged particles move in this two dimensional potential landscape under the influence of perpendicular magnetic field and are scattered on the antidots.  Additional peaks in the low field magnetoresistance have been observed  in these antidot arrays and explained  by a pinning mechanism of classical circular orbits enclosing 1,2,4,9 and 21 antidots in terms of nonlinear dynamics. The nature of magnetoresistance peaks are caused by islands of regular motion due to nonlinear resonances.
In the present paper we study the magnetotransport in an array of magnetic antidots. Instead of antidot scatterers we introduce circular regions into the system with zero magnetic field inside. Inside the magnetic antidots the electron moves in a field-free region and outside is its motion described by the Lorentz force. As demostrated in Fig. 1 the inhomogenity of the z-componetnt of the magnetic field for one magnetic antidot is given by

$$B(r)\stackrel{}{e}_z=\{\begin{array}{ccc}B\stackrel{}{e}_z& \text{for}& r>r_0\\ 0& \text{else}& \end{array}$$

and these antidots are arranged in a rectangular array of lattice constant $`a`$. In the recent experiments on modulated magnetic fields, the period of modulation lies by 700 nm and is larger then the Fermi wave length, but smaller then the elastic mean free path (10 $`\mu `$m) and thus the dynamics of the wave packet approaches the classical limit. Magnetic antidot array could be realized using supeconducting materials, which would be maped on two dimensional electron gas in a rectangular array arrangement. By applying magnetic field, in circular region of superconducting material, the applied magnetic field would be swept out and the electrons would move in a system described in this paper. In the calculation we will use a system, that would be produced by an ideal vortex with a constant magnetic field outside and zero magnetic field inside, instead of more realistic exponential distribution of the magnetic. We consider also one elctron approximation.
The classical trajectory is found as the solution to Newtons’ equation of motion with the force given by the Lorentz expression $`\stackrel{}{F}=e\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ for a particle of charge $`e`$. It consist, as well known of straight line segments inside the antidot and an arc of a circle outside, with the radius of the curvature given by the cyclotron radius $`r_c=\frac{v}{\omega _c}`$ with $`v`$ being the particle velocity and $`\omega _c=\frac{eB}{m}`$ the cyclotron frequency. There exist also undisturbed circular orbits, which do not intersect any antidot. The classical approximation for the dynamics of an electron wave packet in a modulated magnetic field is described by the Hamiltonian for one magnetic antidot

$$H(x,y,p_x,p_y)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}[(p_x+eBy/2)^2+(p_yeBx/2)^2]/2m& \text{for}& r>r_0\\ \stackrel{}{p}^2/2m& \text{else}& \end{array}$$

where $`m`$ is the effective mass of the electron. First we introduce some characteristic parameters of the system and express all quantities in dimensionless units: the coordinate $`x=x/a`$, $`y=y/a`$,$`t=t/\tau _0`$ and $`H=H/ϵ_F`$ with $`ϵ_F`$, the Fermi energy, $`\tau _0=(ϵ_F/ma^2)^{1/2}`$ . The magnetic field is scaled by $`B_0`$ at which the cyclotron radius corresponds to $`a/2`$. Calculating the Poisson brackets and omitting the primes we obtain following equations of motion for one magnetic antidot

$$\dot{x}=v_x,\dot{y}=v_y$$

$$\dot{v}_x=\{\begin{array}{ccc}B/B_0v_y& \text{for}& r>r_0\\ 0& \text{else}& \end{array}$$

$$\dot{v}_y=\{\begin{array}{ccc}B/B_0v_x& \text{for}& r>r_0\\ 0& \text{else}& \end{array}$$

Choosing $`r_0=0.3a`$ and using a numerical integration method it is possible to calculate the trajectories of the electron for different values of magnetic field. We investigate the motion in phase space ($`x,y,v_x,v_y`$) by means of Poincaré surface of section at ($`x=0\text{mod}a`$). Since the energy $`E=v_x^2/2m+v_y^2/2m`$ of the system is conserved, we have to consider the surface of section ($`y,v_y`$) for $`v_x>0`$ and $`v_x<0`$ separately. The initial conditions ($`y_i,v_{yi}`$) lead for $`v_x>0`$ and $`v_x<0`$ to different trajectories and the corresponding two surfaces of section have mirror symmetry. Fig.2 shows the surface of section for $`v_x>0`$ for three different values of magnetic field $`B/B_0=0.5,0.6\text{and}1.0`$, the corresponding cyclotron radius is $`r_c=a,0.83a,a/2`$ . The whole phase space consits at $`B/B_0=0.5`$ of chaotic sea as shown in Fig.2 (c), one of possible chaotic trajectories in coordinate space is shown in Fig.3 (IV). At $`B/B_0=0.6`$ we found periodic orbits, which intersect two magnetic antidots as shown in Fig.3 (III). These orbits occupy a relative small portion in the phase space as shown in Fig.2 (b), label(III). An other type of periodic orbits, which intersect four magnetic antidots is shown in Fig.3 (V). The fingerprint of this orbit in the surface of section is shown in Fig.2 (a), label (V). When the cyclotron radius approaches half of the lattice constant, a different type of periodic orbit becomes dominat. These orbits are pinned around one magnetic antidot as shown in Fig.3 trajectory (II) and build in the surface of section a family of eliptic fixed points in a circular region at $`(y,v_y)=(0.5,0)`$ of diameter $`r_0`$ as shown in Fig.2 (a), region (II). These orbits can also intersect one magnetic antidot for higher magnetic fileds as shown in Fig.3 (I) and dominate the dynamics of the system. The orbits of type (I),(II) and (V) are present in a wide sector of magnetic field strength $`B/B_0]0.8,1.7]`$. For lower values of magnetic field $`B/B_0=0.3`$ periodic orbits, which intersect eight magnetic antidots occupy a relative small region (10%) in phase space. For $`B/B_0>2.3`$ all possible orbits are pinned, and no classical chaotic trajectories exist anymore. The inset of Fig.4 (a) shows the portion $`p`$ of regular orbits in dependence of magnetic field.
At low temperatures elastic impurity scatterings with mean scattering time $`\tau `$ have to be considered. Using the classical Kubo formula  which includes these scattering, we can calculate the conductivity $`\sigma _{ij}`$ in dependence of magnetic field.

$$\sigma _{ij}(0,\tau )=\frac{ne^2}{k_BT}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{1/\tau }<v_i(t)v_j(0)>_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_c}$$

$`<v_i(t)v_j(0)>`$ is the velocity correlation function averaged over chaotic part of the phase space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ temperature and $`n`$ the 2D electron density. The magnetoresistance can be obtain by inversion of the conductivity tensor $`R_{xx}=\sigma _{xx}/(\sigma _{xx}^2+\sigma _{xy}^2)`$ and $`R_{xy}=\sigma _{xy}/(\sigma _{xx}^2+\sigma _{xy}^2)`$. We have calculated the magnetoresistance $`R_{xx}`$ and the Hall resistance $`R_{xy}`$ in dependence of magnetic field for a typical value of $`\tau /\tau _0=30`$. The magnetoresistance shown in Fig.4 (a) displays a dominant peak at $`B/B_01`$ which corresponds to pinned orbits around one antidot. According to the portion of pinned orbits, see the inset of Fig.4 (a) we conclude, that this peak is caused by these periodic orbits. We should expect also a peak at $`B/B_00.3\text{and}0.6`$ as in the case of antidot lattices, but instead we observe a minimum at $`B/B_0=0.8`$. The main difference to antidot lattices, where electrons are scattered on antidots, is that the sign of the angular momentum of an electron, moving in a magnetic antidot array remains conserved. The magnetoresistance is not only caused by islands of regular motion in the phase space (pinned orbits), but also by orbits, which propagate in the direction of transport. For $`B/B_0=0.8`$ we found orbits, which propagate in transport direction, as shows in Fig. 3 (b) and explain the minimun in the magnetoresistance at this strength of magnetic field. We obtain even $`R_{xx}/R_{xx}(0)<1`$, the resistance lies lower then, for the case of zero magnetic field. The Hall resistance as shown in Fig. 4 (b) shows steps at magnetic field values for which the magnetoresistance $`R_{xx}`$ lies in minimum.
In conclusion, classical transport properties of electrons, moving in a magnetic antidot array has been explained by pinned orbits at antidots and by propagating orbits in transport direction.
I thank Prof.B.Kramer for the initial ideas of this work.

Figure captions


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of Bose-Einstein correlations between pairs of identical hadrons is an essential tool to obtain information on the space-time evolution of the extended hadron sources created in heavy ion collisions . In particular, a strong correlation between the momenta and the space-time production points of the particles suggests expanding sources as predicted by hydrodynamic models . The dynamical evolution of such systems can then be studied with interferometry via selection on the transverse momenta and rapidity of the correlated particle pairs.

In this paper, we present the analysis of two-particle correlations of identified $`\pi ^{}`$ measured in the WA98 experiment for central 158 AGeV Pb+Pb collisions at the CERN SPS.

## 2 Experimental setup and data processing

The WA98 experiment shown in Fig. 1 combined large acceptance photon detectors with a two arm charged particle tracking spectrometer. The incident 158 AGeV Pb beam interacted with a Pb target near the entrance of a large dipole magnet. Non-interacting beam nuclei, or beam fragments were detected in a forward calorimeter located at zero degree. A mid-rapidity calorimeter measured the total transverse energy in the rapidity region 3.2 $``$ $`\eta `$ $``$ 5.4, which was also used in the trigger for online centrality selection. The Plastic-Ball calorimeter measured the fragmentation of the target, and silicon detectors were used to measure the charged particle multiplicity. The photon detectors consisted of a large area photon multiplicity detector and a high granularity lead-glass calorimeter for single photon, $`\pi ^0`$, and $`\eta `$ physics .

The charged particle spectrometer made use of a 1.6 Tm dipole magnet with a 2.4$`\times `$1.6 m2 air gap for magnetic deflection of the charged particles in the horizontal plane. The results presented in this paper are taken from the 1995 WA98 data set obtained with the negative particle tracking arm of the charged particle spectrometer. The second tracking arm was added to the spectrometer in 1996 to measure positive particles . The first tracking arm consisted of six multistep avalanche chambers with optical readout  located downstream of the magnet. The active area of the first chamber was 1.2$`\times `$0.8 m2, while that of the other five was 1.6$`\times `$1.2 m2. The chambers contained a photoemissive vapour (TEA) which produced UV photons along the path of traversal of the charged particles. These were converted into visible light via wavelength shifter plates. On exit the light was reflected by mirrors at 45 to CCD cameras equipped with two image intensifiers. Each pixel of a CCD viewed a 3.1$`\times `$3.1 mm2 area of a chamber. In addition, a 4$`\times `$1.9 m2 Time of Flight wall positioned behind the chambers at a distance of 16.5 m from the target allowed for particle identification with a time resolution better than 120 ps.

Fig. 3 shows the Monte Carlo generated $`p_T`$-rapidity acceptance for $`\pi ^{}`$. The acceptance ranges from $`y`$=2.1 to 3.1 with an average at 2.70. The momentum resolution of the spectrometer was $`\mathrm{\Delta }p/p`$=0.005 at $`p`$=1.5 GeV/c, resulting in an average accuracy better than or equal to 10 MeV/c for all the Q variables used in the interferometry analysis and defined in section 5: $`\sigma (Q_{inv})`$=7 MeV/c, $`\sigma (Q_{TO})`$=10 MeV/c, $`\sigma (Q_{TS})`$=5 MeV/c, $`\sigma (Q_L)`$=3 MeV/c, $`\sigma (Q_T)`$=8 MeV/c, $`\sigma (Q_0)`$=5 MeV/c.

The analysis of the complete 1995 data set is presented here. These data have been taken with the most central triggers corresponding to about 10% of the minimum bias cross section of 6190 mb. Severe track quality cuts were applied at the expense of statistics resulting in final samples of 4.2$`\times 10^6`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ for the correlation analysis and 4.6$`\times 10^5`$ $`\pi ^{}`$ for the single particle spectrum.

## 3 Single particle spectra

The $`m_T`$=$`\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+p_T^2}`$ distribution of identified $`\pi ^{}`$, averaged over the rapidity acceptance, is shown in Fig. 3. The data were corrected for geometrical acceptance and efficiency of the chamber-camera-Time of Flight system using a full simulation of the experimental setup. The parameters of the simulation were optimized in an iterative way by comparing various distributions with the real data. The simulated data were then treated exactly like the real data. The measured $`1/m_TdN/dm_Tdy`$ distribution was then fitted to the form $`C`$exp$`(m_T/T)`$, expected for a source in thermal equilibrium . Such fits were applied to the data for different ranges of $`m_T`$, such as the one shown in Fig. 3. These fits do not reproduce the overall concave shape of the data, which is partly due to particles originating in resonance decays and could also be an indication of transverse flow . The shape of the $`\pi ^{}`$ $`m_T`$ distribution was found to be in good agreement with that of $`\pi ^0`$ obtained in the lead-glass calorimeter .

## 4 One-dimensional interferometry analysis

For the Bose-Einstein correlation studies, the data were Coulomb corrected in an iterative way . The Gamow correction was abandoned as it overcorrects the data for $`Q_{inv}`$ in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 GeV/c. A fit of the form $`1+\lambda \text{exp}[Q_{inv}^2R_{inv}^2]`$ was made to the $`Q_{inv}`$ correlation function yielding $`R_{inv}=6.83\pm 0.10`$ fm and $`\lambda =0.307\pm 0.008`$. An expanded view of the correlation distribution (Fig. 5) shows that the Gaussian fit used (full line) is not perfect, especially in the $`Q_{inv}`$ range of 40 to 80 MeV/c where the tail of the experimental distribution shows an excess which is not well reproduced by the fit. In addition to this Gaussian fit made over the whole range of $`Q_{inv}`$, Fig. 5 shows also different Gaussian fits using data in the ranges 25 MeV/c $``$ $`Q_{inv}`$ $``$ 200 MeV/c (dashed line) and 40 MeV/c $``$ $`Q_{inv}`$ $``$ 200 MeV/c (dotted line). These fits do not coincide. Different radii are then obtained for different starting points of the fit because the shape of the distribution is not Gaussian. This effect is independent of the severity of the track selection, and is therefore not due to spurious tracks. This is summarized in Fig. 7 where $`R_{inv}`$ and the corresponding $`\lambda `$ are plotted as a function of the lower bound of the fit. There is a statistically significant drop when using a Gaussian fit. A similar behaviour is observed when, instead of $`Q_{inv}`$, $`Q_{space}=\sqrt{Q_x^2+Q_y^2+Q_z^2}`$ is used, calculated in the longitudinally comoving system (LCMS) and fitted with 1+$`\lambda `$exp\[-$`Q_3^2R_3^2]`$. This method of fitting in varying ranges has a good sensitivity to the shape. It has been repeated by replacing the Gaussian fit by an exponential fit of the form 1+$`\lambda _e`$exp\[-2$`Q_{inv}R_e]`$ where the factor 2 is added to make the radius $`R_e`$ more comparable with $`R_{inv}`$. The results (Fig. 7) show that the stability is better with the exponential fit. Fig. 5 directly compares the Gaussian and exponential fits for $`Q_{inv}`$. Although the Gaussian fit still gives an acceptable $`\chi ^2/`$d.o.f., the exponential fit is better everywhere. A similar conclusion is reached when the first data point is excluded from the fit. This result is not based on the first bins which might be more affected by systematics due to large Coulomb correction or noise correlated with the true track signals in the chambers. It is rather based on the high statistics tail of the distribution which contributes in a different way to a Gaussian or an exponential fit. This quasi exponential behaviour is expected by different models including resonance decays . As a consequence small acceptance experiments may obtain a larger radius if a Gaussian fit is used because they are less sensitive to the tail. On the contrary large acceptance experiments have higher statistics at large $`Q`$-values, and the Gaussian fit will yield lower values of the radius.

## 5 Multi-dimensional interferometry analysis

The multi-dimensional analysis has been done with Gaussian fits to allow comparison with other experiments. Two different parameterizations have been used in the LCMS:

a) The standard fit in the 3-dimensional space of momentum differences $`Q_{TS}`$ (perpendicular to the beam axis and to the transverse momentum of the pair), $`Q_{TO}`$ (perpendicular to the beam axis and parallel to the transverse momentum of the pair), and $`Q_L`$ (parallel to the beam axis) . The fitted formula

$$C_2=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}[Q_{TS}^2R_{TS}^2Q_{TO}^2R_{TO}^2Q_L^2R_L^22Q_{TO}Q_LR_{outlong}^2]$$

includes a cross term in $`Q_{TO}Q_L`$ as predicted .

b) The generalized Yano-Koonin (GYK) fit  in the $`Q_0`$ (energy difference of the pair), $`Q_T`$,$`Q_L`$ space according to

$$C_2=1+\lambda \mathrm{exp}[Q_T^2R_T^2+(Q_0^2Q_L^2)R_4^2(QU)^2(R_0^2+R_4^2)]$$

where $`U=\gamma (1,0,0,v_L)`$, $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1v_L^2}`$ with $`v_L`$ in units of c=1.

In the GYK approach, the radius parameters remain invariant under longitudinal Lorentz boost, the parameter $`v_L`$ connecting the “arbitrary” measurement frame (LCMS) to the Yano-Koonin frame. In addition, the extraction of the duration of emission, $`R_0`$, is straightforward.

The consequence of the finite resolution in the measurement of the $`Q`$ variables is an underestimate of the radii and $`\lambda `$ parameters. Morever, as the resolution is different for each $`Q`$ variable, this causes a bias which varies from parameter to parameter, leading to errors in the interpretation of the results in a multi-dimensional analysis. It is therefore essential to take into account the effect of the resolution in the fitting procedure. One way to do this is to replace the formula $`C_2(\stackrel{}{Q})`$ used to fit the data by

$$C_2^{rc}(\stackrel{}{Q})=r(\stackrel{}{Q},\stackrel{}{Q^{}})C_2(\stackrel{}{Q^{}})𝑑\stackrel{}{Q^{}}$$

which is the convolution of $`C_2(\stackrel{}{Q})`$ with the resolution function $`r(\stackrel{}{Q},\stackrel{}{Q^{}})`$. The resolution function is chosen to be Gaussian:

$$r(\stackrel{}{Q},\stackrel{}{Q^{}})=1/(2\pi )^{3/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}/|V|^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[1/2(\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{Q^{}})^TV^1(\stackrel{}{Q}\stackrel{}{Q^{}})]$$

The diagonal elements of the covariance matrix $`V`$ are equal to the square of the resolution of the different $`Q`$ variables and are estimated separately as a function of $`k_T=|\stackrel{}{p}_{T1}+\stackrel{}{p}_{T2}|/2`$ of the pairs. The non-diagonal elements are neglected. For the one-dimensional Gaussian fit case with $`\stackrel{}{Q}=Q_{inv}`$, the resolution corrected values of the fitted parameters are $`R_{inv}=7.30\pm 0.12`$ fm and $`\lambda =0.328\pm 0.009`$.

The results of the multi-dimensional fits are presented in Table 1 for the full 1995 data sample. A multi-dimensional analysis as a function of $`k_T`$, both with the standard 5-parameter fit and with the GYK fit is shown in Figs. 8, 9, and 10.

The $`R_{TS}`$ and $`R_L`$ parameters from the standard fit are found to be compatible respectively with $`R_T`$ and $`R_4`$ from the GYK fit. The cross term $`R_{outlong}^2`$ from the standard fit and $`v_L`$ from the GYK fit are compatible with 0. In a source undergoing a boost invariant expansion, the local rest frame coincides with the LCMS. Both the cross term and $`v_L`$ estimated in the LCMS are then expected to vanish . As this is the case, it suggests that the source seen within the acceptance of the experiment has a strictly boost invariant expansion. The strong decrease of the longitudinal radius $`R_L`$ or $`R_4`$ with $`k_T`$ compared to the behaviour of the transverse radii $`R_T`$, $`R_{TS}`$, $`R_{TO}`$ suggests a longitudinal expansion larger than the lateral expansion. The longitudinal radius $`R_L`$ is shown with a fit of the form 1/$`\sqrt{m_T}`$ with $`m_T`$=$`\sqrt{m_\pi ^2+k_T^2}`$ inspired by the hydrodynamical expansion model. Using $`R_L=\tau _0\sqrt{T_0/m_T}`$ with a freeze out temperature $`T_0`$ of 120-170 MeV/c, we may extract a freeze out time $`\tau _0`$ in the range of 7.5-8.9 fm/c. Finally, the $`R_0`$ parameter from the GYK fit, which reflects the duration of emission, is compatible with 0 for all $`k_T`$ bins, excluding a long-lived intermediate phase.

Two other experiments, NA49 and NA44, have studied charged particle interferometry in Pb+Pb collisions at CERN energies. The WA98 analysis is in good agreement with the NA49 results, when the comparison is made for the same mean $`y`$ range of 2.70, although WA98 has used identified $`\pi ^{}`$ while the NA49 analysis used unidentified negative particles. Only the $`R_0`$ parameter tends to be smaller in WA98. The direct comparison with the NA44 experiment is not possible because NA44 and WA98 do not have the same $`y`$ range. The smaller radii measured by NA44 can be explained by the larger $`y`$ range of its acceptance (3.1$`<y<`$4.1).

## 6 Conclusion

The analysis of the two-particle correlation of identified $`\pi ^{}`$ from central Pb+Pb collisions at 158 AGeV gives fitted radii of about 7 fm. This should be compared to the equivalent rms radius of the initial Pb nucleus of 3.2 fm, which indicates a large final state emission volume.

The one-dimensional correlation functions analyzed in terms of $`Q_{inv}`$ or $`Q_{space}`$ are not Gaussian. They are better represented by exponentials. This study is based on the tail of the distributions and not on the first bins which might be subject to systematic effects. One possible explanation is that this behaviour is due to resonance effects. Fitting Gaussians to these correlation functions may produce different results depending on the acceptance of the experimental setup.

The generalized Yano-Koonin analysis gives similar results to within the error bars as the standard 3-dimensional analysis in the LCMS.

The cross term $`R_{outlong}^2`$ is found to be compatible with 0 in the LCMS and the same is true of $`v_L`$ in the GYK fit. This suggests that the source undergoes a boost invariant expansion.

A clear dependence of the longitudinal radius parameter on $`k_T`$ is observed, suggesting a larger longitudinal than transverse expansion of the source. In addition the short duration of emission disfavours any long-lived intermediate phase.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the CERN-SPS accelerator crew for providing an excellent lead beam and the Laboratoire National Saturne for the loan of the magnet Goliath.

This work was supported jointly by the German BMBF and DFG, the U.S. DOE, the Swedish NFR, the Dutch Stichting FOM, the Swiss National Fund, the Humboldt Foundation, the Stiftung für deutsch-polnische Zusammenarbeit, the Department of Atomic Energy, the Department of Science and Technology and the University Grants Commission of the Government of India, the Indo-FRG Exchange Programme, the PPE division of CERN, the INTAS under contract INTAS-97-0158, the Polish KBN under the grant 2P03B16815, and ORISE. ORNL is managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-96OR22464 with the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# On dipole compression modes in nuclei

## Abstract

Isoscalar dipole strength distributions in spherical medium- and heavy-mass nuclei are calculated within random phase approximation (RPA) or quasiparticle RPA. Different Skyrme-type interactions corresponding to incompressibilities in the range 200 - 250 MeV are used. The results are discussed in comparison with existing data on isoscalar giant dipole resonances. Two main issues are raised, firstly the calculated giant resonance energies are somewhat higher than the observed ones, and secondly a sizable fraction of strength is predicted below 20 MeV which needs to be experimentally confirmed.

a Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi, and INFN, Via Celoria 16, I-20133 Milano (Italy)
b Institut de Physique Nucléaire, IN2P3-CNRS, F-91406 Orsay (France)
c Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, Università degli Studi, and INFN, via P. Giuria 1, I-10125 Torino (Italy)

PACS: 24.30.Cz, 21.60.Jz

Keywords: giant resonances, nuclear incompressibility, HF-RPA,

quasiparticle RPA.

The isoscalar giant dipole resonance (ISGDR) is a compressional mode, like the well known isoscalar giant monopole resonance (ISGMR), and its energy is related to the nuclear incompressibility $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$. For this reason it has been studied both experimentally and theoretically for many years, as reviewed in . It can be associated with the operator

$$\widehat{D}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}r_i^3Y_{1\mu }(\widehat{r}_i)$$
(1)
and it can be viewed as a non-isotropic compression mode.

Although some first indications about the energy location of this mode date back to the beginning of the eighties, more recent evidence of the ISGDR in 208Pb has been reported  from the 00 measurements of 200 MeV inelastic $`\alpha `$-scattering at the Indiana University cyclotron facility. Further evidence based on extensive angular distributions at near-00 angles has since come from 240 MeV inelastic $`\alpha `$-scattering experiments at Texas A&M University. The ISGDR strength has been extracted in a large number of nuclei using a multipole decomposition of the observed inelastic scattering spectra. The results for medium- and heavy-mass nuclei like 90Zr, 116Sn, 144Sm and 208Pb are reported in . The measured strength is spread over a wide energy range between 15 and 30 MeV and it is claimed to exhaust nearly 100% of the appropriate energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR). The values of the centroid energy E$`{}_{0}{}^{}m_1/m_0`$ are 26.3(4), 24.3(3), 23.0(3) and 20.3(2) MeV respectively in the four nuclei quoted above (the moments $`m_k`$ of the strength distribution are defined as $`m_k_n|<n|\widehat{D}|0>|^2(E_nE_0)^k`$).

Here, we report the ISGDR results calculated with effective Skyrme interactions, within self-consistent Hartree-Fock (HF) plus Random Phase Approximation (RPA) in the case of 208Pb, and Hartree-Fock-BCS (HF-BCS) plus quasi-particle RPA (QRPA) for the other, non double-magic nuclei. The Skyrme forces used in this work are: SkP , SGII , SKM , SLy4  and SkI2 . They span a range of values of $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ from 200 to 250 MeV. The HF mean field is first calculated in coordinate space, then the single-particle spectrum of occupied and unoccupied states is built by diagonalizing the mean field on a harmonic oscillator basis. Details of RPA calculations can be found in Ref. . The dimension of the 1particle-1hole (1p-1h) space is fixed by requiring the exhaustion of the RPA $`m_1`$ sum rule. In the HF-BCS calculations constant pairing gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are introduced according to the usual 12 MeV/$`\sqrt{A}`$ parametrization. The QRPA matrix equations are solved with a procedure which parallels what has been said for RPA, with the two quasi-particle configurations replacing the 1p-1h ones. The method is the same as that of Ref. .

In the ISGDR problem, one has to face the question of the spurious state associated with the center-of-mass motion which carries the same quantum numbers $`J^\pi =1^{}`$. In a bona fide self-consistent RPA the spurious state would appear as an eigenstate at zero energy, exhausting the whole strength of the operator

$$\widehat{S}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}r_iY_{1\mu }(\widehat{r}_i)$$
(2)
and orthogonal to all other physical states. However, in actual calculations the spurious state is at low but not zero energy because of small numerical inaccuracies and therefore, strength associated with the operator $`\widehat{S}`$ will be shared among the physical states. Starting from the actual RPA set of states $`|n^{}`$, we construct a new set of normalized states $`|n`$,

$$|n=𝒩_n(|n^{}\alpha _n|S),$$
(3)
where the state $`|S`$ is defined as

$$|S\widehat{S}|0,$$
(4)
$`|0`$ being the RPA vacuum. According to  we associate to $`|S`$ the transition density

$$\alpha _S\frac{d\varrho _0}{dr}$$
(5)
where $`\varrho _0`$ is the HF ground state density. The state $`|n`$ is required to satisfy the condition $`n|\widehat{S}|0=0`$, i.e.,

$$𝑑rr^3(\delta \varrho _n^{}a_n\frac{d\varrho _0}{dr})=0,$$
(6)
where $`\delta \varrho _n^{}`$ is the transition density of the RPA state $`|n^{}`$ defined in the usual way. The problem of the spurious state normalization $`\alpha _S`$ is circumvented by the use of Eq. (6) since $`a_n\alpha _n\alpha _S`$ is well behaved (i.e., not divergent).

The difference between the strength distributions associated with the states $`|n^{}`$ and $`|n`$ is shown in the top-left corner of Fig. 1, for the typical case of 208Pb with the force SGII. The strengths are essentially the same in the energy range which will be denoted “giant resonance (GR) region” (this range is evident from the plot but it is explicitly indicated in Tables 1 and 2). At lower energies, omitting the projection procedure can lead to a serious overestimation of the ISGDR strength. It is clear nevertheless from Fig. 1 that a non-negligible amount of non-spurious strength is present in the energy range which will be called “low-energy region”. This low-lying strength is due to 1 $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ excitations, which of course can contain strength associated with the $`\widehat{D}`$ operator.

Another way of eliminating the spurious strength is to keep the $`|n^{}`$ states and to replace the operator (1) by

$$\widehat{D}_{modif}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}(r_i^3\eta r_i)Y_{1\mu }(\widehat{r}_i),$$
(7)
where $`\eta =\frac{5}{3}r^2`$. This prescription was derived and used in Ref. . Although the derivation is based on hydrodynamical-type arguments, one thus obtains strength distributions which are almost indistinguishable to those calculated with the present projection procedure. One may also note that in Ref.  a different prescription was used for the subtraction of spurious strength resulting in an almost disappearance of strength in the low-energy region.

In Fig. 1 we also show center-of-mass corrected strength distributions for the other nuclei calculated with a typical interaction, namely SGII. The general features are: a) a large fraction of the strength lies in the GR region, and b) a non negligible amount of strength is in the low-energy region. The latter region contains about 20% of the ISGDR energy-weighted sum rule. These features are common to the results obtained with the other interactions. A more detailed analysis in terms of the moments $`m_0`$ and $`m_1`$ is reported in Table 1 for 208Pb and all interactions, and in Table 2 for all 4 nuclei and the SGII interaction.

In comparison with the existing data, there are two main issues to be faced. First, there is a large discrepancy between predicted and measured GR energies, much larger than in all other GR cases. This is the more puzzling that the same model employed here was used successfully to describe the ISGMR in 208Pb . Second, the calculations predict a sizeable amount of strength at low-energy, which needs to be experimentally confirmed . These features are common to the calculated strength distributions of the operator $`j_1(qr)Y_{1\mu }(\widehat{r})`$, which is a generalization of Eq.(1). In particular, they remain peaked at the same energies as the strength distribution of $`\widehat{D}`$ for values of $`q`$ up to 0.6 fm-1.

In Fig. 2 we show the predicted peak and centroid energies of the GR region for various nuclei as a function of $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$. The experimental values of $`E_0`$ for the GR region quoted above  would be outside the figure, except for 90Zr. The discrepancy appears very severe in Pb and Sn. In what follows we concentrate on Pb because it is the nucleus where the HF+RPA model should work better.

Earlier RPA calculations  performed with the finite range Gogny interaction already found that the ISGDR energy was in the range of 26 MeV, in qualitative agreement with the present results and with Ref. . One might expect that effects beyond RPA, like the coupling to 2p-2h excitations would somewhat lower the centroid energy. However, the calculations of Ref.  find a downward shift of less than 1 MeV. The ISGDR has also been calculated in the relativistic RPA approach  in 208Pb and 144Sm and it is found that, for effective lagrangian parametrizations corresponding to $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the range 200-270 MeV the energy of the ISGDR is of the order of 25 MeV. Thus, the question of understanding the observed values of $`E_0`$ is still open.

As for the low-energy region, our analysis of the configurations involved for instance in 208Pb, shows that the strength comes from bound-to-bound neutron transitions like $`h_{9/2}i_{11/2}`$, $`i_{13/2}j_{15/2}`$ and, in some cases, $`f_{5/2}g_{7/2}`$. In the data reported in Ref.  no low-lying strength is present. Further analysis of the same data is currently in progress , which may reveal the presence of isoscalar strength around the region of the isovector dipole.

In conclusion, we report in this paper HF+RPA and HF-BCS+QRPA calculations of the ISGDR in 90Zr, 112Sn, 144Sm and 208Pb nuclei. Two general features appear from the calculated strength distributions: some large resonance-type distribution of strength in the 110$`A^{1/3}`$ MeV energy region and some smaller, but still sizeable fraction of the strength below 20 MeV. These two characteristic features do not seem to agree quantitatively with the observation.

We thank D.H. Youngblood for helpful discussions about the experimental data analysis, and U. Garg for discussions. P.F.B. thanks IPN-Orsay for the warm hospitality during the time when this work was completed.


text:
# Cluster states in nuclei as representations of a 𝑈(𝜈+1) group

## Abstract

We propose a description of cluster states in nuclei in terms of representations of unitary algebras $`U(\nu +1)`$, where $`\nu `$ is the number of space degrees of freedom. Within this framework, a variety of situations including both vibrational and rotational spectra, soft and rigid configurations, identical and non-identical constituents can be described. As an example, we show how the method can be used to study $`\alpha `$ clustering configurations in 12C with point group symmetry $`𝒟_{3h}`$.

The purpose of this letter is to point out that the algebra $`U(\nu +1)`$, which has been suggested to be the spectrum generating algebra for a quantum mechanical problem with $`\nu `$ space degrees of freedom , might provide a framework for a unified description of cluster states in nuclei. We note that the main properties of clustering in nuclei are: (i) the softness of the cluster configuration which makes nuclei appear more like liquid structures rather than rigid molecular structures in which the constituents sit at some definite location in space; (ii) the near equality of vibrational and rotational energies which does not allow a clear-cut distinction between these two types of motion; (iii) the fact that the constituents are not point-like objects but particles with a spatial extent comparable to that of the overall structure and (iv) the fact that the constituents are often identical which implies that permutation symmetry must be imposed. A unified description of clustering in nuclei should be able to accomodate all these properties.

To illustrate the uselfuness of the algebra $`U(\nu +1)`$ in describing the variety of observed situations, we consider the specific case of a cluster composed of three particles (a description of two-body cluster configurations in nuclei in terms of $`U(4)`$ was suggested long ago  and has been used to describe resonances in heavy ion scattering ). For a three-body problem, the number of space degrees of freedom (after removal of the center of mass) is $`\nu =3n3=6`$. (We do not consider in this article constituents with an internal structure. For such situation the algebraic structure must be enlarged to $`U(\nu +1)U(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the number of internal degrees of freedom.) The space degrees of freedom can be taken as the Jacobi coordinates $`\stackrel{}{\rho }=(\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }=(\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_22\stackrel{}{r}_3)/\sqrt{6}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are the coordinates of the three particles. The corresponding algebra is $`U(7)`$. The algebra of $`U(7)`$ is constructed by introducing two vector bosons $`b_\rho `$, $`b_\lambda `$ together with an auxiliary scalar boson $`s`$. It was introduced in  where it was used to describe three-quark configurations in baryons. The 49 bilinear products of creation and annihilation operators generate the Lie algebra $`U(7)`$,

$`b_{\rho ,m}^{},b_{\lambda ,m}^{},s^{}`$ $``$ $`c_\alpha ^{}(m=0,\pm 1)(\alpha =1,\mathrm{},7)`$ (1)
$`𝒢`$ $`:`$ $`G_{\alpha \beta }=c_\alpha ^{}c_\beta (\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},7)`$ (2)
The creation and annihilation operators for vector bosons ($`b_{\rho ,m}^{}`$, $`b_{\lambda ,m}^{}`$ and $`b_{\rho ,m}`$, $`b_{\lambda ,m}`$) represent the second quantized form of the Jacobi coordinates and their canonically conjugate momenta, while the auxiliary scalar boson is introduced in order to construct the spectrum generating algebra. (The method of embedding the problem in a larger dimensional space  is similar to that used in Kaluza-Klein theories of particle physics.) The energy levels can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+ϵ_ss^{}\stackrel{~}{s}ϵ_p(b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )+u_0(s^{}s^{}\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s})u_1s^{}(b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )\stackrel{~}{s}`$ (6)
$`+v_0\left[(b_\rho ^{}b_\rho ^{}+b_\lambda ^{}b_\lambda ^{})\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}+s^{}s^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0,2}{}}c_l\left[(b_\rho ^{}\times b_\rho ^{}b_\lambda ^{}\times b_\lambda ^{})^{(l)}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )^{(l)}+4(b_\rho ^{}\times b_\lambda ^{})^{(l)}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho )^{(l)}\right]`$
$`+c_1(b_\rho ^{}\times b_\lambda ^{})^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho )^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=0,2}{}}w_l(b_\rho ^{}\times b_\rho ^{}+b_\lambda ^{}\times b_\lambda ^{})^{(l)}(\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \times \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )^{(l)},`$
within the space of the totally symmetric representations $`[N]`$ of $`U(7)`$. The coefficients $`ϵ_s`$, $`ϵ_p`$, $`u_0`$, $`u_1`$, $`v_0`$, $`c_0`$, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`w_0`$ and $`w_2`$ parametrize the interactions. The Hamiltonian $`H`$ is the most general Hamitonian that preserves angular momentum and parity, transforms as a scalar under permutations (we consider here the case of three identical particles) and is at most quadratic (two-body interactions). Associated with the Hamiltonian $`H`$, there are transition operators, $`T`$. Electromagnetic transition rates and form factors can all be calculated by considering the matrix elements of the operator

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{iq\beta D_{\lambda ,z}/X_D},`$ (7)
$`D_{\lambda ,z}`$ $`=`$ $`(b_\lambda ^{}\times \stackrel{~}{s}s^{}\times \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )_z^{(1)},`$ (8)
which is the algebraic image of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}(iqr_{3z})`$ obtained from the full operator $`_{i=1}^3e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}_i}`$ by choosing the momentum transfer $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ in the $`z`$ direction and considering identical particles (the coefficient $`X_D`$ is a normalization factor).

The Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) has two dynamic symmetries corresponding to the breakings of $`U(7)`$ onto $`U(6)`$ and $`SO(7)`$

$$U(7)\{\begin{array}{c}U(6),\\ SO(7).\end{array}$$
(9)
When the Hamiltonian contains only Casimir operators of these chains, the eigenvalue problem can be solved in closed analytic form. The corresponding solutions describe two situations sometimes encountered in the three body problem: (i) six-dimensional vibrational spectra $`U(6)`$, and (ii) an unusual situation which we call $`\omega `$-unstable or $`SO(7)`$ limit. Both situations will be described in a longer publication. Here instead, as an example of application of the algebraic method, we discuss another situation that is appropriate to three particles at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The spectrum of an equilateral triangle configuration can be obtained from the Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) by setting some coefficients equal to zero and taking specific combinations of others

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+\xi _1(s^{}s^{}b_\rho ^{}b_\rho ^{}b_\lambda ^{}b_\lambda ^{})(\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )`$ (13)
$`+\xi _2\left[(b_\rho ^{}b_\rho ^{}b_\lambda ^{}b_\lambda ^{})(\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )+4(b_\rho ^{}b_\lambda ^{})(\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{b}_\rho )\right]`$
$`+\xi _3(b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )^{(1)}(b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho +b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )^{(1)}`$
$`+\xi _4(b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho )^{(0)}(b_\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\rho b_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_\lambda )^{(0)}.`$
This spectrum does not correspond to a dynamic symmetry, since it cannot be written in terms of invariants of a chain of algebras originating from $`U(7)`$. However, an approximate expression for the energy levels can be obtained by making use of the method of intrinsic or coherent states (valid in the limit of large $`N`$). The energy eigenvalues are then given by

$$E(v_1,v_2^l,L,K,M)=E_0+Av_1+Bv_2+CL(L+1)+D(K\pm 2l)^2,$$
(14)
where $`A4N\xi _1`$, $`B2N\xi _2`$, $`C=\xi _3/2`$ and $`D=\xi _4/3`$. The quantum numbers have the following meaning: $`v_1`$, $`v_2`$ are vibrational quantum numbers; for three identical particles one of the vibration ($`v_1`$) is singly degenerate, while the other ($`v_2`$) is doubly degenerate; $`l=v_2,v_22,\mathrm{},1`$ or $`0`$ is the vibrational angular momentum of the doubly degenerate vibration; $`L`$ is the angular momentum, $`M`$ its projection on a laboratory fixed axis and $`K`$ its projection on a body fixed axis. We note the particular angular momentum composition of the rotation-vibration bands. The vibrationless ground state band $`(v_1,v_2^l)=(0,0^0)`$ has $`K=3n`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) with $`L=0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ for $`K=0`$ and $`L=K,K+1,K+2,\mathrm{}`$ for $`K0`$. The parity is given by $`P=()^K`$. The stretching vibration $`(1,0^0)`$ contains the same angular momenta $`L^P=0^+`$, $`2^+`$, $`3^{}`$, $`4^\pm ,\mathrm{}`$, as the ground state band, while the bending vibration $`(0,1^1)`$ has $`K=3n+1,3n+2`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$) with $`L=K,K+1,K+2,\mathrm{}`$. The angular momentum content of the bending vibration is then $`1^{}`$, $`2^\pm `$, $`3^\pm ,\mathrm{}`$. Since we do not consider the excitation of the $`\alpha `$ particles themselves, the wave functions describing the relative motion have to be symmetric. As a consequence, the relative sign in the last term of Eq. (14) is such that $`|K\pm 2l|=3m`$, a multiple of 3 . (The energy formula obtained from the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of Eq. (13) contains a Coriolis term which do not discuss here, since a detailed treatment of this term requires the use of the full Hamiltonian of Eq. (6), rather than the simplified form of Eq. (13)). In Fig. 1 we show the energy spectrum corresponding to Eq. (14). The importance of this figure is the particular nature of the rotation-vibration spectrum of a triangular configuration with $`𝒟_{3h}`$ symmetry. If a physical system is claimed to be composed of three identical structureless particles at the vertices of an equilateral triangle, then its spectrum must be as in Fig. 1. The algebraic framework produces this spectrum automatically by an appropriate choice of parameters.

Another consequence of using the compact algebra $`U(\nu +1)`$ as a spectrum generating algebra is that one can evaluate all observables in exact form. For example, by taking matrix elements of the operator $`T`$ between the eigenstates of $`H`$ obtained by matrix diagonalization, one can evaluate form factors. When the Hamiltonian has a dynamic symmetry these can be derived in closed form. Although the Hamiltonian of Eq. (13) does not correspond to a dynamic symmetry, the form factors can still be obtained in explicit form in the limit of large $`N`$. For transitions among the lowest states they are given by

$`F(0_1^+0_1^+;q)`$ $`=`$ $`j_0(q\beta ),`$ (15)
$`F(0_1^+2_1^+;q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{5}j_2(q\beta ),`$ (16)
$`F(0_1^+3_1^{};q)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{35}{8}}}j_3(q\beta ),`$ (17)
$`F(0_1^+4_1^+;q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}j_4(q\beta ),`$ (18)
$`F(0_1^+0_2^+;q)`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1q\beta j_1(q\beta ),`$ (19)
$`F(0_1^+1_1^{};q)`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{3}q\beta j_2(q\beta ).`$ (20)
Here $`q`$ is the momentum transfer and $`\beta `$ is the distance of the particles from the center (the first three form factors were already given in ). The last two form factors correspond to vibrational excitations. The coefficients $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are proportional to the intrinsic matrix elements for each type of vibration ($`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$). Electromagnetic transition rates can be calculated from the $`B(EL)`$ values, which in turn can be obtained from the long wavelenght limit of the form factors. In the case in which the constituents of the cluster are extended objects (as in nuclei) the form factors and $`B(EL)`$ values can be obtained by folding the point-like distribution with the charge distribution (and eventually magnetic moment distribution) of the constituents. In the case of clusters composed of $`\alpha `$ particles, the folding can be done in a straightforward way, since the charge distribution of the $`\alpha `$ particle can be taken to a very good approximation as $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha r^2)`$. The form factors for an extended distribution are then obtained from those in Eq. (20) by multiplying by $`\mathrm{exp}(q^2/4\alpha )`$. They are a crucial ingredient in understanding whether a cluster configuration is present or not. When $`N`$ is finite (the situation encountered in nuclei) the energy spectrum and form factors can be evaluated numerically using a computer program written by one of us . In this case, vibrational bands are no longer decoupled, but instead show an appreciable mixing between them and, as a result, the spectrum is considerably distorted from the energy formula of Eq. (14).

The formalism introduced here can be used to study cluster states in 12C. It was suggested long ago  that 12C in its ground state can be viewed as three $`\alpha `$ particles at the vertices of an equilateral triangle (point group $`𝒟_{3h}`$). The experimental spectrum of 12C is shown in Fig. 2, where it is compared with that given by Eq. (14). One can see that this spectrum is indeed similar (if not identical) to that of a triangular configuration. The crucial point is the sequence of angular momenta in the ground state rotational band: $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$, $`3^{}`$, $`4^+,\mathrm{}`$. This sequence is typical of a triangular configuration. A linear configuration would not have negative parity states, while a shell-model configuration would not have the $`3^{}`$ state as a member of the rotational band but rather as an octupole vibration, i.e. it would not form a rotational sequence with the $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$, $`4^+`$ states. However, the rotational spectrum does not follow precisely what expected from a triangular configuration (oblate top, $`D<0`$ in Eq. (14)) but it shows rather a spherical or slightly prolate top with $`𝒟_{3h}`$ symmetry. The spectrum also shows an excited $`0^+`$ state at 7.65 MeV and an excited $`1^{}`$ state at 10.84 MeV which could be interpreted as bandheads of the vibrational (stretching and doubly degenerate bending) excitations. Whether or not this is the case or rather those states represent other types of configurations, such as three $`\alpha `$ particles on a line as suggested by several authors, remains an open question. To settle this question uniquely one would have to identify the rotational sequences built on top of them which have a characteristic pattern for triangular configurations and another pattern for linear configurations. In particular the nature of the $`2^+`$ state at 11.16 MeV and $`2^{}`$ state at 11.83 MeV, which could form the rotational excitation of the doubly degenerate vibration, should be further investigated (the role played by the $`2^+`$ state in determining the cluster structure of 12C has been emphasized before ). We have also calculated form factors and electromagnetic transition rates . All members of the ground rotational band are well described by Eq. (20), as well as the shape of the form factors leading to the $`0^+`$ state at 7.65 MeV and the $`1^{}`$ state at 10.84 MeV. This analysis will be presented in a forthcoming publication . The result of the simultaneous investigation of spectra, transition rates and form factors done within $`U(7)`$ is that an $`\alpha `$ clustering structure (albeit not a rigid one) with $`𝒟_{3h}`$ symmetry is a good description of the ground state configuration of 12C. However, in order to make this conclusion stronger, we suggest to readdress the problem of $`\alpha `$ clustering in 12C by a remeasurement of the properties of the high-lying states by $`(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})`$ and $`(e,e^{})`$ inelastic scattering. These experiments were done long ago and can benefit from new and improved techniques. We have predictions for all form factors, transition rates and energies of cluster states in the $`𝒟_{3h}`$ configuration. They can be obtained from us upon request.

In conclusion, we have proposed a description of cluster states in nuclei in terms of the group $`U(\nu +1)`$ and shown that within this algebraic structure one can describe many situations. In particular, for the three-body problem, one can recover the case of three particles at the vertices of a triangle, a configuration of interest in 12C. We have shown that $`U(7)`$ contains the main properties of clustering in nuclei: the softness of the cluster configuration, the near equality of vibrational and rotational energies, the spatial extension of the constituents and the permutation symmetry. We can also describe the situation of three particles on a line (not discussed here) and of vibrational spectra, in other words the method is flexible enough that it can accomodate many situations encountered in nuclei. We have also constructed the algebra appropriate to four-body problems, $`U(10)`$, where additional geometric arrangements can occur, such as four particles at the vertices of a tetrahedron (point group $`𝒯_d`$) and used it to study cluster configurations in 16O. In other words, all cluster structures up to four-body clusters can be studied with the algebraic method. The importance of using $`U(\nu +1)`$ for cluster states lies in the possibility of describing the variety of situations encountered in nuclei where clusters are not rigid structures but rather liquid like structures arising from the nature of the nucleon-nucleon force (spin-isospin) and the shell structure. The unitary algebra $`U(\nu +1)`$ can also be of interest in the description of other quantum mechanical systems with non-rigid structure, such as atomic clusters, floppy molecules, and trimers making the method of broad applicability to a large class of problems.

This work was supported in part by DGAPA-UNAM under project IN101997, by CONACyT under project 32416-E, and by D.O.E. Grant DE-FG02-91ER40608.